Page 15 of 18 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 267
  1. #211
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    48,219
    Thanks (Given)
    34615
    Thanks (Received)
    26690
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    10166
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    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.
    Can you produce evidence that one of the reasons given for invading Iraq is that Saddam supported OBL and/or al Qaeda?

    I can save you the trouble. There is NONE. There IS however evidence to support the fact that the administration DID make it clear that there was no proof of a link between Saddam and 9/11, OBL and/or al Qaeda. The evidence that supports AQ operating Iraq during Saddam's reign is circumstantial at best.

    There has however, recently been a turnout of previously classified information that DOES link Saddam to AQ. I haven't looked at it yet so I wil reserve any further commentary beyond the fact of its alleged existence until I do look at it.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Currently New Delhi, India (at least until I piss off someplace else)
    Posts
    483
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    Right-Saddam did have no link to 911
    Agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    Right- that saddam did not want chaos and anarchy in his country, thus did not support Islamic terrorism in his own country.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    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.
    Yes, but that wasn't the central issue here - we were talkin about the US, Iraq and Al Queda.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    Right- that this terrorism support of Saddam's was NOT support of AlQaeda.
    I agree.
    Convert to the BPR - Beer Pizza Religion. Worship at the altar of the beer (or other) babes.


  3. #213
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    48,219
    Thanks (Given)
    34615
    Thanks (Received)
    26690
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    10166
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rahul View Post
    Agree.



    I agree.



    Yes, but that wasn't the central issue here - we were talkin about the US, Iraq and Al Queda.



    I agree.
    Liar. You have been attempting to push for several pages that the US lied because Saddam had no connection to al Qaeda, when Saddam was having a connection to TERRORISM was one of the reasons given, not a connection to AQ.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    16,760
    Thanks (Given)
    94
    Thanks (Received)
    1751
    Likes (Given)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    165
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9306081

    Default

    Saddam had no connection to AQ. If Saddam and bin Laden were huge butt buddies, why did bin Laden twice try to have Saddam assassinated?
    Saddam was a secular leader. He did not believe in many of the tenets of Islam. That is why Iran and Iraq were at each other's throats for so many years.
    Saddam was a paranoid despot. He wanted to share power with no one. That is why AQ was unable to function in Iraq -- until the U.S. invaded and opened the country to outside influences. Saddam had a long history of threatening and distrusting neighbor countries. Which is why he got no support in the Gulf War.

    As for the Bushies linking Saddam to AQ, try this:

    Defense briefing, Sept. 26, 2002:
    Reporter: Are there linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq, and what are they?
    Rumsfeld: The deputy director of Central Intelligence briefed me on that subject. I have no desire to go beyond saying that the answer is Yes.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Currently New Delhi, India (at least until I piss off someplace else)
    Posts
    483
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Liar.
    Name calling is not required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    You have been attempting to push for several pages that the US lied because Saddam had no connection to al Qaeda, when Saddam was having a connection to TERRORISM was one of the reasons given, not a connection to AQ.
    Do you agree Saddam had no connections to AL Quaeda?
    Convert to the BPR - Beer Pizza Religion. Worship at the altar of the beer (or other) babes.


  6. #216
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,074
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Can you produce evidence that one of the reasons given for invading Iraq is that Saddam supported OBL and/or al Qaeda?

    I can save you the trouble. There is NONE. There IS however evidence to support the fact that the administration DID make it clear that there was no proof of a link between Saddam and 9/11, OBL and/or al Qaeda. The evidence that supports AQ operating Iraq during Saddam's reign is circumstantial at best.

    There has however, recently been a turnout of previously classified information that DOES link Saddam to AQ. I haven't looked at it yet so I wil reserve any further commentary beyond the fact of its alleged existence until I do look at it.
    I am not certain where you were when all of this was definately going on, but here is an article that supports my contention that the administration ''used'' an Al Qaeda link to Saddam, with an Al Qaeda link to 911, and this hyped connection which made normally ''reasoned'' citizens agree to, supporting the going in to, what would be considered an ''unjustified'' war according to Americanized Just War Theory or any normal standards.

    That, along with the WMD hype and mushroom cloud in America as the smoking gun crapola, that scared the pants off many Americans, imo.


    washingtonpost.com
    Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

    By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01


    The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

    Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

    But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

    The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

    The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."

    As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.

    Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."

    A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the commission finding of long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq justified the administration's earlier assertions. "We stand behind what was said publicly," he said.

    Bush, speaking to troops in Tampa yesterday, did not mention an Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying only that Iraq "sheltered terrorist groups." That was a significantly milder version of the allegations administration officials have made since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.

    Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: [B]"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding." [/B]

    In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

    Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."

    Shortly after Cheney asserted these links, Bush contradicted him, saying: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th." But Bush added: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."

