According the Mr. Musicman international law is null and void if the invadee is deemed to be an asshole by the invader...
I just bet the Iraq people love the fact that they also have to "pay with their oil" to restore Iraq...nice innit...they bomb the country to hell and destroy everything...and than try to make out they are doing good deeds...making the iraq people pay for the destruction they did themselves..and than trying to make out like they are doing a good deed...Christ! how ****ing pathetic
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciPlease, if you are going to quote me, at least quote the truth, Vanni Fucci. I did not say that.According the Mr. Musicman international law is null and void if the invadee is deemed to be an asshole by the invader...
You may be right, BUT, given that this was close to 9-11, and that Saddam had repeatedly violated the nuclear inspection requirements, and remembering his invasion of Kuwait, and also knowing how Saddam felt towards the US, and how he treated his own people, many feel that any or all of these issues were justification for going to Iraq. Were they? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is they are there now, and the second inescapable fact is that no attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11.
Quote: Originally Posted by peapodPerhaps if Saddam had not taken the oil for money dollars and built lavish palaces and homes, and had instead used the money to support his people and country, the Iraqi people would not have been in such dire straits. The oil for money was a scam both by Saddam and the UN.I just bet the Iraq people love the fact that they also have to "pay with their oil" to restore Iraq...nice innit...they bomb the country to hell and destroy everything...and than try to make out they are doing good deeds...making the iraq people pay for the destruction they did themselves..and than trying to make out like they are doing a good deed...Christ! how ****ing pathetic
Quote: Originally Posted by MusicmanQuote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciAccording the Mr. Musicman international law is null and void if the invadee is deemed to be an asshole by the invader...Please, if you are going to quote me, at least quote the truth, Vanni Fucci. I did not say that.Actually I didn't quote you, I paraphrased, so don't get yer pheckin' panties in a bunch...
Quote has been trimmed
Now would be your chance to tell us all what you really meant by:
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. Pheckin' MusicmanYou may be right, BUT, given that this was close to 9-11, and that Saddam had repeatedly violated the nuclear inspection requirements, and remembering his invasion of Kuwait, and also knowing how Saddam felt towards the US, and how he treated his own people, many feel that any or all of these issues were justification for going to Iraq. Were they? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is they are there now, and the second inescapable fact is that no attacks have taken place in the US since 9-11.
Quote: Originally Posted by MusicmanQuote: Originally Posted by peapodI just bet the Iraq people love the fact that they also have to "pay with their oil" to restore Iraq...nice innit...they bomb the country to hell and destroy everything...and than try to make out they are doing good deeds...making the iraq people pay for the destruction they did themselves..and than trying to make out like they are doing a good deed...Christ! how ****ing pathetic Perhaps if Saddam had not taken the oil for money dollars and built lavish palaces and homes, and had instead used the money to support his people and country, the Iraqi people would not have been in such dire straits. The oil for money was a scam both by Saddam and the UN.Musicman, there is no need for us to keep re-iterating ourselves to deaf ears on this issue. We are just wasting our effort. The bottom line is anyone associated with or participating in any sort of terrorist activity of any kind deserves to be taken out. Saddam was gulity of paying off tens of thousands of...
Quote has been trimmed
I meant exactly what I said, Vanni Fucci. What part is confusing to you?
You're right. "anyone associated with or participating in any sort of terrorist activity of any kind deserves to be taken out"
So, you'll support a massive purge/killing of catholics in Boston and New York, I assume? Since most of the IRA money came from there?
Are you going to lead the charge? How about Israel? Since most of the "founders" of Israel were terrorists, what's you suggestion there?
Or, perhaps the US???? The "Boston Tea Party" things was a terrorist act, so what's you stand on that?
Or, like most current "anti terrorists", is skin colour and religion part of the equation?????
