2. That's your opinion. Is one chemical attack not enough?
3. Who is the "rest of the world"? France? Germany? And really...what are you implying...that we should take a poll of what other world leaders think before taking action? Maybe we should give them veto powers! Oh...wait...we have that. It's called the UN...and it's a splineless, corrupt, ineffective and anti-semetic joke of an organization.
Sigh!
1. Prove it. Because right now the facts say otherwise.
2. No SDW, it's not just my opinion. This war got off the ground because of the supposed threat from Saddam and his ability to threaten us. That's enmass ( here in america because that was the implication ) not just one attack.
3. Nationalistic thinking like that only worked well before the invention of the airplane and the world economy. If you want to live in a world where you don't have to consider what other countries think I suggest you invent a time machine.
If you want to live in a world where you don't have to consider what other countries think I suggest you invent a time machine.
Wait! My proposition that many conservatives want to get back to the good old days of the 18th century is all out of whack now! Lord! To get back to a time before sovereign nation had to worry about what other nations thought, we'd have to go back to, hell. The beginning of time?
You show your true willingness to believe that crumbs mean cake . . . but really they are feeding cracker bits:
1-- 'ties' are technically true in that there was a meeting between the two . . . we knew even then that nothing came of it.
By saying that there were ties you are admitting that taking the above mentioned meeting as satisfactory, and that that is all that you demand of your leaders: stretch minor half truths that are truly inconsequential into giant balloons worth waging war against a soveriegn country . . . that is sad
2-- A coupla old mortar shells etc, any other supposed and viable 'chemicals and warheads' are the fictions of ultra-right websites . . . same as #1 -- why can't you see how flimsy it all is?!?!
3-- Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not? If you think the UN is irrelevant then why go to war for breaking a UN agreement?
Firing on our aircrafts? . . .haha . . which would result in absolutely no damage, not even remotely . .. except when the American planes would proceed to obliterate the offending guns and gunners . . . and this was nothing new . . it had been going on for years and years hurting nobody but Iraq and Iraqi soldiers.
"Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change." --are you serious? That's more absurd than green eggs and ham!!!
1. Ties are ties. Iraw had other terror ties as well. When is it enough for you? And really...enough with the tear-jerking "soveriegn country" line. Nearly all countries are soveriegn. Nazi Germany was soveriegn, too.
2. Hello? An IED with mustard gas? Saran nerve agent? Yes..it's the right wing conspiracy again!
3. The UN is only irellevant because it has MADE itself so. And let us not forget, UN resolutions were not the only reason for war.
4. So as long they didn't hit anything, it's no problem? I guess the assasination attempt of a former President doesn't count either then. Let me ask...if North Korea launched a missle at the West Coast but MISSED...would this not constitute a problem?
5. Open hostility combined with all previous actions, and in the post 9/11 era is a serious problem. Iraq is the only nation on record who openly praised the attacks. Even Castro offered assistance in the form of medical teams. Please.
Wait! My proposition that many conservatives want to get back to the good old days of the 18th century is all out of whack now! Lord! To get back to a time before sovereign nation had to worry about what other nations thought, we'd have to go back to, hell. The beginning of time?
Naw! Just back to when we were running around naked in the tall grass waiting for lightning to strike so we could have a fire.
1. Prove it. Because right now the facts say otherwise.
2. No SDW, it's not just my opinion. This war got off the ground because of the supposed threat from Saddam and his ability to threaten us. That's enmass ( here in america because that was the implication ) not just one attack.
3. Nationalistic thinking like that only worked well before the invention of the airplane and the world economy. If you want to live in a world where you don't have to consider what other countries think I suggest you invent a time machine.
1. The 9/11 commission itself disagrees with you. Fortunately, you have the criminal NYT on your side. Well, sort of.
2. OK...so one attack is not enough? Saddam buying long range missles from NK is not enough? Saddam linking with a terrorist group and providing them a chemical or biological weapon is not enough?
