George Bush's Eve Of Destruction

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
Saying 'Iraq had plenty to do with terrorism', without elaborating, is no argument. Jim, I expect more from you. As it's the basis of my elaboration, I'm not quite willing to go into the rest as long as you sufficiently expand on that.

I figured you were bright enough to be up on current times. I'll copy from a recent post as this has been discussed many, many times on here already:

Saddam Hussein gave sponsorship to the following terrorist groups within Iraq: the MEK, the PKK, and Ansar al-Islam, all having ties to al-Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein funded: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, the largest terrorist groups in the world behind al-Qaeda.

Saddam Hussein sheltered: Abu Nidal, and his ANO terrorist group, Abu Abbas, and his PLF terrorist group, Abdul Yassin, a plotter of the 1993 WTC attack and al-Qaeda operative, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaeda operative.

** Credit goes to preemptingyou03, as this was copied from his most recent post **

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

Thanks for post #100, Jim.
I'm sure my anti-war song will get downloaded loads.

Sources, Jim, sources.
'Another guy on the board' is hardly a reliable source.
Also, when and how makes a big difference. After all, who was that shaking Saddam's hand in the eighties?

 

[jimnyc]

Thanks for post #100, Jim.
I'm sure my anti-war song will get downloaded loads.

That's doubtful. I suggest you look at the link you provided again.


I guess I was wrong in assuming the bright part, here is a source for you, there are many more if you take the time to look. There are many on this very board if you take the time to read or search.

What type of terrorist groups has Iraq supported?

Primarily groups that can hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say.
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
Thanks for post #100, Jim.
I'm sure my anti-war song will get downloaded loads.

Sources, Jim, sources.
'Another guy on the board' is hardly a reliable source.
Also, when and how makes a big difference. After all, who was that shaking Saddam's hand in the eighties?

Could it be, umm...

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/Photos_2003/chiracandsaddam.jpg

Ahh, Le worm! Jacques Chirac.

(Inspecting the French built, Iraqi nuclear facility. Shortly before Isreali leveling!)

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

From the link you provided:

Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?
The Bush administration insists that hatred of America has driven the two closer together, although many experts say there’s no solid proof of such links and argue that the Islamist al-Qaeda and Saddam’s secular dictatorship would be unlikely allies.

Who were you after?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
From the link you provided:

Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?
The Bush administration insists that hatred of America has driven the two closer together, although many experts say there’s no solid proof of such links and argue that the Islamist al-Qaeda and Saddam’s secular dictatorship would be unlikely allies.

Who were you after?

Why are you changing the subject? Can you not stay on one topic at a time?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
NewGuy,
There's moments that I think, I might as well give up. Stop arguing. It's no use anyway. Not because you're smarter than me (as you seem to keep wanting to hint at) but because you have a smaller world-view, and because compassion just won't do it for you.

Dang, I thought knowledge of religion, politics, our nation's foundation, the koran, terrorism, the Bible, economics, law, physics, and reading comprehension combined with taking things in context, would have done it for me. I figured that combined with the fact I have seen documentation from 3 letter agencies you will never see or hear about in your life about foreign operations, domestic policies, movements, and agendas MIGHT give me a fighting chance.

To think -all I needed was a socialist point of view and compassion.

So until you stop misdirecting me to other threads and say something yourself, about stuff that I typed in italic for you, I won´t go into your ill-phrased Constitution excuse.

In other words: "I can't and won't read about how to take things in context or discuss things with logic. I am too proud of my compassion. Even if it lays the foundation for me to prove my point."

 

[BONDI BOY]

You want to know my source,NOAM CHOMSKY, Hegemony or Survival.
Read it! Though I doubt you will. I know, post a review from from a disgruntled intellectualy inferior right wing hack. While your there find me another intellectual considered to be the equal of Noam Chomsky.

On another subject GB jnr is the best recriuter Al-Qaeda could have hoped for. Today sure helped, re. Israel.

 

[jimnyc]

Bondi, you're not very bright! Oh, and here's my source:

Source

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

Hey, Jim, watch it! You're knocking yourself out! You're becoming a one-man boxing show!
Really, 'Why are you changing the subject? Can you not stay on one topic at a time?' made me chuckle. If the link between Al Qaida and Saddam is not on topic, I wonder what the hell this war is you're promoting. I wonder who the hell you're angry at. I wonder who the hell you think threw those planes at the twin towers.
Cause and effect, buddy. The fact that you even dare to avoid this is proof that there's something very wrong with how some think the War On Terror should be waged.
And don't throw childish links at Bondi Boy. What kind of argument do you really have if you refer someone to the meaning of 'stupid'? C'm on you can do better.

NewGuy,
The ability to read does not make one smart. 'Discussing things with logic' includes being able to directly confront statements. You didn't. Because you can't. All you say is 'I've read this and this, and I copied it there and there'. Really, you should look at Jim's posts, he has the guts to face me for content.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
Hey, Jim, watch it! You're knocking yourself out! You're becoming a one-man boxing show!
Really, 'Why are you changing the subject? Can you not stay on one topic at a time?' made me chuckle. If the link between Al Qaida and Saddam is not on topic, I wonder what the hell this war is you're promoting. I wonder who the hell you're angry at. I wonder who the hell you think threw those planes at the twin towers.
Cause and effect, buddy. The fact that you even dare to avoid this is proof that there's something very wrong with how some think the War On Terror should be waged.

