Fallujah: the truth at last How the US murdered a city!!

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Re: RE: Fallujah: the truth a

Reverend Blair said:
You don't think at all Eaglesmack. hat's apparent in everything you write.

hat's apparent huh? :lol:

How clutch was that!

The poor Rev has once again been stumped along with Vanni "The Fuch" Fucci.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Bush and the bin ladens in the carlyle group cheney and halliburton who stands to gain in this war with iraq certainly not you eagle crap or you alien ant farm unless you guys are major stock holders.hahahahahahahahahah
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
alienofwar said:
Now lets put things into reality....yes thats right, not fantasy, but what actually is exists.

Yes...let's...

alienofwar said:
What on earth has George Bush done that deserves such comparisons? What could he possibly do?

http://firstpeoplescentury.net/accounta.pdf

Use of depleted uranium weapons and cluster bombs would be a start...a pre-emptive and illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to your national security would be another...authorizing torture of detainees would be yet another...but that's right...you don't consider being sodomized with a glowstick or a broom handle to be torture...I'll bet where you come from, that's just good clean fun...

alienofwar said:
If you can't show me any of these things - and you can't - then stop calling the man a Nazi. Because when you say he's no different from Hitler, you are also saying that Hitler is no different from George Bush. And that means that Hitler's crimes were no worse than George Bush's "crimes." And whatever you think of what George Bush has done or might do, if you think any of it is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, you are in effect saying the Holocaust really wasn't that bad."

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

alienofwar said:
And as to the reports of torture, murder and violation of international laws...look to my previous post because its quite obvious you didn't read them or you must of just glanced at them.

Abu Gharib and Gitmo? Torture? Why dont you talk to the victims of Saddam Hussein...then you will know what torture is.

...again...the glowstick of peace and the broomstick of freedom...

alienofwar said:
Murder? In war there will always be casualties, especially if coward insurgents are hiding among the population and using them as shields. You think urban warfare is easy? Damn difficult as hell, especially if your enemy is hiding among innocent civilians. You think that we are killing these people on purpose or as you call it, murdering these people? What kind of sick twisted logic is this? Get back to reality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45313-2004Dec7.html

...reads like a southern-style turkey shoot to me...

alienofwar said:
Violation of international laws? This is left up to debate really. It really depends on opinion.

No, it depends on international law, to which the US is party...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/unitedstates/unpolicy/gen2003/0415moral.htm

alienofwar said:
I personally don't think it was unlawful considering the crime that was commited against the Iraqi people by Saddam. Just like any crime, dont you think the police should go after those who commit murder and torture (ah there we go, those two words...except this time they are used where they belong) on those who are defenseless?

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what you think...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0321illegal.htm

...and so it goes...the neo-cons could not convince the world of WMD, so now they are claiming that the invasion was for their enduring love of the Iraqi people...nice...so where was this love after the first Gulf war, when George H.W. Bush incited the Shia population to rise up against Saddam only to be slaughtered by the Revolutionary Guard, because the US would offer no support?? Where was the love then???

alienofwar said:
We enforce our laws domestically, whats wrong with enforcing globally?

Well nothing, I suppose, if you're a Nazi...
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Guys like alien ant farm will never get it there was no weapons of mass destruction it was made up so the bush cheney gang could go in and get rich the facts are the facts eagle crap and alien ant farm.enjoy your police state fellers
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Re: RE: Fallujah: the truth at last How the US murdered a ci

mrmom2 said:
Guys like alien ant farm will never get it there was no weapons of mass destruction it was made up so the bush cheney gang could go in and get rich the facts are the facts eagle crap and alien ant farm.enjoy your police state fellers

Oh... listen to the unwashed, face covering, rock thrower.

A rebel without a clue...

"Hey guys look at all the anti-Bush articles I found on leftist, socialist, Anti-US webpages... this must be true and unbiased... I can't wait to post them on CanadianContent!"

Get your head out of the sand.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Fallujah: the truth a

Do you where those WMDs are then, Eaglesmut? Oh, that's right...they don't exist. They were made up by the liar and war criminal that you've placed in charge of your country.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Fallujah: the truth a

That was twenty years ealier and Reagan not only supplied those weapons, but protected Saddam after he gassed the Kurds.