3. The United States assumes nearly all the risk and financial burden in conflicts like this. The United States was the nation attacked on 9/11. The United States has a right to take action as it sees fit. Your intellectual dishonesty continues as well, because we're actually not in this alone in any sense of the word. In any case, I could frankly care less what a nation like France has to say about our invasion. France had many ties to Saddam and had a clear financial interest in stopping the invasion. Let me ask you: Why SHOULD the United States base its decisions on the opinions of other nations? Oh, don't get me wrong...we should consult them and include them in discussions. But basing our decisions on their opinions? No.
So. Who had historically more frequent, better documented, and arguable muchn stronger ties?
A: Saddam Hussein and the US.
B: Osama Bin Laden and the US.
C: Iraq and Al Qaeda?
[music] One of these things is not like the other, One of these things doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the other, Before I finish this song? [/music]
The problem with your logic is that the US has ties and connections with just about every entity and organization on a multitude of different levels. Thus is the fate of a superpower. I would propose that a lot of those ties are as a result of intelligence gathering, diplomacy and commercial dealings.
As such, I do not get your point. UBL and SH had ties as a result of their mutual hate for the US. US had ties with SH to fight communism. UBL I am not sure but I would guess it is oil/commerce.
2. OK...so one attack is not enough? Saddam buying long range missles from NK is not enough? Saddam linking with a terrorist group and providing them a chemical or biological weapon is not enough?
3. The United States assumes nearly all the risk and financial burden in conflicts like this. The United States was the nation attacked on 9/11. The United States has a right to take action as it sees fit. Your intellectual dishonesty continues as well, because we're actually not in this alone in any sense of the word. In any case, I could frankly care less what a nation like France has to say about our invasion. France had many ties to Saddam and had a clear financial interest in stopping the invasion. Let me ask you: Why SHOULD the United States base its decisions on the opinions of other nations? Oh, don't get me wrong...we should consult them and include them in discussions. But basing our decisions on their opinions? No.
It really seems like you are getting desperate to play with words like this.......
2. No it's not enough. Where was this giant arsenal that could threaten us when we got there? It would have to be an arsenal that could threaten us more than any other country that has a few missles and so on to make this viable.
3. It's seems like you are getting confused again. You mention the 911 attack in a paragraph about Iraq.
You really have to stop thinking like you're in the 18th century. We really do have to consider other opinions in this matter or we'll become isolated. A country isolated will wither and die in this world economy. Even the chinese know this.
The problem with your logic is that the US has ties and connections with just about every entity and organization on a multitude of different levels. Thus is the fate of a superpower. I would propose that a lot of those ties are as a result of intelligence gathering, diplomacy and commercial dealings.
As such, I do not get your point. UBL and SH had ties as a result of their mutual hate for the US. US had ties with SH to fight communism. UBL I am not sure but I would guess it is oil/commerce.
So what.
The point is Saddam was our good friend back in the late 70's. I'll bet he was doing the same terrible things to his people back then as that's pretty common in middle eastern countries.
The problem with your logic is that the US has ties and connections with just about every entity and organization on a multitude of different levels. Thus is the fate of a superpower. I would propose that a lot of those ties are as a result of intelligence gathering, diplomacy and commercial dealings.
As such, I do not get your point. UBL and SH had ties as a result of their mutual hate for the US. US had ties with SH to fight communism. UBL I am not sure but I would guess it is oil/commerce.
So what.
No
The Logic is simple: the 'ties' in question are as flimsy as the ties that relate the US to Iraq . . . in fact, they are flimsier as our 'ties' involved Huge amounts of money and armorments while Saddam was KILLING his own people and was fighting a horrendous war of Attrition against Iran: which killed hundreds of thousands.
(note: that war was not one against communism)
and another note : that war was against Iran: Iran, a country which our administration then dealt arms to in illegal and immoral and secret arms-for-cash deals . . . remember that . . .no 'I can't recall'
Plus note: Iran, a country that turned to Fundamentalism in order to overthrow a completely corrupt and abusive and thouroughly decadent regime (the Shah's regime) that came into power through the aid of the CIA
The fact that the administration is puppetting these flimsiest of ties on stage in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence with 911 is the most bald-faced sort of disinformation* possible: admit it!! it is sickeningly obvious and yet the arse-liskers here refuse to acknowledge . . .
