The lies that led us into war ...
Mike T
01 June 2003
One key tactic of the British and United States governments in their campaign on
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was to talk up suspicions and to
portray possibility as fact. The clearest example was the quotation and
misquotation of the reports of United Nations weapons inspectors.
Iraq claimed it had destroyed all its prohibited weapons, either unilaterally or
in co-operation with the inspectors, between 1991 and 1994. Although the
inspectors were able to verify that unilateral destruction took place on a large
scale, they were not able to quantify the amounts destroyed.
For example, they were able to detect that anthrax growth media had been burnt
and buried in bulk at a site next to the production facility at al-Hakam. There
was no way - and there never will be - to tell from the soil samples the amount
destroyed. As a result, UN inspectors recorded this material as unaccounted for:
neither verified destroyed nor believed to still exist.
Translated into statements by the British and US governments, it became part of
"stockpiles" that they claimed Iraq was hiding from the inspectors. Both
governments knew UN inspectors had not found any nuclear, chemical or biological
weapons in Iraq since at least 1994, aside from a dozen abandoned mustard
shells, and that the vast majority of any weapons produced before 1991 would
have degraded to the point of uselessness within 10 years.
Even the most high-profile defector from Iraq - Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's
son-in-law and director of Iraq's weapons programmes - told UN inspectors and
British intelligence agencies in 1995 that Iraq had no more prohibited weapons.
And yet Britain's dossier last September repeated the false claim that
information "in the public domain from UN reports ... points clearly to Iraq's
continuing possession, after 1991, of chemical and biological agents and weapons
produced before the Gulf War".
There is no UN report after 1994 that claims that Iraq continued to possess
weapons of mass destruction. This was well known in intelligence circles. That
such a claim could appear in a purported intelligence document is a clear sign
that the information was "pumped up" for political purposes, to support the case
for an invasion.
The Government began to resort to more direct misquotation in the immediate
prelude to war, with UN chief inspector Hans Blix reporting on 7 March that Iraq
was taking "numerous initiatives ... with a view to resolving long-standing open
disarmament issues", and that this "can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive'
co-operation".
In response, Mr Blair and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, seized on the
Unmovic working document of 6 March entitled "Unresolved Disarmament
Issues",about matters that are still unclear. Although Mr Blix acknowledged
Iraqi efforts to resolve these questions, the Prime Minister and Foreign
Secretary repeatedly claimed that the document showed Iraq still had prohibited
weapons, a claim the report never made. They relied on the presumption -
probably accurate - that few MPs would have time to go through its 173 pages,
and would accept the Government's misleading précis.
Mr Blair quoted from the report in his speech to the Commons two days before the
war began, to the effect that Iraq "had had far-reaching plans to weaponise" the
deadly nerve agent VX. Note the tense: that quotation was from a "background"
section of the report, on Iraq's policy before 1991.
US and British leaders repeatedly referred to the UN inspectors' estimate that
Iraq produced 1.5 tonnes of VX before 1990. But in March Unmovic reported that
Iraq's production method created nerve agent that lasted only six to eight
weeks. Mr Blair's "evidence" was about a substance the inspectors consider to
have been no threat since early 1991. The Prime Minister didn't mention that.
R. Foreman
> The lies that led us into war ...
>
> 01 June 2003
>
> One key tactic of the British and United States governments in their
> campaign on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was to talk up
> suspicions and to portray possibility as fact.
Exactly right. If there's a possibility you're going to attack us,
we're going to kill you first.
> The clearest example
> was the quotation and misquotation of the reports of United Nations
> weapons inspectors.
Fuck the weapons inspectors, they don't have a clue. This is WAR now.
We'll find the weapons after we've taken your country.
--
It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and
another to put him in possession of Truth." - John Locke
Ike Milligan
"Mike T" <mkik...@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:8ab6a08a5eecc1ce...@free.teranews.com...
> The lies that led us into war ...
>
> 01 June 2003
>
> One key tactic of the British and United States governments in their
campaign on
> Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was to talk up suspicions and
to
> portray possibility as fact. The clearest example was the quotation and
> misquotation of the reports of United Nations weapons inspectors.
>
> Iraq claimed it had destroyed all its prohibited weapons, either
unilaterally or
> in co-operation with the inspectors, between 1991 and 1994. Although the
> inspectors were able to verify that unilateral destruction took place on a
large
> scale, they were not able to quantify the amounts destroyed.
>
It is true that lies were told to lead us into war. However it was not the
lies, but the will for war that led us. Also, what about the lies told
constantly by the Enemy? And did the deadly weapons get shipped over the
border? And don't forget that the Terrorists had a training and staging camp
in northern Iraq courtesy the Baath regime. These are the scum that killed
our people on 9-11.
Barbara Bush
<eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> in news message
<Xns938D40EC0F47Brr...@204.127.199.17> wrote:
>Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com> Spat the Words
>
>> The lies that led us into war ...
