Michael Moore pathological liar

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gilsch

    Wow. He's fat. He sucks.



    This site comes to mind...http://www.moorewatch.com/
  • Reply 22 of 72
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    Indeed it is. All this hatred would be far better reserved for Anne Coulter who is far more dangerous and far more venomous.





    Very right. I'm surprised Scott hasn't been banned yet. Scott do you ever watch O'Reilly? At least MM doesn't have a "news" show. O'Reilly looks like the 700 Club to me usually. Anne Coulter..Don't even get me started. She is so stupid people should stop responding to her. It's like that girl in political science class. Yeah that girl.
  • Reply 23 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Why would I be banned? I select what i want to post other select what they want to post. No I don't watch O'Reilly or much of any TeeVee these days. I don't have one during the week.



    BTW Moore's weight has nothing to do with this. If he were built like Arnold he's still be a big fat liar.
  • Reply 24 of 72
    I'm with Groverat on this one.



    And if we tolerate half of what we tolerate in this forum, Scott shouldn't be banned. We have belligerent asshole nutcases (no names given) on both sides of the debate, so censorship if applied should be even-handed, not to one's political/social bias.
  • Reply 25 of 72
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Scott

    Why would I be banned? I select what i want to post other select what they want to post.

    As far as I am concerned..Scott sounds like middle america ..tolerant...but a firebrand when you step on his toes...

    He just sees it his way..that's his right...



    banning is dumb anyway..
  • Reply 26 of 72
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Why is the B word being thrown about? I don't think Scott(or anyone else from what I've seen since becoming a semi-regular on here) merits being banned. Unless I missed something?
  • Reply 27 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    "It's to the point of being a mental illness."



    OBL wasn't "on the payroll" as such (he was already a billionaire and didn't need money from the US) but he was trained by the CIA and his faction was supplied with weapons from the US, free of cost, to fight the Soviets.




    Please prove that OBL and his groups specifically got training and/or supplies from the CIA.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Over all, the US admits to having spent 6 billion dollars fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, with most of that expenditure going toward support of Bin Laden as well as the Taliban.



    Cite a source that has it that OBL got money or supplies from the US.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Saddam Hussein was provided with Weapons and expertise from the US as well, free of charge, in order to fight Iran (little did Saddam know at the time that the US was concurrently selling weapons to Iran).



    What weapons?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    But the phrase "on the payroll", although not literally accurate, is a fair description of the fact that we spent billions of dollars supporting both of these people and their causes.



    No it's not. It's unfair and a lie that cannot be back up with good information.
  • Reply 28 of 72
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1551100.stm):



    Quote:

    The Afghan jihad against the Soviet army was backed with American dollars and had the blessing of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.



    After the Soviet withdrawal, the "Arab Afghans", as Bin Laden's faction came to be called, looked forward to a warm welcome at home.



    But Bin Laden quickly became disillusioned by the lack of recognition for his achievements.



    From http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/binladen2.html:



    Quote:

    Wasn?t bin Laden on America?s side in Afghanistan in the 1980s?

    Yes and no. The United States and bin Laden supported the Afghan resistance, but for different reasons. Containing communism was the U.S. government?s top priority. It gave support to the mujahedeen through the Pakistani intelligence service, which decided how to apportion aid among resistance groups. Bin Laden wanted to expel the atheist Soviets and install a fundamentalist Islamic regime.



    Maybe we didn't agree with him, but we still supported him.



    As far as US relations with Iraq:







    That's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.



    Also, look here:



    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
  • Reply 29 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    You're kidding, right? You're the first person I've ever seen who denies outright that the US supplied weapons to Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.





    Just prove it. You'll learn something.





    Every time I ask someone for direct proof that the US supported bin laden they can't come up with. Saddam is a bit easier but knowing what exaclty the US did for him is worth knowing when faced with so many lies.



    Don't repeat the same lies that other told you.
  • Reply 30 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member


    Sorry not good enough. "The Afghan jihad against the Soviet army was backed with American dollars" does not mean that the US supported bin Laden. Please provide real proof that bin Laden's so called "Arab Afghans" got money from the US. Please provide real proof that bin Laden took money and/or supplies from the US. Please provide proof that OBL was on the US "payroll".



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Luca Rescigno

    Maybe we didn't agree with him, but we still supported him.



    As far as US relations with Iraq:







    That's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.



    Also, look here:



    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm




    Yea everyone's seen that. Doesn't put him "on the pay roll" or mean we "installed" him into power.



    Here's a good one of Chiraq with Saddam
  • Reply 31 of 72
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I knew it. I looked for quite a while to find some sources that you might find acceptable, but I know now that no matter how wonderful, insightful, and credible my sources are, you will never accept them. You are set in your ways, Scott, closing yourself off from the world of reality much like a child covers his ears and sings when he is told it's bed time.
  • Reply 32 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    You haven't proven anything. That's whole point. There were a lot of groups in Afghanistan fighting the soviets. The US supplied money and weapons to them. That does not mean that OBL was one of them. You have no real proof at all. All you know is that OBL was in that area at that time and the US supplied money/weapons to people fighting in that area at that time. But you have provided no direct link from the US to bin laden at that time.



    Please provide that information.
  • Reply 33 of 72
    Denying the US helped OBL and Hussein is having your head in the sand. But in the end, why is it relevant at this point aside from getting bragging rights? Here we are for better or worse, so now what?



    Every thread devolves into the same canned responses, the same Google pics, the same players arriving at the same impasse. AO is the internet's No Man's Land. Such a waste.
  • Reply 34 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    The US helped Iraq. That's know. The US does not deny it. Doesn't mean he was on the "payroll".



    Please provide real proof, real real proof that the US at any time helped OBL. Real proof people. If it's so well known it should be easy for you to prove. So do it. Right now. Should be easy if it's so well know. Go now. Find that information that links OBL to the US. Do it.



    Proof



    Proof



    Real Proof
  • Reply 35 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    The US helped Iraq. That's know. The US does not deny it.



    I think we might be splitting hairs over semantics. What you say here is what I meant with my admittedly snide comment. I can't speak for anyone else. We helped Iraq/Hussein's government vs. Iran. We helped Afghanistan/bin Laden's mujahadeen vs. the Soviets. Mistakes? Sure. We still support a lot of other distasteful governments and probably some of these rebel movements in S. America and elsewhere, and could very well get burned by that. So those seem relevant at this time, not Rummy shaking Hussy's hand in 1980-something. It's just rhetoric at this point.
  • Reply 36 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    ...

    We helped Afghanistan/bin Laden's mujahadeen vs. the Soviets. Mistakes? Sure. ....






    Just prove the "Afghanistan/bin Laden's mujahadeen" part. You can't just add that "/" in as if "mujahadeen" == bin Laden. Bin Laden and his group were in Afghanistan at that time. Along with others. The US helped people there to fight the soviets. Please provide proof that the people the US help was bin Laden and/or his group.



    This is simple right? Everyone "knows" this. Please prove what we all "know".
  • Reply 37 of 72
    just to clarify, what would you consider "proof" Scott?



    (please be specific. that way people can decide if it's worth the effort to look or not)
  • Reply 38 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Maybe someone involved on either end that says that bin Laden got the money/stuff from the US. Maybe some paperwork from the US that shows the direct link. There's a few (maybe just one) ex CIA that have talked about it.



    I think if you look into these thing you'll find that it's just untrue.
  • Reply 39 of 72
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    No I don't. OBL was part of the oxymoronic "Afghan Arabs". One of the groups fighting in that area at the time. If you're going to make such an inflammatory statement that the US helped, funded, supplied OBL then you need to back it up with something more tangible then that. Your information is hardly even circumstantial.





    There is good information out there. You people are just too lazy to question your dogma about the US and 9-11.



    Somebody please show a little intelligence and do a little leg work to prove the US support OBL and/or his "afghan arabs" back then. Otherwise stop mindlessly repeating this lie.
  • Reply 40 of 72
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    There were a lot of groups in Afghanistan fighting the soviets. The US supplied money and weapons to them. That does not mean that OBL was one of them. You have no real proof at all. All you know is that OBL was in that area at that time and the US supplied money/weapons to people fighting in that area at that time. But you have provided no direct link from the US to bin laden at that time.





    Maybe it would help if you could give an example of the kind of proof you're looking for. Could you show me a link that proves any particular Afghan (a name please) actually received support from the US back then. It would seem that you are demanding a signed, notarized acknowledgement by OBL himself that he received US support.



    Would it be acceptable to you to state that Bin Laden is one of a group of so-called Afghan Arabs, some of which fought against the Soviet Union, with U.S. support? It's still a damning indictment against our foreign policy if you ask me.
Sign In or Register to comment.