Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

[Jay Canuck]

So how's the U.S. war with Nigeria going Lie-Ablility?

Hey I missed you.

Insane liberal rantings can be pretty amusing at times.

mike I'm still waiting for you to pull your balls out your purse and provide a link to any story that backs up your claim on that Sudan offer to Clinton.....it's only been 24 hours though

 

[Liability]

Good grief. Lol......yes when I pointed out there was no relationship that meant they could not use the iraq-alkida justification. I clearly said it was PART of the justification used for the invasion of Iraq but I never said it was the SOLE reason. You got pwned because fear is your Master. That s why you change what other people say because you don't know how to honestly address issues.

You cannot even keep up with your own double-talk.

What you SAID was what I addressed, you retard.

YOUR actual words QUOTED: "If there was no 'direct' or 'operational' relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq."

There is no getting around it. Words have meaning. That moronic sentence you actually posted CLEARLY means that "if and only if there was a claimed direct or operational relationship betwen al qaeda and Saddam was the invasion of Iraq justified."

YOU can spin like a top for all I care, but your words are recorded for the record, verbatim; and you are stuck with what you ACTUALLY wrote, you utterly dishonest lying sack of pus moron.

You are wholly ignoring the fact in that same post I clearly said it was used "in part" as the justification. * * * *

Well then, you idiot, the problem is that you are contradicting yourself in the very same post!

It is not even remotely reasonable to expect anybody to "debate" a moron like you when your PREMISES, themselves, are self-contradictory.

Pick your premise, you ******* moron.

 

[Liability]

So how's the U.S. war with Nigeria going Lie-Ablility?

Hey I missed you.

Insane liberal rantings can be pretty amusing at times.

mike I'm still waiting for you to pull your balls out your purse and provide a link to any story that backs up your claim on that Sudan offer to Clinton.....it's only been 24 hours though

Ask Bubba, you ******* moron.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CIA Releases age enhanced photo of Osama bin Laden

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asp4yrFQOK4[/ame]

 

[Liability]

So how's the U.S. war with Nigeria going Lie-Ablility?

Someday you must share with the rest of us what the **** it is you think you're talking about.

 

[Jay Canuck]

but hows the war with Nigeria going?

 

[CurveLight]

Good grief. Can people truely be this stupid?

You said that according to the 911 commision report there was no link between Hussein and Al Qaida.

What I did was quote directly from the report, which did NOT say that there was no link. It say that there wasn't evidence of a "collorabative operational relationship".

I introduced the truth to the lies or untruths that you were saying.

You are being purposefully obtuse. If there was no operational relationship then there was no justification in trying to use that claim to help justify the invasion. When I said there was no link I was saying there was not a relationship between the two that helped provide legitimate justification. You are clearly going to continue your semantic charade and as already proven, you refuse to admit when you are wrong. What was the latest? Was it you who claimed the US had charges against bin laden before 1996?

What a moron.

Here you are claiming sudan offered bin laden to the US. That's not true. They offered him to Saudi Arabia.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1899787-post600.html


This is you claiming bin laden had already been charged for the 93' wtc bombing by the time Sudan offered him to SA in 1996. Unfortunately, the first time the US indicted bin laden for anything wasn't until 1998.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1899808-post604.html


Those are great examples of you making false claims that you ignore when proven wrong.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Lie-Ability - "I reject the use of a civilian criminal justice system for acts of war because the civilian courts of criminal justice are not there for THAT reason. In fact, it is highly irrational to try to force fit the square peg of dealing with perpetrators of "acts of war" into the round hole reserved for alleged criminal."

"acts of war" isn't very vague at all fuckface......is the U.S at war with Nigeria?

 

[Liability]

Lie-Ability - "I reject the use of a civilian criminal justice system for acts of war because the civilian courts of criminal justice are not there for THAT reason. In fact, it is highly irrational to try to force fit the square peg of dealing with perpetrators of "acts of war" into the round hole reserved for alleged criminal."

"acts of war" isn't very vague at all fuckface......is the U.S at war with Nigeria?

Is it your sub-moron Canuckystain view of the world that we have to be at war with Nigeria to recognize that one of Nigeria's citizens engaged in an act of war against us?