>>
>> 01 June 2003
>>
>> One key tactic of the British and United States governments in their
>> campaign on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was to talk up
>> suspicions and to portray possibility as fact.
>
>Exactly right. If there's a possibility you're going to attack us,
>we're going to kill you first.
>
>
>> The clearest example
>> was the quotation and misquotation of the reports of United Nations
>> weapons inspectors.
>
>Fuck the weapons inspectors, they don't have a clue. This is WAR now.
>We'll find the weapons after we've taken your country.
George W, is that you. You're suppose to be in Europe meeting with
that nice Monsieur Chirac and Vlad Putin. Turn off your computer, and
get back to work, dear.
Mom
J-Rod
"Ike Milligan" <accord...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bbct7p$hnk$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> It is true that lies were told to lead us into war. However it was not the
> lies, but the will for war that led us. Also, what about the lies told
> constantly by the Enemy?
The "Enemy" (why the capitalization?) didn't wage this war. They are not
relevant to this administration's decision to commit dollars and lives to
this war.
> And did the deadly weapons get shipped over the
> border?
Without being seen? Doubtful.
> And don't forget that the Terrorists had a training and staging camp
> in northern Iraq courtesy the Baath regime.
And don't forget that many nutcakes come out of Northern Idaho, and Northern
Carolina (RIP, Eric Rudolph), courtesy the militia types. Police ourselves,
huh?
> These are the scum that killed
> our people on 9-11.
Almost all of which were Saudi nationals.
R. Foreman
Thanks mom. Got news for you. Those guys vlad the impaler putin and
monsieur chirac aint such nice guys, lacking in the basic spinal
column. Back to work now.
Christopher A. Lee
<eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>Thanks mom. Got news for you. Those guys vlad the impaler putin and
>monsieur chirac aint such nice guys, lacking in the basic spinal
>column. Back to work now.
Being a friend and ally does not mean "doing everything you are told
to". Trying to stop a more powerful friend from doing something
unjustified and illegal, who transparently lies about why he is doing
it, is the opposite of "lacking in the basic spinal column".
Jeff Jones
"Ike Milligan" <accord...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bbct7p$hnk$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> lies, but the will for war that led us. Also, what about the lies told
> constantly by the Enemy? And did the deadly weapons get shipped over the
> border? And don't forget that the Terrorists had a training and staging
camp
> in northern Iraq courtesy the Baath regime. These are the scum that killed
> our people on 9-11.
Please cite your source for this terrorist camp. I'd love to see it since
the only camp discovered in Iraq was in the northeastern part of Iraq which
was totally controlled by the Kurds and not Saddam at all.
Gee, wingnuts will believe ANYTHING.
Jeff Jones
Austin, Texas
aa #2044
Budikka
news:<8ab6a08a5eecc1ce...@free.teranews.com>
[Diatribe snipped]
And this has precisely *what* to do with any of the newsgroups to
which you have broadcast it?
Budikka
Dave
>
> 01 June 2003
>
> One key tactic of the British and United States governments in their
> campaign on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was to talk up
>
I might be upset about this if I had lost a friend in this war but as
it is I think it is too early to judge the merit. In the news certain
unnamed insiders are now claiming that elements of the intelligence
community as well as the Bush administration were biasing the evidence
toward war, but even the first gulf war had such problems. The story
of the incubator babies turned out to be a complete lie.
I don't care for the UN, dominated as it is by miserable countries, so
if this war in any way reduced the status of the UN then it was
probably a good thing.
maff
If you're willing to sacrifice your life for the glory of Halliburton
then no one is going to stop you.
Dee
Budikka wrote in message ...
Here here. For goodness sake, Budikka guy, stay on topic. Since you are the
only one with sense apparently in this thread, post some prophecies, and
list sources, alternate interpretations, critical analysis, history of those
prophetic sources. Do current events fit the quatrains of Nosty? Are you a
believer or a strong or weak atheist or an agnostic? Define and locate God
if you are a believer.
>Budikka
Gerald
budi...@netscape.net says...
I'm glad that i am not the only one who is saddened by the breakdown of NG
discipline.
Gerald
Al Klein
>Fuck the weapons inspectors, they don't have a clue. This is WAR now.
>We'll find the weapons after we've taken your country.
And if they don't exist, we'll claim to have found them anyway. And
who's going to prove us wrong?
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
<accord...@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>It is true that lies were told to lead us into war. However it was not the
>lies, but the will for war that led us. Also, what about the lies told
>constantly by the Enemy? And did the deadly weapons get shipped over the
>border?
*WHAT* deadly weapons? They don't exist, no matter how many times
Bush lies about them.
> And don't forget that the Terrorists had a training and staging camp
>in northern Iraq courtesy the Baath regime. These are the scum that killed
>our people on 9-11.
No, you're confusing those people with the people responsible for 9-11
simply because both groups are Arab.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
Mark
news:rceldvc9aivor57i8...@Pern.rk...
