Abu Musab Al-zarqawi Killed In Iraq

[sitarro]

--Bush fired Admiral Shinseki rather than accept his advice that 2-3 times as many troops would be needed to secure the country as Bush wanted to send?

Shinseki will be awfully ambarassed to find out he is an Admiral and has been wearing the wrong uniform through out his career! By the way, Bush did not fire Shinseki. If you know something I don't please provide a link

Hey now CSM a Navy Admiral and an Army General are the same thing aren't they?....those military uniforms all look the same to Mariner.
Great post!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I somewhat expected such a reply. You speak of a different era, a different war, and a different nation. Yes, years ago, it was understood that we were not to question the establishment. Before Vietnam and Watergate we were to simply nod and believe that our leaders knew what they were doing and that they were telling us the complete truth.

It would have been good to have had people ask if Japanese internment camps were really necessary and, if they were necessary, if we could treat the inhabitants better.

See http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/

Now, we understand that it is good to question and not blindly accept what we are told.

That was a different era? That's how dismiss the good and appropriate things we did in wwII? You're sad.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No. I like being a nitpicky gadfly pointing out the technical errors and fallacious arguments made by popinjays so consumed in political rhetoric.

Nitpicking is one thing. Being a massive tool just to be argumentative and piss everyone off is another. You're succeeding at both.

By the way, Rico, if the definition is incorrect, perhaps you should contact Dictionary.com and complain. Also, read the definition again. Technically, “Harmed or killed” does not suggest nor deny a non-combatant circumstance. It does not mean that the “victim” should or should not have met his demise. “Harmed or killed" means only “harmed or killed”. The reporter may have tried to imply that the bombing was not warranted (or that this was a non-combative circumstance) or not, but you can only infer such, in conjunction with your own biases and prejudices. Basically, you may read whatever you like into people’s comments. I choose to take the question objectively at face value.

Ahem, if I may:

Oh shut the hell up already.

 

[mattskramer]

That was a different era? That's how dismiss the good and appropriate things we did in wwII? You're sad.

This is just my point. As I said People hear what they want to hear and practically ignore what is said. They play this game to suit their own biases and prejudices. Did I dismiss the good and appropriate things we did in WWII? No. Just because I may find a few bad things that we do in a war does not mean that I “dismiss the good and appropriate things”. No. Just because a reporter asks a question about actions taken during a war does not mean that the reporter dismisses the good things that were accomplished.

By the way, I’m not sad. Enough with the ad homonym.

 

[dilloduck]

This is just my point. As I said People hear what they want to hear and practically ignore what is said. They play this game to suit their own biases and prejudices. Did I dismiss the good and appropriate things we did in WWII? No. Just because I may find a few bad things that we do in a war does not mean that I “dismiss the good and appropriate things”. No. Just because a reporter asks a question about actions taken during a war does not mean that the reporter dismisses the good things that were accomplished.

By the way, I’m not sad. Enough with the ad homonym.

Bullshit----follow this reporter around and interview after interview he/she phrases the question to pursue an anti-Bush agenda. Is this one of those things that you refuse to listen to, even if it's the truth?

 

[Gunny]

Bullshit----follow this reporter around and interview after interview he/she phrases the question to pursue an anti-Bush agenda. Is this one of those things that you refuse to listen to, even if it's the truth?

Everything Matt hears and regurgitates is nothing more than data. His MO is as obvious as day. He literalizes where he wants, removing any and all context and/or fact that does not suit his agenda.

 

[mattskramer]

But, with the nations worst attack, libs foresake national security in order to regain their political power

How are the “libs” forsaking national security – for whatever alleged reason? Is it because they are asking that detainees be given a fair hearing? (As a side question: If we had not housed Japanese children in detention internment camps, would we have been forsaking national security?) By criticizing some elements on this war on terrorism, the libs (at least as a whole) are not “forsaking national security” to any great extent – and certainly not for political gain. They merely see much of the national security measures as over-kill. Let me illustrate:

Hey. I have an idea. Let’s really be cautious and strengthen national security today. Let’s detain all Muslims in America. Let’s have our government record and monitor all calls (not just international calls) for which one speaker may be a Muslim. Let’s establish inquisitors at all mosques. What?!? You don’t agree with all of these ideas! You are forsaking national security. Why do you disagree with my ideas? Is it because you want your party to gain popularity?

This is an old argument that swings both ways. One can argue that whatever a party-leader does is not in the best interest of the nation but for money and politics. Did the Senate really call for a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage because they thought that it would be best for America, even thought it was evident that such a bill would not pass? It certainly seemed to be a waste of time. Did they do it because the Republicans wanted to draw more religious conservatives to the polls?

I’ve heard it said, “Liberals want to destroy America”. Please. Do they really want to destroy America? Haven’t we had enough of this hyperbole? Look. Political issues are practically all relative and subjective. Moderation is the key. The fundamental question is “Where to draw the line”.