My original comments were 'Iraq had plenty to do with terrorism'. You stated that was not good enough that I should elaborate. I then copied a recent post with specifics. You said that wasn't good enough and that you wanted sources. I then gave you sources to backup my original comment. Now you try to wiggle out of it by proclaiming they had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. But that's not what I said, is it? So again, I'll ask you, why are you changing the subject? I made my claims and backed them up. Rather than acknowledge that you are looking for something else to bolster your defense.

And don't throw childish links at Bondi Boy. What kind of argument do you really have if you refer someone to the meaning of 'stupid'? C'm on you can do better.

I suggest you shut the fuck up and worry about yourself.

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

'My original comments were 'Iraq had plenty to do with terrorism'.'
Yes, in reply to my 'Iraq had little to do with international terrorism when it was invaded'.
Now, I deliberately wrote 'international' (I meant, US-related) and I deliberately wrote 'when it was invaded'.
Those nuances are very important. Otherwise, your list of organizations are just as valid as my Rumsfeld hand shake. Look, I'm very willing to concede when you have a good point. But you´ll have to agree that quoting the Al Qaida - Saddam bit from the link was very much on topic with that. And, as I said before, since it was the basis for my theory, I'm not willing to give in or let other bits of the theory crumble until we reach some common ground over this.

 

[jimnyc]

Sorry, I'm not debating with someone who feels he'll lay some ground rules as he goes along. My goal was to discuss the facts, not play a debating game. In order to get an effective picture - all background needs to be considered. You want to throw out the ugly stuff but keep in what bolsters your argument.

Well, talk to the hand, because the ears aren't listening! Hope you have a nice day.

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Jim.
I don't lay these ground rules as I go along. They were always there. That's why they're ground rules.

I don't wanna have to open a new thread on all of this. I don't need to be all over this board. You know the name, you know the thread.

 

[jimnyc]

Sure, and I'll be out there discussing various topics with the other members, not laying in wait in one thread. I'm glad I'm knowledgable in a myriad of subjects.

I'll stop in from time to time and say hello. Maybe I'll even refer some people to this thread occassionally so that you don't get lonely in here.

Vaya con dios!

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

I really think that's a shame. So I'm going to make an extra effort. I'm going to grant you that Iraq indeed had ties to terrorist organizations, probably right up until the hour H.

But I was trying to make the distinction between OBL's guys and Yasser's guys. I understand you think they're all the same - I happen not to think so. This is the very issue that divides us. Do you agree on that?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
But I was trying to make the distinction between OBL's guys and Yasser's guys. I understand you think they're all the same - I happen not to think so. This is the very issue that divides us. Do you agree on that?

Differentiating terrorists is like differentiating child molestors from rapists. They all need to be removed from the gene pool.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z


NewGuy,
The ability to read does not make one smart.

When comparing yourability to gather correct informayion with everyone elses, it does. That is the building block of obtaining information that is correct in the first place. Ususally this is why reading is started in the 5 year old age bracket.

Where were you?

'Discussing things with logic' includes being able to directly confront statements.

Hmmmm....lesse:
http://m-w.com/
"Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun"

"Main Entry: dis·cus·sion
Pronunciation: di-'sk&-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing "

Nope it isn't there. Not only that, but notice how you claim I need to highlight and fill in between the lines when I direct you to the information already in the first place. When someone tells you something and points out where to go to find that something true, it is not the resposibility of that said person to grind up the point in a meat grinder so someone who cannot read and refuses to can understand it. This is why you have a high degree of misinformation: you do not validate or cross reference anything. You do not search for truth. Instead, you make people spoon feed you everything. It ends up disgusting your fellow discussion mates because they are educating, not babysitting.

You didn't. Because you can't. All you say is 'I've read this and this, and I copied it there and there'. Really, you should look at Jim's posts, he has the guts to face me for content.

Really? Gee. Citing the sources is not good enough for you. Pointing out things like the koran's detail and how it works is not good enough. I guess you need the whole thing in pasted text, with cliff notes, pretty pictures, captions, 3 debating teams, a touchy-feely song, and Barbara Streisand to go with it to make it content?

How would you know who has guts to face you with content when you have already refused to read content I have posted?

There is a difference between God given intelligence and brain damage. You may at one time been at one end of the spectrum, but have obviously chosen to go to the other and stay there.

 

[Emmanuel_Z]

Jim, what do you mean exactly by 'removed from the gene pool'?

NewGuy,
Funny how you again managed not to say about the issue at hand.
I am still not impressed with your copying and pasting skills. You can paste the whole dictionary in here if you want - it only serves to obscure your unwillingness to keep an open mind.
'Citing the sources' - you haven't.
'Pointing out things like the koran's detail and how it works' - you haven't!

Really, honestly, I will read it.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Emmanuel_Z
Jim, what do you mean exactly by 'removed from the gene pool'?

Dead