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 08:57:07 -0400, "Ike Milligan"
> <accord...@mindspring.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
education and social
> ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a
poor way if he
> had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after
death."
> -Albert Einstein
Great quote!
> rukbat at optonline dot net
rukbat: Arabic? "The knee" of the Archer Sagittarius?
Mark
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:22:55 GMT, "R. Foreman"
> <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>
religious
> conviction."
> - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Another great quote!
And by two very distinguished mathematicians-philosophers!
Crazyalec
>
> 01 June 2003
>
> One key tactic of the British and United States governments in their campaign on
> Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was to talk up suspicions and to
> portray possibility as fact. The clearest example was the quotation and
> misquotation of the reports of United Nations weapons inspectors.
One key tactic of the Vatican and Islam in their campaign on Bible's
God was to talk up beliefs and to portray possibility as fact.The
clearest example was the quatation and misquotation of the reports of
Bible verse writers.
Iraq invasion was based on a BELIEF Saddam had WMD.How is belief there
is a god, and belief there are WMD any diferent?
Jeff Dee
I'm terrified by the thought that they're even more similar than you think.
Imagine: Shrub and his religious cronies in a prayer circle in the White
House (or would that be a "prayer oval"?), asking God to confirm their
suspicion that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. And then they
rise, hug one another, and tearfully exclaim that they all felt God
telling them it was true. Hence: in their eyes, twisting the actual
evidence isn't a lie, because God *told* them it was true.
I have no evidence that any such thing happened, but I find it all too
easy to believe.
-Jeff Dee
Jean Guernon
Mike T a écrit :
>
> The lies that led us into war ...
>
Another piece of propaganda shit with no link.
[snip]
As if you confgenital idiot could even wroite anything like an article
Bwahahhahahaa.
1441 is what led us into war.
Lies are only from you propaganda promoters assholes, parasites of this
NG.
Why don't you drown yourself?
J.
TCS
begin
> Another piece of propaganda shit with no link.
>
> [snip]
>
> As if you confgenital idiot could even wroite anything like an article
> Bwahahhahahaa.
>
> 1441 is what led us into war.
>
> Lies are only from you propaganda promoters assholes, parasites of this
> NG.
>
Can anybody translate this into english?
spakka
> Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com> Spat the Words
>
>
>>The lies that led us into war ...
>>
>>01 June 2003
>>
>>One key tactic of the British and United States governments in their
>>campaign on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was to talk up
>>suspicions and to portray possibility as fact.
>
>
> Exactly right. If there's a possibility you're going to attack us,
> we're going to kill you first.
>
>
>
>>The clearest example
>>was the quotation and misquotation of the reports of United Nations
>>weapons inspectors.
>
>
> Fuck the weapons inspectors, they don't have a clue. This is WAR now.
> We'll find the weapons after we've taken your country.
<snip>
Who are you threatening, stupid? The war's over.
Douglas Berry
Guernon <jgue...@globetrotter.net> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>Mike T a écrit :
>>
>> The lies that led us into war ...
>
>Another piece of propaganda shit with no link.
>
>[snip]
>
>As if you confgenital idiot could even wroite anything like an article
>Bwahahhahahaa.
Submitted on it's on with no comment.
Pot, meet Kettle..
>Lies are only from you propaganda promoters assholes, parasites of this
>NG.
Wow. IO'd be impressed if that made any sense whatsoever.
>Why don't you drown yourself?
Why don't you show us how to do it first?
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
JTEM
"Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Iraq invasion was based on a BELIEF Saddam had WMD.
Wow, even after the truth comes out -- and the WMDs turned
out to be a popular excuse and not a "reason" -- you're still
clinging to this bullshit.
Amazing.
If the administration believed there were weapons of mass
destruction, they wouldn't have forged "evidence."
JTEM
"Jeff Dee" <an...@io.com> wrote
> I'm terrified by the thought that they're even more similar
> than you think.
I'm shocked at the realization that anyone could take "Crazyalec"
the least bit seriously...
Dee
TCS wrote in message ...
Mike T and Jean Guernon were probably not raised in the US. They don't like
each other.
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>rukbat: Arabic? "The knee" of the Archer Sagittarius?
McCaffric. The star Pern circles. I'm not really on your planet. :)
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
>> conviction."
>> - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
>Another great quote!
>And by two very distinguished mathematicians-philosophers!
Einstein wasn't that great a mathematician - and he never claimed to
be one.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Roger
Mark
Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:23:42 GMT, "Mark" <mbur...@earthlink.net>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >> "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from
religious
> >> conviction."
> >> - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
>
> >Another great quote!
>
> >And by two very distinguished mathematicians-philosophers!
>
> Einstein wasn't that great a mathematician - and he never claimed to
> be one.
I was refering to his first wife in that regard.
;)
Mark
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 03:21:41 GMT, "Mark" <mbur...@earthlink.net>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >rukbat: Arabic? "The knee" of the Archer Sagittarius?