You truly are retarded.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Guys, don't expect cmike or Liability to the tell truth. They are not criminal in the sense of making a moral decision, but rather in the sense that a weasel is evil ~~ it is built into their very shapes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Guys, don't expect Jay or Curve to the tell truth. They are not criminal in the sense of making a moral decision, but rather in the sense that a weasel is evil ~~ it is built into their very shapes

 

[Jay Canuck]

Lie-Ability - "I reject the use of a civilian criminal justice system for acts of war because the civilian courts of criminal justice are not there for THAT reason. In fact, it is highly irrational to try to force fit the square peg of dealing with perpetrators of "acts of war" into the round hole reserved for alleged criminal."

"acts of war" isn't very vague at all fuckface......is the U.S at war with Nigeria?

Is it your sub-moron Canuckystain view of the world that we have to be at war with Nigeria to recognize that one of Nigeria's citizens engaged in an act of war against us?

You truly are retarded.

so is your answer yes the U.S is at war with Nigeria or no but should be?

 

[Liability]

Guys, don't expect cmike or Liability to the tell truth. They are not criminal in the sense of making a moral decision, but rather in the sense that a weasel is evil ~~ it is built into their very shapes.

Said Jokey, one of the most well-established outright liars to ever post at USMB.

In any event, fucktard, I didn't lie at all.

Just because you and that Canuckystain puke and bent tight can't handle a truthful factual contention is not a good reason to label it a "lie," you lying ***** shithead.

 

[CurveLight]

You cannot even keep up with your own double-talk.

What you SAID was what I addressed, you retard.

YOUR actual words QUOTED: "If there was no 'direct' or 'operational' relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq."

There is no getting around it. Words have meaning. That moronic sentence you actually posted CLEARLY means that "if and only if there was a claimed direct or operational relationship betwen al qaeda and Saddam was the invasion of Iraq justified."

YOU can spin like a top for all I care, but your words are recorded for the record, verbatim; and you are stuck with what you ACTUALLY wrote, you utterly dishonest lying sack of pus moron.

You are wholly ignoring the fact in that same post I clearly said it was used "in part" as the justification. * * * *

Well then, you idiot, the problem is that you are contradicting yourself in the very same post!

It is not even remotely reasonable to expect anybody to "debate" a moron like you when your PREMISES, themselves, are self-contradictory.

Pick your premise, you ******* moron.

No it is not a contradiction. Since I already laid the premise it was used in part to justify the invasion it seemed pretty silly to repeat that a couple of sentences later in the same post. Since I had already laid the premise it was used as a partial justification, and it wasn't only in that post or this thread, then it makes sense when I said it couldn't be used as a justification I was speaking about that. I never said it was the only reason given for the invasion. Maybe you aren't aware but the main reason given was wmd. I've also pointed that out in other threads.

 

[Jay Canuck]

I guess you must be at war with Mexico too with all of the crimes that could be regarded as terrorism that have been commited by Mexicans in the U.S too?

 

[Liability]

Lie-Ability - "I reject the use of a civilian criminal justice system for acts of war because the civilian courts of criminal justice are not there for THAT reason. In fact, it is highly irrational to try to force fit the square peg of dealing with perpetrators of "acts of war" into the round hole reserved for alleged criminal."

"acts of war" isn't very vague at all fuckface......is the U.S at war with Nigeria?

Is it your sub-moron Canuckystain view of the world that we have to be at war with Nigeria to recognize that one of Nigeria's citizens engaged in an act of war against us?

You truly are retarded.

so is your answer yes the U.S is at war with Nigeria or no but should be?

Proving once again that you are retarded.

We are not at war with Nigeria and there's no rational reason to argue that we should be at war with Nigeria, either.

Do you practice in front of a mirror to be this stupendously stupid or does it (tragically) come "naturally" to you?

 

[Liability]

I guess you must be at war with Mexico too with all of the crimes that could be regarded as terrorism that have been commited by Mexicans in the U.S too?

Mindlessly repeating your failure of a "point" only makes you look even more incredibly retarded. It wouldn't have seemed possible.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Watching Liability fall all over his own arguments is amusing.

 

[Liability]

Watching Liability fall all over his own arguments is amusing.

And since that has not happened, your contention is established to be just you being a dishonest imbecile -- again.

 

[JakeStarkey]