SDW used the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty' . . . he likes to pose with such nice sounding phrases, however, the thought of actually applying such 'principled' ideas never seems to enter his skull . . . nor apparently yours
*'disinformation' = part truth but formally and in content mostly misleading, utilizing the half-truth as a means to mislead
The Logic is simple: the 'ties' in question are as flimsy as the ties that relate the US to Iraq . . . in fact, they are flimsier as our 'ties' involved Huge amounts of money and armorments while Saddam was KILLING his own people and was fighting a horrendous war of Attrition against Iran: which killed hundreds of thousands.
(note: that war was not one against communism)
and another note : that war was against Iran: Iran, a country which our administration then dealt arms to in illegal and immoral and secret arms-for-cash deals . . . remember that . . .no 'I can't recall'
Plus note: Iran, a country that turned to Fundamentalism in order to overthrow a completely corrupt and abusive and thouroughly decadent regime (the Shah's regime) that came into power through the aid of the CIA
The fact that the administration is puppetting these flimsiest of ties on stage in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence with 911 is the most bald-faced sort of disinformation* possible: admit it!! it is sickeningly obvious and yet the arse-liskers here refuse to acknowledge . . .
SDW used the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty' . . . he likes to pose with such nice sounding phrases, however, the thought of actually applying such 'principled' ideas never seems to enter his skull . . . nor apparently yours
*'disinformation' = part truth but formally and in content mostly misleading, utilizing the half-truth as a means to mislead
Saying that ties between AQ and SH are flimsier than ties between US and AQ or SH is just plain simple minded. Although it is true, I'll give you that, there are factors that you are just plain ignoring. You cannot simply compare them, as if all thing are equal.
The ties between the US and other entities are usually mundane and done in the open. Intel links are there for other obvious reasons.
However, the links between AQ, SH and other nefarious entities are secret, back room ties, made only to destroy. These people have a bloodlust that ties them together.
let's at least be honest when we start comparing everything to everything else.
Saying that ties between AQ and SH are flimsier than ties between US and AQ or SH is just plain simple minded. Although it is true, I'll give you that, there are factors that you are just plain ignoring. You cannot simply compare them, as if all thing are equal.
The ties between the US and other entities are usually mundane and done in the open. Intel links are there for other obvious reasons.
However, the links between AQ, SH and other nefarious entities are secret, back room ties, made only to destroy. These people have a bloodlust that ties them together.
let's at least be honest when we start comparing everything to everything else.
If they're so secret how do you know what goes on or even if they exist?
However, the links between AQ, SH and other nefarious entities are secret, back room ties, made only to destroy. These people have a bloodlust that ties them together.
Saying that ties between AQ and SH are flimsier than ties between US and AQ or SH is just plain simple minded. Although it is true, I'll give you that, there are factors that you are just plain ignoring. You cannot simply compare them, as if all thing are equal.
The ties between the US and other entities are usually mundane and done in the open. Intel links are there for other obvious reasons.
However, the links between AQ, SH and other nefarious entities are secret, back room ties, made only to destroy. These people have a bloodlust that ties them together.
let's at least be honest when we start comparing everything to everything else.
Is it simple minded to demand that the use of a term not be blown out of proportion for propaganda.
Hypothetical: would you say that an interlocutor is simple minded if you need to repeatedly say things in simpler and simpler sentences in order for that person to grasp what you are saying?
Let me try again:
Ties exist between all sorts of entities
They exist in all sorts of fashions
If the smallest form of tie that exists is used in sentences that confuse the small-form-of-ties with Big-Bad-ties then we can no longer be sure that the small-form-of-ties are not, in fact, the Big-bad-ties.
If someone deliberately, and repeatedly used the small-form-of-ties in the way mentioned above then it could be said that the person in question is trying to get you to believe that the small-form-of-ties are really the Big-bad-ties.
If someone tries to get you to believe that then in effect they are trying to get you to believe in something that is NOT TRUE
If they are trying to get you to believe in something that is not true, then they are LYING!
so, it follows that though the 'ties' are technically true, the manner in which they have been used constitutes a lie.
Now, the nefariousness or non-nefariousness of our ties?