>
> McCaffric. The star Pern circles. I'm not really on your planet. :)
LOL! Perfect!
Lord Calvert
>>
>> McCaffric. The star Pern circles. I'm not really on your planet. :)
Sci-fi writers don't always fabricate locations for their stories. Pern may not
be real but its star Rukbat certainly is, just like Vulcan may not be real but
its star, 40 Eridani, certainly is...and pretty nearby too.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
Crazyalec
> Crazyalec wrote:
> > Mike T <mkik...@hotmails.com> wrote in message news:<8ab6a08a5eecc1ce...@free.teranews.com>...
> >
> >>The lies that led us into war ...
> >>
> >>01 June 2003
> >>
> >>One key tactic of the British and United States governments in their campaign on
> >>Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was to talk up suspicions and to
> >>portray possibility as fact. The clearest example was the quotation and
> >>misquotation of the reports of United Nations weapons inspectors.
> >
> >
> > One key tactic of the Vatican and Islam in their campaign on Bible's
> > God was to talk up beliefs and to portray possibility as fact.The
> > clearest example was the quatation and misquotation of the reports of
> > Bible verse writers.
> >
> > Iraq invasion was based on a BELIEF Saddam had WMD.How is belief there
> > is a god, and belief there are WMD any diferent?
>
> I'm terrified by the thought that they're even more similar than you think.
Its similar.How more or less it can be? Belief is a belief no matter
who,how and where.
>
> Imagine: Shrub and his religious cronies in a prayer circle in the White
> House (or would that be a "prayer oval"?), asking God to confirm their
> suspicion that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. And then they
> rise, hug one another, and tearfully exclaim that they all felt God
> telling them it was true. Hence: in their eyes, twisting the actual
> evidence isn't a lie, because God *told* them it was true.
>
> I have no evidence that any such thing happened, but I find it all too
> easy to believe.
>
> -Jeff Dee
it doesn't matter how it happened.Its all a matter of a belief.And
religion is using it for thousands of years.
Jean Guernon
TCS a écrit :
Buy a dictionary, asshole.
J.
Jean Guernon
bah surely another anti-US anti-semite ass kisser?
What is your motivation invading these NG with your propaganda shit?
Why don't you stick to alt.politics.caca?
Fucking lose<rs.
J.
Douglas Berry a écrit :
R. Foreman
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:38:13 GMT, "R. Foreman"
> <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks mom. Got news for you. Those guys vlad the impaler putin and
>>monsieur chirac aint such nice guys, lacking in the basic spinal
>>column. Back to work now.
>
> Being a friend and ally does not mean "doing everything you are told
> to". Trying to stop a more powerful friend from doing something
> unjustified and illegal, who transparently lies about why he is doing
> it, is the opposite of "lacking in the basic spinal column".
>
That's true, and I might believe your arguement if chirac and putin
weren't so deeply vested in iraq. They obviously were looking for an
argument why we should go to war. We were looking for an argument
why saddam shouldn't be deposed. The guy had absolutely NO redeeming
qualities, and he was jeopardizing the israel - palestinian - jordan -
egypt - saudi - syria peace, by paying money to terrorists to commit
acts of terrorism.
Chirac and Putin apparently felt that keeping
their contracts intact and keeping saddam in power was more
important than long term world peace.
--
It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and
another to put him in possession of Truth." - John Locke
Christopher A. Lee
<eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> Spat the Words
>
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 13:38:13 GMT, "R. Foreman"
>> <eid...@anti-spam.attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks mom. Got news for you. Those guys vlad the impaler putin and
>>>monsieur chirac aint such nice guys, lacking in the basic spinal
>>>column. Back to work now.
>>
>> Being a friend and ally does not mean "doing everything you are told
>> to". Trying to stop a more powerful friend from doing something
>> unjustified and illegal, who transparently lies about why he is doing
>> it, is the opposite of "lacking in the basic spinal column".
>>
>
>
>That's true, and I might believe your arguement if chirac and putin
>weren't so deeply vested in iraq. They obviously were looking for an
>argument why we should go to war. We were looking for an argument
>why saddam shouldn't be deposed. The guy had absolutely NO redeeming
>qualities, and he was jeopardizing the israel - palestinian - jordan -
>egypt - saudi - syria peace, by paying money to terrorists to commit
>acts of terrorism.
Were they?
Why not address the rest of the world's arguments WHY the war was
wrong, instead of looking for ad-hominem reasons?
>Chirac and Putin apparently felt that keeping
>their contracts intact and keeping saddam in power was more
>important than long term world peace.
Did they?
Again, why not address their arguments?
TCS
begin
>Buy a dictionary, asshole.
You're pathetic. You don't even know what grammar is.
Jean Guernon
J
Flyfish
@globetrotter.net:
> Bah, your blindness is not an excuse for your incompetence.
>
> J
What's your excuse liar?