Anyone, whatever color or religion, that causes death and terror without justification is a target. And before all of you say that Bush is now a target, need I remind you of the original WTC bombings, the Embassies around the world, the attack on the USS Cole, and 9-11 were all done as first strikes, not retaliation for any US or any other countries attacks. Only after 9-11 did the US respond, with total justification. And yes, that includes the Oklahoma City Bombers, one of which has been executed, and the IRA. It takes no courage to deliberately attack innocent civilians to make your point. Yes, in armed conflict, innocent civilians are injured and hurt, but during an armed conflict, there is unfortunately the potential of this happening. Going to work on the 80th floor of the WTC should not have that potential, being drydocked in a port should have have that potential, and leaving your kids in daycare certainly should not have that potential.
Quote: Originally Posted by MusicmanSo then I paraphrased correctly...I meant exactly what I said, Vanni Fucci. What part is confusing to you?
Quote: Originally Posted by MusicmanAnyone, whatever color or religion, that causes death and terror without justification is a target. And before all of you say that Bush is now a target, need I remind you of the original WTC bombings, the Embassies around the world, the attack on the USS Cole, and 9-11 were all done as first strikes, not retaliation for any US or any other countries attacks. Only after 9-11 did the US respond, with total justification. And yes, that includes the Oklahoma City Bombers, one of which has been executed, and the IRA. It takes no courage to deliberately attack innocent civilians to make your point. Yes, in armed conflict, innocent civilians are injured and hurt, but during an armed conflict, there is unfortunately the potential of this happening. Going to work on the 80th floor of the WTC should not have that potential, being drydocked in a port should have have that potential, and leaving your kids in daycare certainly should not have that potential.Interesting points...
Quote has been trimmed
Did you know that of the bombings attributed to them, not one has been proven to be the work of Al Qaeda. So the US has declared their "War on Terror" based upon circumstantial evidence...
Pheckin' funny that...
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciNo, I do not recall anywhere where I said anything about George Bush being an asshole, or anyone else. What I provided, which any reasonable person could recognise, was a series of events which could have justified the Iraq invasion instead of WMD. Perhaps you are not reasonable?Quote: Originally Posted by MusicmanSo then I paraphrased correctly...I meant exactly what I said, Vanni Fucci. What part is confusing to you?
Please, Vanni Fucci, there are probably as many articles and links I could find, if I was inclined to, to dispute your claim. If you will recall, the blind cleric in the original WTC bombing has ties to Al Qaeda. And it is not funny at all.
Quote: Originally Posted by MusicmanAnyone, whatever color or religion, that causes death and terror without justification is a target. And before all of you say that Bush is now a target, need I remind you of the original WTC bombings, the Embassies around the world, the attack on the USS Cole, and 9-11 were all done as first strikes, not retaliation for any US or any other countries attacks. Only after 9-11 did the US respond, with total justification. And yes, that includes the Oklahoma City Bombers, one of which has been executed, and the IRA. It takes no courage to deliberately attack innocent civilians to make your point. Yes, in armed conflict, innocent civilians are injured and hurt, but during an armed conflict, there is unfortunately the potential of this happening. Going to work on the 80th floor of the WTC should not have that potential, being drydocked in a port should have have that potential, and leaving your kids in daycare certainly should not have that potential.Interesting points...
Quote has been trimmed
Did you know that of the bombings attributed to them, not one has been proven to be the work of Al Qaeda. So the US has declared their "War on Terror" based upon circumstantial evidence...
Pheckin' funny that...
Are you kidding? You are joking right? There are video and audio tapes by Bin Laden et al admitting to involvment in these acts of terrorism. What more proof do you want? The evidence is overwhelming. Confession by the guilty always supercedes any other type of evidence....
...In addition, several of the Al Qaeda prisoners have also admitted to being accomplises in these acts of terrorism.
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_JamesA great many audio experts have disputed the veracity of both Bin Laden confession videos...and have stated that such tapes would be relatively easy to forge...Are you kidding? You are joking right? There are video and audio tapes by Bin Laden et al admitting to involvment in these acts of terrorism. What more proof do you want? The evidence is overwhelming. Confession by the guilty always supercedes any other type of evidence....
They were probably hired by the Liberal Party of Canada
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_JamesConfessions obtained by torture are not very reliable......In addition, several of the Al Qaeda prisoners have also admitted to being accomplises in these acts of terrorism.