First, I mentioned our ties to Iraq because they existed and involved real weapons and money to buy real WMD . . . whereas the ties to AQ with Iraw involved ONLY failed meetings between minor government functionaries and/or northern isolated groups not-in any relationship to SH
Now, is an illegal and immoral arms-for-cash deal not nefarious?
Is an arms deal to a known murderous dictator who was waging an utterly horrendous and useless war against an army that needed to use waves upon waves of young boys against its US funded weapons somehow Not-nefarious?
Is our secretly/covertly but also not so secretly funding fundamentalists biggots and murderous 'freedom fighters' who would, becuse of the extremist-religious attitudes that we helped foster, eventually turn on their secular sponsors, somehow not nefarious?
and is the the which we knew well of that was merely a meeting twixt a government functionary and an AQ member that came to a failure to agree with goals really a tie worth going to war over?
or is a non-existent czech meeting twixt terrorists and Iraqi guards neffarious ? (the latter is only nefarious when in its nonexistence it is still used to justify a war)
So. Who had historically more frequent, better documented, and arguable muchn stronger ties?
A: Saddam Hussein and the US.
B: Osama Bin Laden and the US.
C: Iraq and Al Qaeda?
[music] One of these things is not like the other, One of these things doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the other, Before I finish this song? [/music]
Wait...you're comparing the US to Iraq and/or Al-Qaeda?
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Lie.
2. That's your opinion. Is one chemical attack not enough?
3. Who is the "rest of the world"? France? Germany? And really...what are you implying...that we should take a poll of what other world leaders think before taking action? Maybe we should give them veto powers! Oh...wait...we have that. It's called the UN...and it's a splineless, corrupt, ineffective and anti-semetic joke of an organization.
Sigh!
1. Prove it. Because right now the facts say otherwise.
2. No SDW, it's not just my opinion. This war got off the ground because of the supposed threat from Saddam and his ability to threaten us. That's enmass ( here in america because that was the implication ) not just one attack.
3. Nationalistic thinking like that only worked well before the invention of the airplane and the world economy. If you want to live in a world where you don't have to consider what other countries think I suggest you invent a time machine.
Originally posted by jimmac
If you want to live in a world where you don't have to consider what other countries think I suggest you invent a time machine.
Wait! My proposition that many conservatives want to get back to the good old days of the 18th century is all out of whack now! Lord! To get back to a time before sovereign nation had to worry about what other nations thought, we'd have to go back to, hell. The beginning of time?
Originally posted by pfflam
You show your true willingness to believe that crumbs mean cake . . . but really they are feeding cracker bits:
1-- 'ties' are technically true in that there was a meeting between the two . . . we knew even then that nothing came of it.
By saying that there were ties you are admitting that taking the above mentioned meeting as satisfactory, and that that is all that you demand of your leaders: stretch minor half truths that are truly inconsequential into giant balloons worth waging war against a soveriegn country . . . that is sad
2-- A coupla old mortar shells etc, any other supposed and viable 'chemicals and warheads' are the fictions of ultra-right websites . . . same as #1 -- why can't you see how flimsy it all is?!?!
3-- Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not? If you think the UN is irrelevant then why go to war for breaking a UN agreement?
Firing on our aircrafts? . . .haha . . which would result in absolutely no damage, not even remotely . .. except when the American planes would proceed to obliterate the offending guns and gunners . . . and this was nothing new . . it had been going on for years and years hurting nobody but Iraq and Iraqi soldiers.
"Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change." --are you serious? That's more absurd than green eggs and ham!!!
1. Ties are ties. Iraw had other terror ties as well. When is it enough for you? And really...enough with the tear-jerking "soveriegn country" line. Nearly all countries are soveriegn. Nazi Germany was soveriegn, too.
2. Hello? An IED with mustard gas? Saran nerve agent? Yes..it's the right wing conspiracy again!
3. The UN is only irellevant because it has MADE itself so. And let us not forget, UN resolutions were not the only reason for war.
4. So as long they didn't hit anything, it's no problem? I guess the assasination attempt of a former President doesn't count either then. Let me ask...if North Korea launched a missle at the West Coast but MISSED...would this not constitute a problem?