 

[mattskramer]

Bullshit----follow this reporter around and interview after interview he/she phrases the question to pursue an anti-Bush agenda. Is this one of those things that you refuse to listen to, even if it's the truth?

Clever, but I’m not going to go look for pink elephants that don’t exist. I’ll listen to the truth when someone presents me with straight facts – not speculation. Anyway, I’m just waiting for someone to say that I think that the killing of Abu Musab Al-zarqawi was a bad thing.

 

[Gunny]

How are the “libs” forsaking national security – for whatever alleged reason? Is it because they are asking that detainees be given a fair hearing? (As a side question: If we had not housed Japanese children in detention internment camps, would we have been forsaking national security?) By criticizing some elements on this war on terrorism, the libs (at least as a whole) are not “forsaking national security” to any great extent – and certainly not for political gain. They merely see much of the national security measures as over-kill. Let me illustrate:

Hey. I have an idea. Let’s really be cautious and strengthen national security today. Let’s detain all Muslims in America. Let’s have our government record and monitor all calls (not just international calls) for which one speaker may be a Muslim. Let’s establish inquisitors at all mosques. What?!? You don’t agree with all of these ideas! You are forsaking national security. Why do you disagree with my ideas? Is it because you want your party to gain popularity?

This is an old argument that swings both ways. One can argue that whatever a party-leader does is not in the best interest of the nation but for money and politics. Did the Senate really call for a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage because they thought that it would be best for America, even thought it was evident that such a bill would not pass? It certainly seemed to be a waste of time. Did they do it because the Republicans wanted to draw more religious conservatives to the polls?

I’ve heard it said, “Liberals want to destroy America”. Please. Do they really want to destroy America? Haven’t we had enough of this hyperbole? Look. Political issues are practically all relative and subjective. Moderation is the key. The fundamental question is “Where to draw the line”.

Since you ask, and your backwards-assed argument aside, yes, liberals want to destroy America. This Nation was founded on a set of principles and rules that you libs have been tearing away at, a little at time, since Day One. You attempt to deflect from and scoff at the "slippery slope," but if it ever applied to ANYTHING, it applies to liberalism and liberals.

 

[dilloduck]

Clever, but I’m not going to go look for pink elephants that don’t exist. I’ll listen to the truth when someone presents me with straight facts – not speculation. Anyway, I’m just waiting for someone to say that I think that the killing of Abu Musab Al-zarqawi was a bad thing.

If one was grabbing you by the neck you would deny it. You're just too lazy to do your own math and if anyone ever did it for you, you would accuse them of " cramming it down your throat".

 

[CockySOB]

Clever, but I’m not going to go look for pink elephants that don’t exist. I’ll listen to the truth when someone presents me with straight facts – not speculation. Anyway, I’m just waiting for someone to say that I think that the killing of Abu Musab Al-zarqawi was a bad thing.

Um, Matt? 1-800-FLOWERS calling. Unfortunately we cannot deliver the arrangement you selected with the little Mohammad statue to Jordan at this time. Currently our insurers are unwilling to underwrite delivery to locations where our delivery personnel are likely to be classified as "infidels." Thank you for your understanding, and please remember 1-800-FLOWERS for your floral and gift basket needs.

Order cancelled
Ordered by: mattskramer
Destination: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi funeral
Card: "I think the persecution of Sheikh Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was a bad thing, and his killing a very bad thing. My sympathies."
Note: Could not deliver to destination



(now you don't have to wait any longer. you're quite welcome, I'm sure... cheers!) :arabia:

 

[kurtsprincess]

whining and whining about the quality of reporting from Iraq.

That's a nice way to distract yourselves from the all-too-obvious fact that our Iraqi adventure is not turning out exactly as planned.

I'm confused........why do libs vacillate on the issue of planning for Iraq......it's either "not going as planned", or "there was no planning at all". Which is it?

 

[mattskramer]

Since you ask, and your backwards-assed argument aside, yes, liberals want to destroy America. This Nation was founded on a set of principles and rules that you libs have been tearing away at, a little at time, since Day One. You attempt to deflect from and scoff at the "slippery slope," but if it ever applied to ANYTHING, it applies to liberalism and liberals.

Prove it. Where is it written that Liberals want to destroy America? What principles and rules were this nation founded on - Slavery and the fact that women were not allowed voting? What rules are we trying to change? Let's have something specific. Just because something has a history does not make that thing right. I think that you are confusing the means with the ends. People in general, liberals and conservatives, want to improve America but people have different ideas on how to accomplish it.

If one [pink elephant] was grabbing you by the neck you would deny it. You're just too lazy to do your own math and if anyone ever did it for you, you would accuse them of " cramming it down your throat".

No. I welcome reality. I love facts. If I saw a pink elephant, I would not deny its existence. I’m simply not going to go chasing after something that I firmly believe to be nonexistent. Don’t put words in my mouth. If you provide me with proof, I will accept it. Just don’t give me your own biased inferences.

