17 Year old Girl Sentenced to Death

[Finality]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Finality
Oh yeah my favorite 9/11 excuse so far is "It wasn't Bin Laden it was the Jews that did it!"

The sad part is a lot of muslims I talked to believe it because they believe muslims cant commit violence....... 'Teh funny'

No Muslim you have ever talked to has said this.

Talking to Muslims on http://www.jihadchat.com is not going to cut it

Actually I live in a muslim country so I know what I'm talking about I wont reveal where right now, but for your comments about honor killings I'd simply ask you to google it.

The difference in Iraq is there is a full spectrum of media there that covers whats going on. Networks like Al Jazeera only cover areas where they are wanted ie Iraq, they dont venture into countries like Iran to cover all the attrocoties that occur there.

jpeyton fine your not your average muslim, but then why do muslims clasp the entire West into one group? I hear it all the time, the west is against us blah blah blah.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Twice you call me naive, and a sheep... yet you provide no valid evidence of deception. Only name calling and baseless accusations.

The fact of the matter is the entire world community, based on independent intelligence, came to the same conclusion we did. The prior administration also came to the same conclusion based on intelligence gathered over the previous 12 years.

Is every major intelligence agency in the world a liar too? Is Clinton a liar too?

UN resolution 1441 was crafted to give the allies a legal way of enforcing the cease fire agreement. That it was crafted in the UN is moot. It was crafted by the allies and the UN used as a legal entity from which to issue such an agreement. Again, you know nothing about this except the partisan revisionist BS you've been fed. The problem is, some of us can not only think for ourselves, we also can remember very recent history and won't fall for the BS from those who think they can rewrite history so soon after it happening.

Only a naive sheep would believe other governments' affirmations of "WMD's" in Iraq. How convenient, all of these nations are United States suckups. Russia? Are you kidding me? Do you know what they stand to lose by not agreeing with the US? You listed 2 nations (who suckup to us), and think that translates into "every major intelligence agency in the world"? More examples please, 2 countries is not the "world". I don't think you can count Russia as reliable intelligence anyhow.

This US Administration does not view itself as part of the UN after turning their back on them, so don't use 1441 as justification to invade Iraq. IF the US would have waited for a vote from the UN before the war in Iraq, and gathered world support, then I can see your point. But that didn't happen. I sit in awe of your logic.

I sit in awe of your lack of proof of deception. You want it to be lies, therefore it is... even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is your entire argument minus the silly insults.

And no, not all the intelligence agencies who came to the same conclusions we did were "suck ups." In fact, the months long debate was NOT even over whether or not they had WMDs, but how to go about resolving the issue. Not even France debated the point of WMDs before the war.

BTW, I see you still conveniently skip over the fact that Clinton and his admin had come to the SAME conclusion based on their intelligence. So is Clinton a liar too?

Finally, again, you miss the point of 1441. It had NOTHING to do with the UN other than the fact that the US used the UN as the legal entity from which to issue it. All it did was give the US the legal right to enforce the cease fire agreement that Saddam broke for 12 long years.

I'll tell you what, when you have proof of deception, let me know. As it stands now, too many independant sources came to the same conclusion, including countries that opposed the war and Bush's political rivals. That alone is proof enough of a negative... even though I don't have a damn thing to prove, since the burden is on you to prove your claims.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Twice you call me naive, and a sheep... yet you provide no valid evidence of deception. Only name calling and baseless accusations.

The fact of the matter is the entire world community, based on independent intelligence, came to the same conclusion we did. The prior administration also came to the same conclusion based on intelligence gathered over the previous 12 years.

Is every major intelligence agency in the world a liar too? Is Clinton a liar too?

UN resolution 1441 was crafted to give the allies a legal way of enforcing the cease fire agreement. That it was crafted in the UN is moot. It was crafted by the allies and the UN used as a legal entity from which to issue such an agreement. Again, you know nothing about this except the partisan revisionist BS you've been fed. The problem is, some of us can not only think for ourselves, we also can remember very recent history and won't fall for the BS from those who think they can rewrite history so soon after it happening.

Only a naive sheep would believe other governments' affirmations of "WMD's" in Iraq. How convenient, all of these nations are United States suckups. Russia? Are you kidding me? Do you know what they stand to lose by not agreeing with the US? You listed 2 nations (who suckup to us), and think that translates into "every major intelligence agency in the world"? More examples please, 2 countries is not the "world". I don't think you can count Russia as reliable intelligence anyhow.

This US Administration does not view itself as part of the UN after turning their back on them, so don't use 1441 as justification to invade Iraq. IF the US would have waited for a vote from the UN before the war in Iraq, and gathered world support, then I can see your point. But that didn't happen. I sit in awe of your logic.

I sit in awe of your lack of proof of deception. You want it to be lies, therefore it is... even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is your entire argument minus the silly insults.