5. Open hostility combined with all previous actions, and in the post 9/11 era is a serious problem. Iraq is the only nation on record who openly praised the attacks. Even Castro offered assistance in the form of medical teams. Please.
Originally posted by midwinter
Wait! My proposition that many conservatives want to get back to the good old days of the 18th century is all out of whack now! Lord! To get back to a time before sovereign nation had to worry about what other nations thought, we'd have to go back to, hell. The beginning of time?
Naw! Just back to when we were running around naked in the tall grass waiting for lightning to strike so we could have a fire.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Iraq is the only nation on record who openly praised the attacks. Even Castro offered assistance in the form of medical teams. Please.
Actually Iraq offered to send help as well. Saddam offered to send search and rescue teams to help us dig people out of the World Trade Center.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nazi Germany was soveriegn, too.
Nazi Germany had spread throughout Poland and Austria, two other sovereign nations.
Originally posted by bunge
Actually Iraq offered to send help as well. Saddam offered to send search and rescue teams to help us dig people out of the World Trade Center.
That's the first I've heard of that. Can you provide some backing for it?
Originally posted by jimmac
Sigh!
1. Prove it. Because right now the facts say otherwise.
2. No SDW, it's not just my opinion. This war got off the ground because of the supposed threat from Saddam and his ability to threaten us. That's enmass ( here in america because that was the implication ) not just one attack.
3. Nationalistic thinking like that only worked well before the invention of the airplane and the world economy. If you want to live in a world where you don't have to consider what other countries think I suggest you invent a time machine.
1. The 9/11 commission itself disagrees with you. Fortunately, you have the criminal NYT on your side. Well, sort of.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html
2. OK...so one attack is not enough? Saddam buying long range missles from NK is not enough? Saddam linking with a terrorist group and providing them a chemical or biological weapon is not enough?
3. The United States assumes nearly all the risk and financial burden in conflicts like this. The United States was the nation attacked on 9/11. The United States has a right to take action as it sees fit. Your intellectual dishonesty continues as well, because we're actually not in this alone in any sense of the word. In any case, I could frankly care less what a nation like France has to say about our invasion. France had many ties to Saddam and had a clear financial interest in stopping the invasion. Let me ask you: Why SHOULD the United States base its decisions on the opinions of other nations? Oh, don't get me wrong...we should consult them and include them in discussions. But basing our decisions on their opinions? No.
Where is all the talk of sovereignty now, jimmac?
Originally posted by tonton
So. Who had historically more frequent, better documented, and arguable muchn stronger ties?
A: Saddam Hussein and the US.
B: Osama Bin Laden and the US.
C: Iraq and Al Qaeda?
[music] One of these things is not like the other, One of these things doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the other, Before I finish this song? [/music]
The problem with your logic is that the US has ties and connections with just about every entity and organization on a multitude of different levels. Thus is the fate of a superpower. I would propose that a lot of those ties are as a result of intelligence gathering, diplomacy and commercial dealings.
As such, I do not get your point. UBL and SH had ties as a result of their mutual hate for the US. US had ties with SH to fight communism. UBL I am not sure but I would guess it is oil/commerce.
So what.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. The 9/11 commission itself disagrees with you. Fortunately, you have the criminal NYT on your side. Well, sort of.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html
2. OK...so one attack is not enough? Saddam buying long range missles from NK is not enough? Saddam linking with a terrorist group and providing them a chemical or biological weapon is not enough?
3. The United States assumes nearly all the risk and financial burden in conflicts like this. The United States was the nation attacked on 9/11. The United States has a right to take action as it sees fit. Your intellectual dishonesty continues as well, because we're actually not in this alone in any sense of the word. In any case, I could frankly care less what a nation like France has to say about our invasion. France had many ties to Saddam and had a clear financial interest in stopping the invasion. Let me ask you: Why SHOULD the United States base its decisions on the opinions of other nations? Oh, don't get me wrong...we should consult them and include them in discussions. But basing our decisions on their opinions? No.
Where is all the talk of sovereignty now, jimmac?
1. Uh, SDW read the title of this artcle :
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932
It's the only kind of link that would matter.