    In January, Cheney repeated his view that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda, saying that "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. He said he was "very confident there was an established relationship there."

    The commission staff, in yesterday's report, said that while bin Laden was in Sudan between 1991 and 1996, a senior Iraqi intelligence officer made three visits to Sudan, and that he had a meeting with bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden was reported to have sought training camps and assistance in getting weapons, "but Iraq never responded," the staff said. The report said that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan."

    As for the Atta meeting in Prague mentioned by Cheney, the commission staff concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred." It cited FBI photographic and telephone evidence, along with Czech and U.S. investigations, as well as reports from detainees, including the Iraqi official with whom Atta was alleged to have met. On the 1993 trade center bombing, the staff found "substantial uncertainty" about whether bin Laden and al Qaeda were involved.

    At yesterday's hearing, commissioner Fred F. Fielding questioned the staff's finding of no apparent cooperation between bin Laden and Hussein. He pointed to a sentence in the first sealed indictment in 2001 of the al Qaeda members accused of the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; that sentence said al Qaeda reached an understanding with Iraq that they would not work against each other and would cooperate on acquiring arms.

    Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.

    The staff report on Iraq was brief. Though not confirming any Iraqi collaboration with al Qaeda, it did not specifically address two of the other pieces of evidence the administration has offered to link Iraq to al Qaeda: Zarqawi's Tawhid organization and the Ansar al-Islam group.

    In October 2002, Bush described Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, as "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks."

    Zarqawi wrote a January 2003 letter to bin Laden's lieutenants, intercepted at the Iraqi border, saying that if al Qaeda adopted his approach in Iraq, he would swear "fealty to you [bin Laden] publicly and in the news media."

    In March, in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet described Zarqawi's network as among groups having "links" to al Qaeda but with its own "autonomous leadership . . . own targets [and] they plan their own attacks."

    Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, officials said it is increasingly clear that he has been operating independently of bin Laden's group and has his own network of operatives.

    The other group, Ansar al-Islam, began in 2001 among Kurdish Sunni Islamic fundamentalists in northern Iraq, fighting against the two secular Kurdish groups that operated under the protection of the United States. At one point, bin Laden supported Ansar, as did Zarqawi, who is believed to have visited their area more than once. Tenet referred to Ansar as one of the Sunni groups that had benefited from al Qaeda links.



    © 2004 The Washington Post Company
    Hopefully, this will clear up your misconception that the administration did not use an alqaeda link to saddam and 911, as a justification, and reason for going in to a war with Iraq.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    16,760
    Thanks (Given)
    94
    Thanks (Received)
    1751
    Likes (Given)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    165
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9306081

    Default

    The Bushies no longer have to lie about such things. They now conveniently fail to remember them.


  8. #218
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    48,219
    Thanks (Given)
    34615
    Thanks (Received)
    26690
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    10166
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe View Post
    I am not certain where you were when all of this was definately going on, but here is an article that supports my contention that the administration ''used'' an Al Qaeda link to Saddam, with an Al Qaeda link to 911, and this hyped connection which made normally ''reasoned'' citizens agree to, supporting the going in to, what would be considered an ''unjustified'' war according to Americanized Just War Theory or any normal standards.

    That, along with the WMD hype and mushroom cloud in America as the smoking gun crapola, that scared the pants off many Americans, imo.



    Hopefully, this will clear up your misconception that the administration did not use an alqaeda link to saddam and 911, as a justification, and reason for going in to a war with Iraq.
    "Where I was" was not listening to a bunch of horseshit I knew wasn't true from BOTH sides concerning Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

    Regardless who said what, it seems a reasonable mind would want to see facts and/or evidence supporting an allegation, right? You know ... like the speculation that Saddam was linked to AQ?

    As far as the BS that the Admin linked Saddam to 9/11 goes, that speculation was dismissed on 9/12, and somewhere on the net is a statement from the admin supporting that the admin clearly stated there was no evidence linking Saddam to 9/11 date WAY prior to your WP article.

    The admin CLEARLY used a link that Saddam supported terrorists/terrorism, not specifically AQ in its justification for invasion.

    The best evidence to support this would be that we invaded AFGHANISTAN as a response to 9/11. Had the admin turned around and tried to justify invading Iraq as a response to 9/11, I'd think more people than just I would have called "Bullshit."

    So basically, what you are telling me is the American people are stupid, since there is no evidence to support anyone lying. There is only after-the-fact evidence that some of the information was incorrect.

    And attempting to twist speculative statements into statements of fact is bad form.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    48,219
    Thanks (Given)
    34615
    Thanks (Received)
    26690
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    10166
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rahul View Post
    Name calling is not required.

    Calling you what you are is perfectly acceptable.


    Do you agree Saddam had no connections to AL Quaeda?
    No. I think just the opposite has been proven repeatedly. However, it isn't the "either or" choice you are trying to make it.