Flyfish
--
Listen, it's a healthy debate for people to express their opinion. People
should be allowed to express their opinion." G.W. Bush August 2002
TCS
begin
On 4 Jun 2003 12:02:03 GMT, Flyfish <f> wrote:
>Jean Guernon <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in news:3EDDAACD.DDA50150
>@globetrotter.net:
>> Bah, your blindness is not an excuse for your incompetence.
>>
>> J
>What's your excuse liar?
Jean isn't sentient; it is nothing but a badly written eliza clone left
running by some sadistic CS student.
Flyfish
Jean Guernon
What is your excuse for a poor imitation of sorry shit DNA?
J.
Flyfish a écrit :
Flyfish
and drooled this stupidity:
> Taking the side of an enemy of the US again flyshit. Tss tss
>
> What is your excuse for a poor imitation of sorry shit DNA?
>
> J.
>
> Flyfish a écrit :
>>
>> Jean Guernon <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in
>> news:3EDDAACD.DDA50150 @globetrotter.net:
>>
>> > Bah, your blindness is not an excuse for your incompetence.
>> >
>> > J
>>
>> What's your excuse liar?
>>
>> Flyfish
LOL yet another stupid post from the master, a sort of retarded, right
wing, illiterate version of Noam Chomsky. All twists and lies, no
substance.
Pity really but you must apologise for your lies.
Jean Guernon
Flyfish a écrit :
Jean Guernon
Flyfish a écrit :
>
> Top posting moron, Jean Guernon <jgue...@globetrotter.net> stopped briefly
> and drooled this stupidity:
>
> > Taking the side of an enemy of the US again flyshit. Tss tss
> >
> > What is your excuse for a poor imitation of sorry shit DNA?
> >
> > J.
> >
> > Flyfish a écrit :
> >>
> >> Jean Guernon <jgue...@globetrotter.net> wrote in
> >> news:3EDDAACD.DDA50150 @globetrotter.net:
> >>
> >> > Bah, your blindness is not an excuse for your incompetence.
> >> >
> >> > J
> >>
> >> What's your excuse liar?
> >>
> >> Flyfish
>
> LOL yet another stupid post from the master,
Thank you very much.
Now Bow.
J.
Crazyalec
> "Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Iraq invasion was based on a BELIEF Saddam had WMD.
>
> Wow, even after the truth comes out -- and the WMDs turned
> out to be a popular excuse and not a "reason" -- you're still
> clinging to this bullshit.
Its maybe a bullshit for you, but for Bush it was a matter of a
belief.Just like religion is a matter of a belief.But hey, for some
reason you accept it.
Hypocrite.
Woodswun
One doesn't send one's enlisted personnel to possible death based on something
so ethereal as a "matter of belief" - that's something you send your own kids
to religious school for.
People "in the know" have been starting to tell tales of Bush not wanting to
hear evidence that doesn't support what he already "believes". By exerting
pressure, such as sending Cheney over to personnaly discuss what the
president was looking for (among things) Bush was, in effect, manipulating the
outcome of the reports to what he wanted them to say
Woods
Crazyalec
> In article <37c9d6cf.03060...@posting.google.com>, olek...@yahoo.com (Crazyalec) wrote:
> >"JTEM" <j_dee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<IYRCa.839967$Zo.178584@sccrnsc03>...
> >> "Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > Iraq invasion was based on a BELIEF Saddam had WMD.
> >>
> >> Wow, even after the truth comes out -- and the WMDs turned
> >> out to be a popular excuse and not a "reason" -- you're still
> >> clinging to this bullshit.
> >
> >Its maybe a bullshit for you, but for Bush it was a matter of a
> >belief.Just like religion is a matter of a belief.But hey, for some
> >reason you accept it.
>
> One doesn't send one's enlisted personnel to possible death based on something
> so ethereal as a "matter of belief" - that's something you send your own kids
> to religious school for.
You forgetting Sep 11 attacks.Suicide terrorism is based on purely on
a belief of a heaven with 72 virgins.
>
> People "in the know" have been starting to tell tales of Bush not wanting to
> hear evidence that doesn't support what he already "believes". By exerting
> pressure, such as sending Cheney over to personnaly discuss what the
> president was looking for (among things) Bush was, in effect, manipulating the
> outcome of the reports to what he wanted them to say
It doesn't matter what an outcome is.Its all a matter of a belief.Just
like religion is.
>
> Woods
JTEM
"Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
> You forgetting Sep 11 attacks.
No, but Bush and his supporters have. They've forgotten all
about the attacks and the Saudi connections.
Some of them -- the most ignorant of the lot -- even think that
Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.
Pathetic, huh? At one time they claimed they could never
forget 9/11, and now they've pushed what happened
that day out of their minds in favor of some Bush-invented
fantasy.
JTEM
"Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Its maybe a bullshit for you, but for Bush it was a matter of
> a belief.
When even the low-lifes in the administration aren't claiming this
(not any more), I've got to wonder just how many paint chips
you ate as a child....
Crazyalec
> "Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > You forgetting Sep 11 attacks.