CockySOB –

LOL – Cute.

 

[Annie]

Prove it. Where is it written that Liberals want to destroy America? What principles and rules were this nation founded on - Slavery and the fact that women were not allowed voting? What rules are we trying to change? Let's have something specific. Just because something has a history does not make that thing right. I think that you are confusing the means with the ends. People in general, liberals and conservatives, want to improve America but people have different ideas on how to accomplish it.



No. I welcome reality. I love facts. If I saw a pink elephant, I would not deny its existence. I’m simply not going to go chasing after something that I firmly believe to be nonexistent. Don’t put words in my mouth. If you provide me with proof, I will accept it. Just don’t give me your own biased inferences.

CockySOB –

LOL – Cute.

I used to think you had some points, not anymore.

 

[Gunny]

Prove it. Where is it written that Liberals want to destroy America? What principles and rules were this nation founded on - Slavery and the fact that women were not allowed voting? What rules are we trying to change? Let's have something specific. Just because something has a history does not make that thing right. I think that you are confusing the means with the ends. People in general, liberals and conservatives, want to improve America but people have different ideas on how to accomplish it.

The point to posting a legitimate response would be what? So I could get more backwards-assed BS out of you as to why you think I'm wrong? I'm not about to engage in one of your marathon, out-of-context, literalist, wannabe intellectually elite arguemnts because. quite frankly, you bore me. You have no personality to speak of, and reality is something obviously out of your grasp.

Perhaps another kind soul here might endulge your fetish for long-winded nonsense.

 

[no1tovote4]

Clever, but I’m not going to go look for pink elephants that don’t exist. I’ll listen to the truth when someone presents me with straight facts – not speculation. Anyway, I’m just waiting for someone to say that I think that the killing of Abu Musab Al-zarqawi was a bad thing.

How would you know if pink elephants existed if you are unwilling to open your eyes when somebody points one out to you?

 

[mattskramer]

How would you know if pink elephants existed if you are unwilling to open your eyes when somebody points one out to you?

Un. If someone were to point out a pink elephant, I would know that pink elephants exist. So far, no one has pointed out a pink elephant to me. Implications and inferences don’t interest me. Those things are like imaginations and dreams. People can say that he meant this or that he meant that but such does not make it real. Show me what he said and I will see what he said. It is as simple as that. As I learned from one famous radio talk-show host, words mean things.

 

[mattskramer]

The point to posting a legitimate response would be what? So I could get more backwards-assed BS out of you as to why you think I'm wrong? I'm not about to engage in one of your marathon, out-of-context, literalist, wannabe intellectually elite arguemnts because. quite frankly, you bore me. You have no personality to speak of, and reality is something obviously out of your grasp.

Perhaps another kind soul here might endulge your fetish for long-winded nonsense.

ROTFL. I though as much – basically you just gave out a bunch of personal attacks. When it comes right down to it, all you have is your own inferences about what is said. Well, I thought that he suggested this or that…LOL. Yeah. Let’s see how I can misinterpret his message and twist it in such a way that it ends up saying something to support my bias about the media. It is such a fun game for some people. Have your own conclusion about reporters and then don’t take their message at face value but practically twist them to suit yourself. Oh well. I don’t play that.

By the way, I saw a three-legged elephant having two trunks and webbed feet. I know that such a thing exists but it is not up to me to prove it. Even though I made the claim, it is your responsibility to find it. Happy hunting. LOL.

 

[Mr.Conley]

By the way, I saw a three-legged elephant having two trunks and webbed feet. I know that such a thing exists but it is not up to me to prove it. Even though I made the claim, it is your responsibility to find it. Happy hunting. LOL.

No, the onus is on you to prove your assertations. In any good debate, you should have reliable experts, facts, statistics, and information from credible sources to support youo conclusion. That is the basis of scientific research and good debate. Your detractors are not responsible for proving you right, you are.

 

[Gunny]

ROTFL. I though as much – basically you just gave out a bunch of personal attacks. When it comes right down to it, all you have is your own inferences about what is said. Well, I thought that he suggested this or that…LOL. Yeah. Let’s see how I can misinterpret his message and twist it in such a way that it ends up saying something to support my bias about the media. It is such a fun game for some people. Have your own conclusion about reporters and then don’t take their message at face value but practically twist them to suit yourself. Oh well. I don’t play that.

By the way, I saw a three-legged elephant having two trunks and webbed feet. I know that such a thing exists but it is not up to me to prove it. Even though I made the claim, it is your responsibility to find it. Happy hunting. LOL.

The "Master," hands down, of misinterpretation on this board is YOU. There isn't even a close second.

You have YET to make an honest argument that I have seen. You're just one of those lying, wannabe intellectuals who posts long-winded, boring-ass gibberish in hopes of overwhelminging your opponent in BULLSHIT.

Disproving your arguments is simple. Getting you to admit you're wrong and shut the Hell up quite another matter.