Those weapons did not exist, nor was there any evidence of their existence, when the US illegally invaded Iraq.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
This is what I mean... Reagan supplied those weapons! The US NEVER exported chemical weapons to Iraq or any other country. More lies. That fantasy has been disproven over and over.

We provided Iraq with intelligence on Iranian Troop movements during the war. Iraq got all of it's weaponry from the Soviet Union and THEY did export chemical weapons. But I guess it was 20 years ago and he used all of his Chemical Weapons in one fell swoop.

Look at the debris on the field after these wars. How many US Made tanks with Iraqi markings did you see destroyed? Armored Vehicles? SAM Missles? How many M-16's? Artillery? How many US made Fighters were destroyed.

It's all Soviet weaponry you numbskull. With a smattering of French and Chinese.

So in your post you say that he did have WMD's and also that he didn't.
Do you see how hypocritical you are?

Do you see?

Can you?

Is it possible?
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Fallujah: the truth a

Facts, little buddy! Facts! The CIA supplied Saddam with dual use chemicals and the technology to make WMD. Reagan protected Saddam from the international community after he murdered the Kurds, even claiming that it was Iran.

Now you want to blame Saddam for it, contradicting your previous story, and ignore the fact that you protected him. How stupid is that?

Are you now willing to admit that Reagan was an incompetent pig-f***er? You can't have it both ways.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
eagle crap have you never seen the pics of rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam they look like there were the best of buddys he was also on the board that sold the nuclear reactor to north korea .its called problem, reaction, solution and old rummy seems to be the master so go on and keep believing there lies why don,t you bury your head in the sand too
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Fallujah: the truth a

Let's not forget that Cheney was still trying to sell stuff to Saddam during the Clinton administration. Some of it was oil field parts supplies, but much of it was dual use technologies.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Re: RE: Fallujah: the truth a

Reverend Blair said:
Facts, little buddy! Facts! The CIA supplied Saddam with dual use chemicals and the technology to make WMD. Reagan protected Saddam from the international community after he murdered the Kurds, even claiming that it was Iran.

Now you want to blame Saddam for it, contradicting your previous story, and ignore the fact that you protected him. How stupid is that?

Are you now willing to admit that Reagan was an incompetent pig-f***er? You can't have it both ways.

Again you claim these as facts but they are not facts. Leftist idiots like you blame the CIA for everything and you feel that you never have to provide facts to back them up.

Reagan never claimed it was Iran. I remember when the Kurds were gassed and not one country in the world did anything. That includes Canada. I am sure you will blame the US for that though since you blame the US for all of what ails the world.

And yes I do blame Saddam for gassing the Kurds. You don't?

And by the way... what should the world have done to Iraq at that time? Attack him?

If the answer is yes... then you have no argument on the US being there now.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Re: RE: Fallujah: the truth at last How the US murdered a ci

mrmom2 said:
eagle crap have you never seen the pics of rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam they look like there were the best of buddys he was also on the board that sold the nuclear reactor to north korea .its called problem, reaction, solution and old rummy seems to be the master so go on and keep believing there lies why don,t you bury your head in the sand too

Many world leaders, diplomats, reps, etc. shake hands with despots. Should he have punched him in the face?

Have any of your leaders ever sat down with these dictators and smiled as the cameras snapped away? I am sure they have you panty wearing Mr. Mom.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Hey smack...ever read this by a great american. It must be frustrating that its getting harder and harder to sell your bullshit to the masses. I will post it...I know you will not read it, but maybe others will.

Isaac Asimov

Some time ago, Ronald Reagan pointed out that one couldn't trust the Soviet government because the Soviets didn't believe in God or in an afterlife and therefore had no reason to behave honorably, but would be willing to lie and cheat and do all sorts of wicked things to aid their cause. Naturally, I firmly believe that the president of the United States knows what he is talking about, so I've done my very best to puzzle out the meaning of that statement.

Let me begin by presenting this "Reagan Doctrine" (using the term with all possible respect): "No one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted." If this is true (and it must be if the president says so), then people are just naturally dishonest and crooked and downright rotten. In order to keep them from lying and cheating every time they open their mouths, they must be bribed or scared out of doing so. They have to be told and made to believe that if they tell the truth and do the right thing and behave themselves, they will go to heaven and get to plunk a harp and wear the latest design in halos. They must also be told and made to believe that if they lie and steal and run around with the opposite sex, they are going to hell and will roast over a brimstone fire forever.