>
> No, but Bush and his supporters have. They've forgotten all
> about the attacks and the Saudi connections.
Osama is Saudi.But it was Taliban, that allowed Al-Qaeda.Clinton could
invade Afghanistan in 1993 or 1998, but didn't.What stopped him?
Arab oil did.
Taking over Iraq oil means end of dependence on arab oil, and kissing
arab ass.
The war was about oil.
>
> Some of them -- the most ignorant of the lot -- even think that
> Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.
Well, its a belief.Religion is a belief too.Doesn't stop them to kill
people, and invade countries.Sep 11, and suicide bombers is a perfect
example of killings based on a belief.
>
> Pathetic, huh? At one time they claimed they could never
> forget 9/11, and now they've pushed what happened
> that day out of their minds in favor of some Bush-invented
> fantasy.
If you so anti-Bush, how come you don't protest Faith-Based
initiative, that would give billions of dollars to religion using
tax-payers money.
Woodswun
>wood...@hotmail.com (Woodswun) wrote in message
> news:<NPkEa.15350$zm1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
>> In article <37c9d6cf.03060...@posting.google.com>,
> olek...@yahoo.com (Crazyalec) wrote:
>> >"JTEM" <j_dee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<IYRCa.839967$Zo.178584@sccrnsc03>...
>> >> "Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >>
>> >> > Iraq invasion was based on a BELIEF Saddam had WMD.
>> >>
>> >> Wow, even after the truth comes out -- and the WMDs turned
>> >> out to be a popular excuse and not a "reason" -- you're still
>> >> clinging to this bullshit.
>> >
>> >Its maybe a bullshit for you, but for Bush it was a matter of a
>> >belief.Just like religion is a matter of a belief.But hey, for some
>> >reason you accept it.
>>
>> One doesn't send one's enlisted personnel to possible death based on
> something
>> so ethereal as a "matter of belief" - that's something you send your own kids
>
>> to religious school for.
>
>You forgetting Sep 11 attacks.Suicide terrorism is based on purely on
>a belief of a heaven with 72 virgins.
Er - that was Saudi Arabian citizens from a group based in Afghanistan. Had
nothing to do with Iraq.
Woods
Crazyalec
> In article <37c9d6cf.03060...@posting.google.com>, olek...@yahoo.com (Crazyalec) wrote:
> >wood...@hotmail.com (Woodswun) wrote in message
> > news:<NPkEa.15350$zm1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> >> In article <37c9d6cf.03060...@posting.google.com>,
> olek...@yahoo.com (Crazyalec) wrote:
> >> >"JTEM" <j_dee...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:<IYRCa.839967$Zo.178584@sccrnsc03>...
> >> >> "Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > Iraq invasion was based on a BELIEF Saddam had WMD.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow, even after the truth comes out -- and the WMDs turned
> >> >> out to be a popular excuse and not a "reason" -- you're still
> >> >> clinging to this bullshit.
> >> >
> >> >Its maybe a bullshit for you, but for Bush it was a matter of a
> >> >belief.Just like religion is a matter of a belief.But hey, for some
> >> >reason you accept it.
> >>
> >> One doesn't send one's enlisted personnel to possible death based on
> something
> >> so ethereal as a "matter of belief" - that's something you send your own kids
>
> >> to religious school for.
> >
> >You forgetting Sep 11 attacks.Suicide terrorism is based on purely on
> >a belief of a heaven with 72 virgins.
>
> Er - that was Saudi Arabian citizens from a group based in Afghanistan. Had
> nothing to do with Iraq.
>
> Woods
So what.We are talking about a belief here.If you accept that religion
is a belief, and using that belief to justify war and terror, then you
should accept that its OK to fight back using the same belief.So if
there is a belief, that Iraq has WMD, then the war is justified.Even
there are no WMD.
Its all about a belief.
The same one that religion using.
sparkup
You are a moron.
Are you saying that because of 9/11, any kind of unjustified violence is
now justified?!?!?!
Flyfish
>> LOL yet another stupid post from the master,
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Now Bow.
>
> J.
Sure Jean take a bow, your are undeniably the master of stupid posts.
Woodswun
If that's the way Bush is running the country, he desperately needs to spend
time in Leavenworth - the US is *not* a theocracy.
Woods
Crazyalec
No, idiot.Believing in existance of WMD is not a theocracy.
JTEM
"Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Osama is Saudi.But it was Taliban, that allowed Al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda existed (and still exists) independently of the Taliban.
Neither is gone.
All the Taliban did was provide Al-Qaeda with *One* of their
many bases of operation.
> Clinton could invade Afghanistan in 1993
Hello? Are you on drugs?
> or 1998, but didn't.What stopped him?
The Republicans. When Clinton wanted to use ground forces
against the very real & immediate genocide going on in Bosnia
the Republicans told him to fuck himself. There's is no way the
Republicans would have supported a preemptive ground war
against what MIGHT BE a future threat. They just weren't going
to do it. So, with them controlling both houses of congress, it
couldn't happen.