It really seems like you are getting desperate to play with words like this.......
2. No it's not enough. Where was this giant arsenal that could threaten us when we got there? It would have to be an arsenal that could threaten us more than any other country that has a few missles and so on to make this viable.
3. It's seems like you are getting confused again. You mention the 911 attack in a paragraph about Iraq.
You really have to stop thinking like you're in the 18th century. We really do have to consider other opinions in this matter or we'll become isolated. A country isolated will wither and die in this world economy. Even the chinese know this.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The problem with your logic is that the US has ties and connections with just about every entity and organization on a multitude of different levels. Thus is the fate of a superpower. I would propose that a lot of those ties are as a result of intelligence gathering, diplomacy and commercial dealings.
As such, I do not get your point. UBL and SH had ties as a result of their mutual hate for the US. US had ties with SH to fight communism. UBL I am not sure but I would guess it is oil/commerce.
So what.
The point is Saddam was our good friend back in the late 70's. I'll bet he was doing the same terrible things to his people back then as that's pretty common in middle eastern countries.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The problem with your logic is that the US has ties and connections with just about every entity and organization on a multitude of different levels. Thus is the fate of a superpower. I would propose that a lot of those ties are as a result of intelligence gathering, diplomacy and commercial dealings.
As such, I do not get your point. UBL and SH had ties as a result of their mutual hate for the US. US had ties with SH to fight communism. UBL I am not sure but I would guess it is oil/commerce.
So what.
No
The Logic is simple: the 'ties' in question are as flimsy as the ties that relate the US to Iraq . . . in fact, they are flimsier as our 'ties' involved Huge amounts of money and armorments while Saddam was KILLING his own people and was fighting a horrendous war of Attrition against Iran: which killed hundreds of thousands.
(note: that war was not one against communism)
and another note : that war was against Iran: Iran, a country which our administration then dealt arms to in illegal and immoral and secret arms-for-cash deals . . . remember that . . .no 'I can't recall'
Plus note: Iran, a country that turned to Fundamentalism in order to overthrow a completely corrupt and abusive and thouroughly decadent regime (the Shah's regime) that came into power through the aid of the CIA
The fact that the administration is puppetting these flimsiest of ties on stage in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence with 911 is the most bald-faced sort of disinformation* possible: admit it!! it is sickeningly obvious and yet the arse-liskers here refuse to acknowledge . . .
SDW used the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty' . . . he likes to pose with such nice sounding phrases, however, the thought of actually applying such 'principled' ideas never seems to enter his skull . . . nor apparently yours
*'disinformation' = part truth but formally and in content mostly misleading, utilizing the half-truth as a means to mislead
Originally posted by pfflam
No
The Logic is simple: the 'ties' in question are as flimsy as the ties that relate the US to Iraq . . . in fact, they are flimsier as our 'ties' involved Huge amounts of money and armorments while Saddam was KILLING his own people and was fighting a horrendous war of Attrition against Iran: which killed hundreds of thousands.
(note: that war was not one against communism)
and another note : that war was against Iran: Iran, a country which our administration then dealt arms to in illegal and immoral and secret arms-for-cash deals . . . remember that . . .no 'I can't recall'
Plus note: Iran, a country that turned to Fundamentalism in order to overthrow a completely corrupt and abusive and thouroughly decadent regime (the Shah's regime) that came into power through the aid of the CIA
The fact that the administration is puppetting these flimsiest of ties on stage in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence with 911 is the most bald-faced sort of disinformation* possible: admit it!! it is sickeningly obvious and yet the arse-liskers here refuse to acknowledge . . .
SDW used the phrase 'intellectual dishonesty' . . . he likes to pose with such nice sounding phrases, however, the thought of actually applying such 'principled' ideas never seems to enter his skull . . . nor apparently yours
*'disinformation' = part truth but formally and in content mostly misleading, utilizing the half-truth as a means to mislead
Saying that ties between AQ and SH are flimsier than ties between US and AQ or SH is just plain simple minded. Although it is true, I'll give you that, there are factors that you are just plain ignoring. You cannot simply compare them, as if all thing are equal.