And no, not all the intelligence agencies who came to the same conclusions we did were "suck ups." In fact, the months long debate was NOT even over whether or not they had WMDs, but how to go about resolving the issue. Not even France debated the point of WMDs before the war.

BTW, I see you still conveniently skip over the fact that Clinton and his admin had come to the SAME conclusion based on their intelligence. So is Clinton a liar too?

Finally, again, you miss the point of 1441. It had NOTHING to do with the UN other than the fact that the US used the UN as the legal entity from which to issue it. All it did was give the US the legal right to enforce the cease fire agreement that Saddam broke for 12 long years.

I'll tell you what, when you have proof of deception, let me know. As it stands now, too many independant sources came to the same conclusion, including countries that opposed the war and Bush's political rivals. That alone is proof enough of a negative... even though I don't have a damn thing to prove, since the burden is on you to prove your claims.

Where are your links? What countries? Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical here, but you listed two countries (and now included France), so three. If France found the evidence so compelling, why did they condemn the current administration's actions? If it was so compelling, a vote wouldn't have even been needed for the UN and W's cowboy invasion would have overwhelming approval. Anyone who claims that all the major intelligence agencies in the world thought Saddam had WMD's is full of sht, and naive. Only the ones who need to kiss the United State's ass because of self interest said Iraq had them: the Russians and Brits like you said.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Twice you call me naive, and a sheep... yet you provide no valid evidence of deception. Only name calling and baseless accusations.

The fact of the matter is the entire world community, based on independent intelligence, came to the same conclusion we did. The prior administration also came to the same conclusion based on intelligence gathered over the previous 12 years.

Is every major intelligence agency in the world a liar too? Is Clinton a liar too?

UN resolution 1441 was crafted to give the allies a legal way of enforcing the cease fire agreement. That it was crafted in the UN is moot. It was crafted by the allies and the UN used as a legal entity from which to issue such an agreement. Again, you know nothing about this except the partisan revisionist BS you've been fed. The problem is, some of us can not only think for ourselves, we also can remember very recent history and won't fall for the BS from those who think they can rewrite history so soon after it happening.

Only a naive sheep would believe other governments' affirmations of "WMD's" in Iraq. How convenient, all of these nations are United States suckups. Russia? Are you kidding me? Do you know what they stand to lose by not agreeing with the US? You listed 2 nations (who suckup to us), and think that translates into "every major intelligence agency in the world"? More examples please, 2 countries is not the "world". I don't think you can count Russia as reliable intelligence anyhow.

This US Administration does not view itself as part of the UN after turning their back on them, so don't use 1441 as justification to invade Iraq. IF the US would have waited for a vote from the UN before the war in Iraq, and gathered world support, then I can see your point. But that didn't happen. I sit in awe of your logic.

I sit in awe of your lack of proof of deception. You want it to be lies, therefore it is... even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is your entire argument minus the silly insults.

And no, not all the intelligence agencies who came to the same conclusions we did were "suck ups." In fact, the months long debate was NOT even over whether or not they had WMDs, but how to go about resolving the issue. Not even France debated the point of WMDs before the war.

BTW, I see you still conveniently skip over the fact that Clinton and his admin had come to the SAME conclusion based on their intelligence. So is Clinton a liar too?

Finally, again, you miss the point of 1441. It had NOTHING to do with the UN other than the fact that the US used the UN as the legal entity from which to issue it. All it did was give the US the legal right to enforce the cease fire agreement that Saddam broke for 12 long years.

I'll tell you what, when you have proof of deception, let me know. As it stands now, too many independant sources came to the same conclusion, including countries that opposed the war and Bush's political rivals. That alone is proof enough of a negative... even though I don't have a damn thing to prove, since the burden is on you to prove your claims.

Where are your links? What countries? Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical here, but you listed two countries (and now included France), so three. If France found the evidence so compelling, why did they condemn the current administration's actions? If it was so compelling, a vote wouldn't have even been needed for the UN and W's cowboy invasion would have overwhelming approval. Anyone who claims that all the major intelligence agencies in the world thought Saddam had WMD's is full of sht, and naive. Only the ones who need to kiss the United State's ass because of self interest said Iraq had them: the Russians and Brits like you said.

Again, the burden is not on me to prove anything. You are making claims of deception. Now you are making claims that the other major intelligence agencies of the world did not find compelling evidence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the war.

Back these up or drop your claims of deception.

And, yet again, is Clinton a liar? Is his wife a liar?

Yes, yes, it's all a great conspiracy. :roll: The Russians vocally oppsed the war. Putin is HARDLY a "kiss up." Please, get a clue before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Twice you call me naive, and a sheep... yet you provide no valid evidence of deception. Only name calling and baseless accusations.