> Taking over Iraq oil means end of dependence on arab oil,
Only if we define Iraqi oil as "Martian oil."
The truth is that the U.S. commitment to Arab oil has shot up
beyond anything we could previously imagine, even as the cost
of that oil has rocketed.
We're not just paying for the oil, not any more, we're paying for
the military occupation of Iraq, the reconstruction of Iraq and
the economic development of Iraq.... All so Dick Cheney & pals
can line their pockets with billions.
> > Some of them -- the most ignorant of the lot -- even think
> > that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.
> Well, its a belief.
It's a mistake, an error. We're supposed to correct them and not
perpetuate them.
> > Pathetic, huh? At one time they claimed they could never
> > forget 9/11, and now they've pushed what happened
> > that day out of their minds in favor of some Bush-invented
> > fantasy.
> If you so anti-Bush, how come you don't protest Faith-Based
> initiative,
When didn't I?
Cardinal Chunder
> <html><input type crash></html>
> begin
>
>>Another piece of propaganda shit with no link.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>As if you confgenital idiot could even wroite anything like an article
>>Bwahahhahahaa.
>>
>>1441 is what led us into war.
>>
>>Lies are only from you propaganda promoters assholes, parasites of this
>>NG.
>>
>
> Can anybody translate this into english?
>
Jean is saying that he is a hypocrite who never provides links when
challenged to prove his ludicrous statements. Yet now he'd rather whinge
and moan than strain his shrivelled brain and seek out the article in
question.
A straight forward copy and paste of the first sentence would have
yielded the link:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/060203F.shtml
I guess Jean the Retarded must be having more browser problems.
Cardinal Chunder
> Jean isn't sentient; it is nothing but a badly written eliza clone left
> running by some sadistic CS student.
The sad thing is Eliza would probably score higher than Jean in a Turing
test.
Woodswun
You're the one claiming it's a religious belief, not I!
Woods
Crazyalec
My claim is simple.You are a moron.
Crazyalec
> "Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > Osama is Saudi.But it was Taliban, that allowed Al-Qaeda.
>
> Al-Qaeda existed (and still exists) independently of the Taliban.
Not in Afghanistan.
>
> Neither is gone.
Yes they are.From Afghanistan.
>
> All the Taliban did was provide Al-Qaeda with *One* of their
> many bases of operation.
And thats where Osama was residing.So killing Osama would prevent Sep
11.
>
> > Clinton could invade Afghanistan in 1993
>
> Hello? Are you on drugs?
Are you on drugs asking me if I'm on drugs?
>
> > or 1998, but didn't.What stopped him?
>
> The Republicans. When Clinton wanted to use ground forces
> against the very real & immediate genocide going on in Bosnia
> the Republicans told him to fuck himself. There's is no way the
> Republicans would have supported a preemptive ground war
> against what MIGHT BE a future threat.
There WAS a terrorist attack.Garage bombing of WTC in 1993, and
embassy bombing in 1998.In both cases there was Al-Qaeda connection.So
what you have to do, is invade a country, that hosting Al-Qaeda camps.
They just weren't going
> to do it. So, with them controlling both houses of congress, it
> couldn't happen.
Oh poor Clinton.Couldn't find excuses for an invasion....I'm crying
over here.
Even Bush found one.WMD...supposebly.
>
> > Taking over Iraq oil means end of dependence on arab oil,
>
> Only if we define Iraqi oil as "Martian oil."
And only if we define you as a moron.
>
> The truth is that the U.S. commitment to Arab oil has shot up
> beyond anything we could previously imagine, even as the cost
> of that oil has rocketed.
>
> We're not just paying for the oil, not any more, we're paying for
> the military occupation of Iraq, the reconstruction of Iraq and
> the economic development of Iraq.... All so Dick Cheney & pals
> can line their pockets with billions.
Well, and before that there were Saddam,French, Germany and
Russians.But more important is not money....more important
independence from arab oil.Now its american oil.
>
> > > Some of them -- the most ignorant of the lot -- even think
> > > that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.
>
> > Well, its a belief.
>
> It's a mistake, an error. We're supposed to correct them and not
> perpetuate them.
HAHAHAHAHA.How come you are not saying it about a religion????
How come you arguing about a belief, when you suppose to "correct a
mistake,and not perpetuate them"?
>
> > > Pathetic, huh? At one time they claimed they could never
> > > forget 9/11, and now they've pushed what happened
> > > that day out of their minds in favor of some Bush-invented
> > > fantasy.
>
> > If you so anti-Bush, how come you don't protest Faith-Based
> > initiative,
>
> When didn't I?
I don't see thousands of people rally around the country to protest
government giving money to religion.Just go to
www.americanatheists.org, and see how many cases of money abuse is
there.
Danirl Robinson
> > >
> > >No, idiot.Believing in existance of WMD is not a theocracy.
> >
> > You're the one claiming it's a religious belief, not I!