It's a little depressing, if you come to think of it. By the Reagan Doctrine, there is no such thing as a person who keeps his word just because he has a sense of honor. No one tells the truth just because he thinks that it is the decent thing to do. No one is kind because he feels sympathy for others, or treats others decently because he likes the kind of world in which decency exists.

Instead, according to the Reagan Doctrine, anytime we meet someone who pays his debts, or hands in a wallet he found in the street, or stops to help a blind man cross the road, or tells a casual truth -- he's just buying himself a ticket to heaven, or else canceling out a demerit that might send him to hell. It's all a matter of good, solid business practice; a matter of turning a spiritual profit and of responding prudently to spiritual blackmail.

Personally, I don't think that I -- or you -- or even president Reagan -- would knock down an old lady and snatch her purse the next time we're short a few bucks. If only we were sure of that heavenly choir, or if only we were certain we wouldn't get into that people-fry down in hell. But by the Reagan Doctrine, if we didn't believe in God and in an afterlife, there would be nothing to stop us, so l guess we all would.

But let's take the reverse of the Reagan Doctrine. If no one who disbelieves in God and in an afterlife can possibly be trusted, it seems to follow that those who do believe in God and in an afterlife can be trusted. Since the American government consists of god-fearing people who believe in an afterlife, it seems pretty significant that the Soviet Union nevertheless would not trust us any farther than they can throw an ICBM. Since the Soviets are slaves to godless communism, they would naturally think everyone else is as evil as they are. Consequently, the Soviet Union's distrust of us is in accordance with the Reagan Doctrine.

Yet there are puzzles. Consider Iran. The Iranians are a god-fearing people and believe in an afterlife, and this is certainly true of the mullahs and ayatollahs who comprise their government. And yet we are reluctant to trust them for some reason. President Reagan himself has referred to the Iranian leaders as "barbarians."

Oddly enough, the Iranians are reluctant to trust us, either. They referred to the ex-president (I forget his name for he is never mentioned in the media anymore) as the "Great Satan" and yet we all know that the ex-president was a born-again Christian.

There's something wrong here. God-fearing Americans and god-fearing Iranians don't trust each other and call each other terrible names. How does that square with the Reagan Doctrine?

To be sure, the God in whom the Iranians believe is not quite the God in whom we believe, and the afterlife they believe in is a little different from ours. There are no houris, alas, in our heaven. We call our system of belief Christianity and they call theirs Islam, and come to think of it, for something like twelve centuries, good Christians believed Islam was an invention of the devil and believers in Islam ("Moslems") courteously returned the compliment so that there was almost continuous war between them. Both sides considered it a holy war and felt that the surest way of going to heaven was to clobber an infidel. What's more, you didn't have to do it in a fair and honorable way, either. Tickets of admission just said, "Clobber!"

This bothers me a little. The Reagan Doctrine doesn't mention the variety of god or afterlife that is concerned. It doesn't indicate that it matters what you call God -- Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Zeus, Ishtar. I don't think that president Reagan meant to imply a Moslem couldn't trust a Shintoist or that a Buddhist couldn't trust a Parsee. I think it was just the godless Soviets he was after.

Yet perhaps he was just being cautious in not mentioning the fact that the variety of deity counted. But even if that were so there are problems.

For instance, the Iranians are Moslems and the Iraqi are Moslems. Both are certain that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet and believe it with all their hearts. And yet, at the moment, Iraq doesn't trust Iran worth a damn, and Iran trusts Iraq even less than that. If fact, Iran is convinced that Iraq is in the pay of the Great Satan (that's god-fearing America, in case you've forgotten) and Iraq counters with the accusation that it is Iran who is in the pay of the great Satan. Neither side is accusing the godless Soviets of anything, which is a puzzle.

But then, you know, they are Moslems and perhaps we can't just go along with any old god. I can see why Reagan might not like to specify, since it might not be good presidential business to offend the billions of people who are sincerely religious but lack the good taste to be Christians. Still, just among ourselves, and in a whisper, perhaps the only people you can really trust are good Christians.

Yet even that raises difficulties. For instance, I doubt that anyone can seriously maintain that the Irish people are anything but god-fearing, and certainly they don't have the slightest doubts concerning the existence of an afterlife. Some are Catholics and some are Protestants, but both of these Christian varieties believe in the Bible and in God and in Jesus and in heaven and in hell. Therefore, by the Reagan Doctrine, the people of Ireland should trust each other.

Oddly enough, they don't. In Northern Ireland there has been a two-sided terrorism that has existed for years and shows no sign of ever abating. Catholics and Protestants blow each other up every chance they get and there seems to be no indication of either side trusting the other even a little bit.

But then, come to think of it, Catholics and Protestants have had a thing about each other for centuries. They have fought each other, massacred each other, and burned each other at the stake. And at no time was this conflict fought in a gentlemanly, let's-fight-fair manner. Any time you caught a heretic or an idolater (or whatever nasty name you wanted to use) looking the other way, you sneaked up behind him and bopped him and collected your ticket to heaven.

We can't even make the Reagan Doctrine show complete sense here in the United States. Consider the Ku Klux Klan. They don't like the Jews or the Catholics, but then, the Jews don't accept Jesus and the Catholics do accept the Pope, and these fine religious distinctions undoubtedly justify distrust by a narrow interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine. The protestant Ku Klux Klan can only cotton to Protestants.

Blacks, however, are predominantly protestant, and of southern varieties, too, for that is where their immediate ancestors learned their religion. Ku Kluxers and Blacks have very similar religions and therefore even by a narrow interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine should trust each other. It is difficult to see why they don't.

What about the Moral Majority? They're absolute professionals when it comes to putting a lot of stock in God and in an afterlife. They practice it all day, apparently. Naturally, they're a little picky. One of them said that God didn't listen to the prayers of a Jew. Another refused to share a platform with Phyllis Schlafly, the moral majority's very own sweetheart, because she was a Catholic. Some of them don't even require religious disagreements, just political ones. They have said that one can't be a liberal and a good Christian at one and the same time so that if you don't vote right, you are going straight to hell whatever your religious beliefs are. Fortunately, at every election they will tell you what the right vote is so that you don't go to hell by accident.

Perhaps we shouldn't get into the small details, though. The main thing is that the Soviet Union is Godless and, therefore, sneaky, tricky, crooked, untrustworthy, and willing to stop at nothing to advance their cause. The United States is god-fearing and therefore forthright, candid, honest, trustworthy, and willing to let their cause lose sooner than behave in anything but the most decent possible way.

It bothers the heck out of me therefore that there's probably not a country in the world that doesn't think the United States, through the agency of the CIA and its supposedly underhanded methods, has upset governments in Guatemala, Chile, and Iran (among others), has tried to overthrow the Cuban government by a variety of economic, political, and even military methods, and so on. In every country, you'll find large numbers who claim that the United States fought a cruel and unjust war in Vietnam and that it is the most violent and crime-ridden nation in the world.

They don't seem to be impressed by the fact that we're god-fearing.

Next they'll be saying that Ronald Reagan (our very own president) doesn't know what he's talking about.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Reagan never claimed it was Iran. I remember when the Kurds were gassed and not one country in the world did anything. That includes Canada. I am sure you will blame the US for that though since you blame the US for all of what ails the world.

Actually, he did exactly that. He also made it clear to the UN that the US would veto any attampt at sanctions, or even condemnation. You can look it up if you want.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
careful eagle don't want you to have a coronary as for pantys sorry we canadians leave that stuff to your politicians to do at the bohemian grove oh yea they also bus in the gay pornstars to quote service the members look it up its in the new york post .the grove is one of the bush mens favorite places . so who really does wear the pantys .
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Re: RE: Fallujah: the truth at last How the US murdered a ci

mrmom2 said:
careful eagle don't want you to have a coronary as for pantys sorry we canadians leave that stuff to your politicians to do at the bohemian grove oh yea they also bus in the gay pornstars to quote service the members look it up its in the new york post .the grove is one of the bush mens favorite places . so who really does wear the pantys .

Funny that I have never heard of the place. But you seem to be up to date on it.

By the way, do you know how to use punctuation? Typos are one thing but the way you try to communicate is numbing.

I still think you wear the pantys "Mr. Mom"
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
of course you never heard of the place because you refuse to see and hear any facts you might try going to infowars.com you will get more facts than you can handle asshole