    Whether or not Saddam had connections to AQ is irrelevant. The REAL question is whether or not Saddam supported AQ and/or vice-versa in any operational or financial manner. It is my opinion, based on current knowledge, that such a operational/financial/mutual support relationship did not exist.

    All of which is completely irrelevant to the fact that Saddam did in fact support terrorism.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    48,219
    Thanks (Given)
    34615
    Thanks (Received)
    26690
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    10166
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabosaurus View Post
    The Bushies no longer have to lie about such things. They now conveniently fail to remember them.

    Nothing like having a cartoon to support your accusations.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Currently New Delhi, India (at least until I piss off someplace else)
    Posts
    483
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Whether or not Saddam had connections to AQ is irrelevant.
    Why did you bring it up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    The REAL question is whether or not Saddam supported AQ and/or vice-versa in any operational or financial manner.
    In other words, did he have connections to AQ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    It is my opinion, based on current knowledge, that such a operational/financial/mutual support relationship did not exist.
    Exactly. Saddam did not support Al Quaeda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    All of which is completely irrelevant to the fact that Saddam did in fact support terrorism.
    Not.
    Convert to the BPR - Beer Pizza Religion. Worship at the altar of the beer (or other) babes.


  12. #222
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    O-hi-o
    Posts
    12,192
    Thanks (Given)
    8017
    Thanks (Received)
    1650
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    7
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3656129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rahul View Post
    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.
    Are you familiar with the names abu nidal, and abu abbas. AQ high ranking terrorists harbored by saddam. al zarqawi also harbored by saddam. A training camp for terrorists called salman pak, located in northern iraq, with saddams full support. But you want to insist he had no ties to terrorists.

    You can deny it all you want but the facts are there. And there are more facts being brought out everyday.
    When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.

    You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    48,219
    Thanks (Given)
    34615
    Thanks (Received)
    26690
    Likes (Given)
    2534
    Likes (Received)
    10166
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    374 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rahul View Post
    Why did you bring it up?

    I'm responding to this for one reason ... to shine the light of truth on your ugly lies.

    YOU are the one who has repeatedly stated in this thread that "the US lied because there was no link between Saddam and AQ." YOU brought it up. This is just concrete evidence of your deceitfulness, right out here in the open.



    In other words, did he have connections to AQ?

    You ARE really dumber than a red brick, aren't ya, Hadji? Let me get the big fat crayons out and Big Chief tablet ... again ... and draw you the saem picture I did in another thread:

    This:

    The REAL question is whether or not Saddam supported AQ and/or vice-versa in any operational or financial manner.
    Does NOT say:

    In other words, did he have connections to AQ?
    Once again proving your inability to comprehend what you read.


    Exactly. Saddam did not support Al Quaeda.

    The part you aren't getting here (be sure and get out your Indian to English translator book) is I never said he did, jackass.

    Not.
    You are a liar, and a damned fool for purposefully blinding yourself to the facts, evidence and/or truth.

    This ...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml ... is a left-slanted news source.

    What does it say, Hadji? It says Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers -- that would be murdering scumbag terrorists by definition.

    Let's see if you can keep up here ... providing money to the families of terrorists for their terrorist actions IS SUPPORTING TERRORISM.

    Now that you have had your ass handed to you ... again ... go slink back to whatever hole you crawled out of and pull a big rock in after you.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Currently New Delhi, India (at least until I piss off someplace else)
    Posts
    483
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    You are a liar, and a damned fool for purposefully blinding yourself to the facts, evidence and/or truth.
    Insults and name calling are not required, and are common debating tactics for those who have nothing constructive to offer to the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    This ...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml ... is a left-slanted news source.
    Do you always put down the sources that you disagree with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    What does it say, Hadji? It says Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers -- that would be murdering scumbag terrorists by definition.


    Nonsense. Saddam did not pay any money to terrorists. This has been shown repeatedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Now that you have had your ass handed to you ... again ... go slink back to whatever hole you crawled out of and pull a big rock in after you.
    Your rude remarks are again not required. Do you ever offer anything of substance?
    Convert to the BPR - Beer Pizza Religion. Worship at the altar of the beer (or other) babes.


  15. #225
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Carson City
    Posts
    3,147
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    839

    Default ..............

    Quote Originally Posted by Rahul View Post
    Insults and name calling are not required, and are common debating tactics for those who have nothing constructive to offer to the argument.



    Do you always put down the sources that you disagree with?



    Nonsense. Saddam did not pay any money to terrorists. This has been shown repeatedly.



    Your rude remarks are again not required. Do you ever offer anything of substance?
    There are your double standards again.

    If you attack the Clintons publically make sure all your friends know your not planning on commiting suicide ~ McCain 2008
    Happiness is Obama's picture on the back of a milk carton.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums