That the statement "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN" was "proof" that saddam was a threat when it clearly wasn't.
That the statement "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN" was "proof" that saddam was a threat when it clearly wasn't.
Here, let me save you the trouble:
I personally think it was a good move to oust SH.
But that is my personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me. I may be wrong.
Like I also said before, I am railing against blind partisan misrepresentations and not "liberals" or "democrats" or whatever. I can't stand preaching opinion as absolute truth, like I also stated before.
Like I also said before, I am railing against blind partisan misrepresentations and not "liberals" or "democrats" or whatever. I can't stand preaching opinion as absolute truth, like I also stated before.
Don't give us this crap when it was just demonstrated that you not only do exactly this, but you lie about it when caught.
Hey, you are the one who started with this whole "I didn't say proof" crap.
Are you serious? I started it? Where?
I just said my comments throughout this thread have been consistent. Showing where I replaced the word "evidence" with the word "proof" does not change the context of all of my comments in this thread.
How many different conversations wound their way through this one thread?
I just said my comments throughout this thread have been consistent. Showing where I replaced the word "evidence" with the word "proof" does not change the context of all of my comments in this thread.
How many different conversations wound their way through this one thread?
That makes me a liar and a hypocrite?
If you say so.
Man, you are really out there.
BTW: I'll be adding info on your butt buddy Monsoor Ijaz to that other thread.
We all know how distant you are from the facts. Hell, you'll lie about your posts that are on the very same page.
But, yeah, go ahead and wildly pin labels on other people in an effort to divert attention from your continued reliance on falsehood.
IMO sir you are a pontificating lemming. But as in a previous thread, I set out the guidelines for debate between the two of us. We don't see eye to eye, obviously. You think you know everything and I asked you to provide a list of materials to get me up to speed with your superior knowledge. But you know what my challenge to you was. It still stands. If i am a liar I should be easy to debate and debunk.
Please don't include me in your conversations until you plan on stepping up to the challenge.
IMO sir you are a pontificating lemming. But as in a previous thread, I set out the guidelines for debate between the two of us. We don't see eye to eye, obviously. You think you know everything and I asked you to provide a list of materials to get me up to speed with your superior knowledge. But you know what my challenge to you was. It still stands. If i am a liar I should be easy to debate and debunk.
Please don't include me in your conversations until you plan on stepping up to the challenge.
Nice try, but it doesn't change the fact that you a) can't even be at all honest about your own posts, b) believe things that are factually incorrect and c) can't accept responsibility for either act.
well well well...what a pathetic link! They don't even provide details as to who provided what...and you know why? Because the details (see the list I quoted) is too embarrassing. As I said, most of the "support" is verbal, against the wishes of the peoples of those nations, and probably coerced....namely "you will say what we want you to say or else".
well well well...what a pathetic link! They don't even provide details as to who provided what...and you know why? Because the details (see the list I quoted) is too embarrassing. As I said, most of the "support" is verbal, against the wishes of the peoples of those nations, and probably coerced....namely "you will say what we want you to say or else".
I was simply pointing out what a credible link might be.
When you saw palestinians dancing in the streets along with other large groups of fundamentalists cheering the deaths of innocent people, you meen to tell me, you did not see who the enemy possibly was?
Enlighten us all. Do you 'meen' to tell me that you can see on the TV who the enemy really is? It's 'reely' that black and white to you? You're that 'cleer' about such a difficult and complex choice?
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have stated repeatedly that there is evidence, I referred to it as evidence over and over in this thread. I made that clear.
So,.. Um .... Yes.
So that wasn't enough for you? How about this from your own post?
Originally posted by NaplesX
NaplesX - 12-28-2003 12:51 AM - after research finds quotes are from Cincinnati speech - rebuts each with proof supporting Bush from Kay report
So basically you are just completely FOS. Glad we got that cleared up.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What conclusion have i arrived at?
That the statement "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN" was "proof" that saddam was a threat when it clearly wasn't.
Originally posted by giant
So that wasn't enough for you? How about this from your own post?
So basically you are just completely FOS. Glad we got that cleared up.
Ok, so you want to move on to semantics?
I guess the context of this whole thread means nothing. Great research.
Congratulations!
Originally posted by giant
That the statement "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN" was "proof" that saddam was a threat when it clearly wasn't.
Here, let me save you the trouble:
I personally think it was a good move to oust SH.
But that is my personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me. I may be wrong.
Like I also said before, I am railing against blind partisan misrepresentations and not "liberals" or "democrats" or whatever. I can't stand preaching opinion as absolute truth, like I also stated before.
But you know that.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok, so you want to move on to semantics?
Hey, you are the one who started with this whole "I didn't say proof" crap.
I guess the context of this whole thread means nothing.
Yeah, go crying because you were demonstrated to be both a hypocrite and a liar.
I guess it would be too much to expect you to be a man about it for once.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Like I also said before, I am railing against blind partisan misrepresentations and not "liberals" or "democrats" or whatever. I can't stand preaching opinion as absolute truth, like I also stated before.
Don't give us this crap when it was just demonstrated that you not only do exactly this, but you lie about it when caught.
Originally posted by giant
Don't give us this crap when it was just demonstrated that you not only do exactly this, but you lie about it when caught.
Oh so now i am a liar. You are amazing.
I was expecting the personal attacks to start, but this is even beyond what I expected from even you.
Originally posted by giant
Hey, you are the one who started with this whole "I didn't say proof" crap.
Are you serious? I started it? Where?
I just said my comments throughout this thread have been consistent. Showing where I replaced the word "evidence" with the word "proof" does not change the context of all of my comments in this thread.
How many different conversations wound their way through this one thread?
That makes me a liar and a hypocrite?
If you say so.
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, go crying because you were demonstrated to be both a hypocrite and a liar.
I guess it would be too much to expect you to be a man about it for once.
That was expected.
"Question his manhood, that will gat to him..."
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you serious? I started it? Where?
I just said my comments throughout this thread have been consistent. Showing where I replaced the word "evidence" with the word "proof" does not change the context of all of my comments in this thread.
How many different conversations wound their way through this one thread?
That makes me a liar and a hypocrite?
If you say so.
Man, you are really out there.
BTW: I'll be adding info on your butt buddy Monsoor Ijaz to that other thread.
Originally posted by giant
Man, you are really out there.
BTW: I'll be adding info on your butt buddy Monsoor Ijaz to that other thread.
If you mean by out there, distant to your liberal, left wing way of reasoning, thank you.
Cool, I will look at the other thread to read what you have.
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you mean by out there, distant to your liberal, left wing way of reasoning, thank you.
We all know how distant you are from the facts. Hell, you'll lie about your posts that are on the very same page.
But, yeah, go ahead and wildly pin labels on other people in an effort to divert attention from your continued reliance on falsehood.
Originally posted by giant
We all know how distant you are from the facts. Hell, you'll lie about your posts that are on the very same page.
But, yeah, go ahead and wildly pin labels on other people in an effort to divert attention from your continued reliance on falsehood.
IMO sir you are a pontificating lemming. But as in a previous thread, I set out the guidelines for debate between the two of us. We don't see eye to eye, obviously. You think you know everything and I asked you to provide a list of materials to get me up to speed with your superior knowledge. But you know what my challenge to you was. It still stands. If i am a liar I should be easy to debate and debunk.
Please don't include me in your conversations until you plan on stepping up to the challenge.
Originally posted by NaplesX
IMO sir you are a pontificating lemming. But as in a previous thread, I set out the guidelines for debate between the two of us. We don't see eye to eye, obviously. You think you know everything and I asked you to provide a list of materials to get me up to speed with your superior knowledge. But you know what my challenge to you was. It still stands. If i am a liar I should be easy to debate and debunk.
Please don't include me in your conversations until you plan on stepping up to the challenge.
Nice try, but it doesn't change the fact that you a) can't even be at all honest about your own posts, b) believe things that are factually incorrect and c) can't accept responsibility for either act.
try something like this
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030321-4.html [/B]
well well well...what a pathetic link! They don't even provide details as to who provided what...and you know why? Because the details (see the list I quoted) is too embarrassing. As I said, most of the "support" is verbal, against the wishes of the peoples of those nations, and probably coerced....namely "you will say what we want you to say or else".
Originally posted by NaplesX
Prove just that statement, If you can.
...
Answer me this, why was that government that you defend keeping these components?
Prove to us that the Iraqi government was keeping these components.
Originally posted by sammi jo
well well well...what a pathetic link! They don't even provide details as to who provided what...and you know why? Because the details (see the list I quoted) is too embarrassing. As I said, most of the "support" is verbal, against the wishes of the peoples of those nations, and probably coerced....namely "you will say what we want you to say or else".
I was simply pointing out what a credible link might be.
Originally posted by NaplesX
When you saw palestinians dancing in the streets along with other large groups of fundamentalists cheering the deaths of innocent people, you meen to tell me, you did not see who the enemy possibly was?
Enlighten us all. Do you 'meen' to tell me that you can see on the TV who the enemy really is? It's 'reely' that black and white to you? You're that 'cleer' about such a difficult and complex choice?
Originally posted by bunge
Prove to us that the Iraqi government was keeping these components.
Who is US?
Please, now you all are just being silly. The kay report itself has that proof you ask for. Or should I say evidence?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Who is US?
Those of US reading this thread. Those of US who you are trying to convince.