The ties between the US and other entities are usually mundane and done in the open. Intel links are there for other obvious reasons.
However, the links between AQ, SH and other nefarious entities are secret, back room ties, made only to destroy. These people have a bloodlust that ties them together.
let's at least be honest when we start comparing everything to everything else.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Saying that ties between AQ and SH are flimsier than ties between US and AQ or SH is just plain simple minded. Although it is true, I'll give you that, there are factors that you are just plain ignoring. You cannot simply compare them, as if all thing are equal.
The ties between the US and other entities are usually mundane and done in the open. Intel links are there for other obvious reasons.
However, the links between AQ, SH and other nefarious entities are secret, back room ties, made only to destroy. These people have a bloodlust that ties them together.
let's at least be honest when we start comparing everything to everything else.
If they're so secret how do you know what goes on or even if they exist?
Originally posted by NaplesX
However, the links between AQ, SH and other nefarious entities are secret, back room ties, made only to destroy. These people have a bloodlust that ties them together.
These people? Who exactly? What other entities?
Originally posted by New
These people? Who exactly? What other entities?
Those evil Greys of course
Originally posted by NaplesX
Saying that ties between AQ and SH are flimsier than ties between US and AQ or SH is just plain simple minded. Although it is true, I'll give you that, there are factors that you are just plain ignoring. You cannot simply compare them, as if all thing are equal.
The ties between the US and other entities are usually mundane and done in the open. Intel links are there for other obvious reasons.
However, the links between AQ, SH and other nefarious entities are secret, back room ties, made only to destroy. These people have a bloodlust that ties them together.
let's at least be honest when we start comparing everything to everything else.
Is it simple minded to demand that the use of a term not be blown out of proportion for propaganda.
Hypothetical: would you say that an interlocutor is simple minded if you need to repeatedly say things in simpler and simpler sentences in order for that person to grasp what you are saying?
Let me try again:
Ties exist between all sorts of entities
They exist in all sorts of fashions
If the smallest form of tie that exists is used in sentences that confuse the small-form-of-ties with Big-Bad-ties then we can no longer be sure that the small-form-of-ties are not, in fact, the Big-bad-ties.
If someone deliberately, and repeatedly used the small-form-of-ties in the way mentioned above then it could be said that the person in question is trying to get you to believe that the small-form-of-ties are really the Big-bad-ties.
If someone tries to get you to believe that then in effect they are trying to get you to believe in something that is NOT TRUE
If they are trying to get you to believe in something that is not true, then they are LYING!
so, it follows that though the 'ties' are technically true, the manner in which they have been used constitutes a lie.
Now, the nefariousness or non-nefariousness of our ties?
First, I mentioned our ties to Iraq because they existed and involved real weapons and money to buy real WMD . . . whereas the ties to AQ with Iraw involved ONLY failed meetings between minor government functionaries and/or northern isolated groups not-in any relationship to SH
Now, is an illegal and immoral arms-for-cash deal not nefarious?
Is an arms deal to a known murderous dictator who was waging an utterly horrendous and useless war against an army that needed to use waves upon waves of young boys against its US funded weapons somehow Not-nefarious?
Is our secretly/covertly but also not so secretly funding fundamentalists biggots and murderous 'freedom fighters' who would, becuse of the extremist-religious attitudes that we helped foster, eventually turn on their secular sponsors, somehow not nefarious?
and is the the which we knew well of that was merely a meeting twixt a government functionary and an AQ member that came to a failure to agree with goals really a tie worth going to war over?
or is a non-existent czech meeting twixt terrorists and Iraqi guards neffarious ? (the latter is only nefarious when in its nonexistence it is still used to justify a war)
oops . . . daughters getting sick . . .
Originally posted by tonton
So. Who had historically more frequent, better documented, and arguable muchn stronger ties?
A: Saddam Hussein and the US.
B: Osama Bin Laden and the US.
C: Iraq and Al Qaeda?
[music] One of these things is not like the other, One of these things doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the other, Before I finish this song? [/music]
Wait...you're comparing the US to Iraq and/or Al-Qaeda?
Clearly it was made in order to reveal teh nature of the 'ties'