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciQuote: Originally Posted by Nascar_JamesAre you kidding? You are joking right? There are video and audio tapes by Bin Laden et al admitting to involvment in these acts of terrorism. What more proof do you want? The evidence is overwhelming. Confession by the guilty always supercedes any other type of evidence....A great many audio experts have disputed the veracity of both Bin Laden confession videos...and have stated that such tapes would be relatively easy to forge...
Quote has been trimmed
They were probably hired by the Liberal Party of Canada
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James...In addition, several of the Al Qaeda prisoners have also admitted to being accomplises in these acts of terrorism.Confessions obtained by torture are not very reliable...Nor are your statements. Ignoring the facts in favor of paranoia is dangerous. Have you seen a doctor?
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciThey were probably hired by the Liberal Party of CanadaA great many audio experts have disputed the veracity of both Bin Laden confession videos...and have stated that such tapes would be relatively easy to forge...
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciNor are your statements. Ignoring the facts in favor of paranoia is dangerous. Have you seen a doctor?Confessions obtained by torture are not very reliable...
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. ****in' MusicmanQuote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciA great many audio experts have disputed the veracity of both Bin Laden confession videos...and have stated that such tapes would be relatively easy to forge...They were probably hired by the Liberal Party of CanadaYou know Mr. ****in' Musicman, your statements of ignorance are starting to become hauntingly familiar...
Quote has been trimmed
I sense something...a presence I've not felt since...
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. ****in' MusicmanQuote: Originally Posted by Vanni FucciConfessions obtained by torture are not very reliable...Nor are your statements. Ignoring the facts in favor of paranoia is dangerous. Have you seen a doctor? ...
Ah, Vanni Fucci, you must go back and read the previous posts to get the facts, especially about who actually had the first strike. The terrorists did, Vanni Fucci, not the US. I will hold them accountable, but it seems your extreme hatred of anything US has affected your thinking so that you are unable to consider anything but your intense hatred and obsession with the US. Certainly they are not perfect, but they beat the alternative, in my opinion. Or would you prefer the Russians were the sole surviving superpower?
Quote: Originally Posted by MusicmanAh, Vanni Fucci, you must go back and read the previous posts to get the facts, especially about who actually had the first strike. The terrorists did, Vanni Fucci, not the US. I will hold them accountable, but it seems your extreme hatred of anything US has affected your thinking so that you are unable to consider anything but your intense hatred and obsession with the US. Certainly they are not perfect, but they beat the alternative, in my opinion. Or would you prefer the Russians were the sole surviving superpower?First of all, you don't know a goddamn thing about me...
Quote has been trimmed
Second of all, apart from confession tapes of spurious origins, there is absolutely NO, that right NO evidence that any of those attacks were carried out by terrorists, much less some mysterious group named Al Qaeda, that no one had ever heard of before January 2001.
Thirdly, the Bush administration knew of the whereabouts of Bin Laden on September 10, 2001. The Clinton administration had been offered by the Saudis to extradite Bin Laden, and had been refused every time. That was AFTER his alleged terror organization had allegedly bombed the US Embassies...
If you'd read something other than the Western Standard, maybe you'd know what's going on in the pheckin'...
Jeez Musicman, howcum none of your quotes and formatting efforts display properly? It's hard to figure out where you're talking and where you're quoting someone in your posts, so it's a little difficult to make sense of them. Maybe you should pay a little more attention to what you're doing, and remember that the preview button is your friend. I'd respond to you, I think, if I could more easily figure out what you're saying and what somebody else is saying in your posts.
Jeez Musicman, howcum none of your quotes and formatting efforts display properly? It's hard to figure out where you're talking and where you're quoting someone in your posts, so it's a little difficult to make sense of them. Maybe you should pay a little more attention to what you're doing, and remember that the preview button is your friend. I'd respond to you, I think, if I could more easily figure out what you're saying and what somebody else is saying in your posts.
Vanni Fucci: Perhaps you had not heard of Al Qaeda prior to 2001, but you may be the only one. And, sorry, without links, I will not accept your premise that the US knew where bin Laden was just before 9/11.
And I don't read the Western Standard, what is it?
Now then...no more posting off topic crap in this thread...
I've created a place to post the topic of Al Qaeda here.