> >
> > Woods
>
> My claim is simple.You are a moron.
This is the best argument you can come up with?
JTEM
"Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "JTEM" <jay...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > Al-Qaeda existed (and still exists) independently of the Taliban.
> Not in Afghanistan.
And you base this fantasy on.... what?
> > Neither is gone.
>
> Yes they are.From Afghanistan.
Neither is gone. Neither has left Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban
has recently INCREASED in power.
> And thats where Osama was residing.So killing Osama
> would prevent Sep 11.
Who said he's dead?
> > The Republicans. When Clinton wanted to use ground forces
> > against the very real & immediate genocide going on in Bosnia
> > the Republicans told him to fuck himself. There's is no way the
> > Republicans would have supported a preemptive ground war
> > against what MIGHT BE a future threat.
> There WAS a terrorist attack. Garage bombing of WTC in 1993,
The leader was an Egyptian cleric.
> and embassy bombing in 1998.
Yup. And the Republicans who dominated congress simply refused
to back Clinton. Just the opposite. They tried to impeach him.
There's no room for guessing here. This isn't speculation. The
Republicans were (and still are) consumed with partisan politics.
They refused to support every single military & economic initiative
of Bill Clinton.
> In both cases there was Al-Qaeda connection.
Nobody made that claim in 1993....
> So what you have to do,
If you're the Republicans, you refuse to authorize any ground forces.
> is invade a country, that hosting Al-Qaeda camps.
Nope. Not when you're a decent President and the Republicans
control both houses of congress. Instead they set aside all the
important matters -- like fighting terrorism -- and try to impeach
you.
We know what happened. This isn't a "What If" game. Back then,
like now, the Republicans were only interested in enriching
themselves.
Crazyalec
Whats a point of arguing with moron?
Crazyalec
> "Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > "JTEM" <jay...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > Al-Qaeda existed (and still exists) independently of the Taliban.
>
> > Not in Afghanistan.
>
> And you base this fantasy on.... what?
I had a dream.
>
> > > Neither is gone.
> >
> > Yes they are.From Afghanistan.
>
> Neither is gone. Neither has left Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban
> has recently INCREASED in power.
That is your belief.
>
> > And thats where Osama was residing.So killing Osama
> > would prevent Sep 11.
>
> Who said he's dead?
You said.
>
> > > The Republicans. When Clinton wanted to use ground forces
> > > against the very real & immediate genocide going on in Bosnia
> > > the Republicans told him to fuck himself. There's is no way the
> > > Republicans would have supported a preemptive ground war
> > > against what MIGHT BE a future threat.
>
> > There WAS a terrorist attack. Garage bombing of WTC in 1993,
>
> The leader was an Egyptian cleric.
Bullshit,That was a proven connection to AL-Qaeda.
>
> > and embassy bombing in 1998.
>
> Yup. And the Republicans who dominated congress simply refused
> to back Clinton. Just the opposite. They tried to impeach him.
>
> There's no room for guessing here. This isn't speculation. The
> Republicans were (and still are) consumed with partisan politics.
> They refused to support every single military & economic initiative
> of Bill Clinton.
Or poor Clinton.Couldn't "find" WMD in Afghanistan....
>
> > In both cases there was Al-Qaeda connection.
>
> Nobody made that claim in 1993....
>
> > So what you have to do,
>
> If you're the Republicans, you refuse to authorize any ground forces.
>
> > is invade a country, that hosting Al-Qaeda camps.
>
> Nope. Not when you're a decent President and the Republicans
> control both houses of congress. Instead they set aside all the
> important matters -- like fighting terrorism -- and try to impeach
> you.
I agree with you on that.I know that republicans are as guilty for not
pushing for invasion.But Clinton had a chance to show,that its a
matter of national security.How hard is to create hysteria of danger
if terrorism?
How hard is create a game of WMD in Afghanistan?
>
> We know what happened. This isn't a "What If" game. Back then,
> like now, the Republicans were only interested in enriching
> themselves.
And thats what he was suppose to fight.National security, and hunting
terrorists is a matter of protection of American citizens.
The bigger problem was not Refucklicans.It was arab oil control.You
always have to kiss arab ass because of oil.why do you think Middle
East conflict still going on? How hard is to exterminate arab
terrorists form Israel, and move the rest to Jordan?
But no...arab world wouldn't like it too much.
JTEM
Danirl Robinson
"Crazyalec" <olek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37c9d6cf.03061...@posting.google.com...
and yet you still reply to my comment. This means you do not believe your
own moronic statement, or you believe yourself to be moronic enough to argue
with a moron (as you like to use the term).
Userally people who resort to such retorts of name calling have little of
anything else to offer, other then name calling, try debateing the point
rather then attacking the person.
Daniel
Crazyalec
No, only prabbits.
Flyfish
JTEM
Crazyalec
Well, thats my point.How can I debate a point with a moron?
sparkup
Try using a mirror...that should do it.