The fact of the matter is the entire world community, based on independent intelligence, came to the same conclusion we did. The prior administration also came to the same conclusion based on intelligence gathered over the previous 12 years.

Is every major intelligence agency in the world a liar too? Is Clinton a liar too?

UN resolution 1441 was crafted to give the allies a legal way of enforcing the cease fire agreement. That it was crafted in the UN is moot. It was crafted by the allies and the UN used as a legal entity from which to issue such an agreement. Again, you know nothing about this except the partisan revisionist BS you've been fed. The problem is, some of us can not only think for ourselves, we also can remember very recent history and won't fall for the BS from those who think they can rewrite history so soon after it happening.

Only a naive sheep would believe other governments' affirmations of "WMD's" in Iraq. How convenient, all of these nations are United States suckups. Russia? Are you kidding me? Do you know what they stand to lose by not agreeing with the US? You listed 2 nations (who suckup to us), and think that translates into "every major intelligence agency in the world"? More examples please, 2 countries is not the "world". I don't think you can count Russia as reliable intelligence anyhow.

This US Administration does not view itself as part of the UN after turning their back on them, so don't use 1441 as justification to invade Iraq. IF the US would have waited for a vote from the UN before the war in Iraq, and gathered world support, then I can see your point. But that didn't happen. I sit in awe of your logic.

I sit in awe of your lack of proof of deception. You want it to be lies, therefore it is... even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is your entire argument minus the silly insults.

And no, not all the intelligence agencies who came to the same conclusions we did were "suck ups." In fact, the months long debate was NOT even over whether or not they had WMDs, but how to go about resolving the issue. Not even France debated the point of WMDs before the war.

BTW, I see you still conveniently skip over the fact that Clinton and his admin had come to the SAME conclusion based on their intelligence. So is Clinton a liar too?

Finally, again, you miss the point of 1441. It had NOTHING to do with the UN other than the fact that the US used the UN as the legal entity from which to issue it. All it did was give the US the legal right to enforce the cease fire agreement that Saddam broke for 12 long years.

I'll tell you what, when you have proof of deception, let me know. As it stands now, too many independant sources came to the same conclusion, including countries that opposed the war and Bush's political rivals. That alone is proof enough of a negative... even though I don't have a damn thing to prove, since the burden is on you to prove your claims.

Where are your links? What countries? Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical here, but you listed two countries (and now included France), so three. If France found the evidence so compelling, why did they condemn the current administration's actions? If it was so compelling, a vote wouldn't have even been needed for the UN and W's cowboy invasion would have overwhelming approval. Anyone who claims that all the major intelligence agencies in the world thought Saddam had WMD's is full of sht, and naive. Only the ones who need to kiss the United State's ass because of self interest said Iraq had them: the Russians and Brits like you said.

Again, the burden is not on me to prove anything. You are making claims of deception. Now you are making claims that the other major intelligence agencies of the world did not find compelling evidence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the war.

Back these up or drop your claims of deception.

And, yet again, is Clinton a liar? Is his wife a liar?

Yes, yes, it's all a great conspiracy. :roll: The Russians vocally oppsed the war. Putin is HARDLY a "kiss up." Please, get a clue before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Yes, I'm the fool, I'm the one claiming that all of the world's major intelligence agencies had found WMD's and list TWO. I'm the one that needs to provide evidence, now, right? ROFL. If you talk the talk, walk the walk. What about Japan's intelligence? Canada? Germany? But the evidence was so appealing, everyone smiled and said it was ok to invade Iraq, right?

The Russians will do anything we say, we have given them billions of dollars of aid in the past and continue to do so. Text

How's the pasture over there? baa baa baaaa.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Amused

Twice you call me naive, and a sheep... yet you provide no valid evidence of deception. Only name calling and baseless accusations.

The fact of the matter is the entire world community, based on independent intelligence, came to the same conclusion we did. The prior administration also came to the same conclusion based on intelligence gathered over the previous 12 years.

Is every major intelligence agency in the world a liar too? Is Clinton a liar too?

UN resolution 1441 was crafted to give the allies a legal way of enforcing the cease fire agreement. That it was crafted in the UN is moot. It was crafted by the allies and the UN used as a legal entity from which to issue such an agreement. Again, you know nothing about this except the partisan revisionist BS you've been fed. The problem is, some of us can not only think for ourselves, we also can remember very recent history and won't fall for the BS from those who think they can rewrite history so soon after it happening.

Only a naive sheep would believe other governments' affirmations of "WMD's" in Iraq. How convenient, all of these nations are United States suckups. Russia? Are you kidding me? Do you know what they stand to lose by not agreeing with the US? You listed 2 nations (who suckup to us), and think that translates into "every major intelligence agency in the world"? More examples please, 2 countries is not the "world". I don't think you can count Russia as reliable intelligence anyhow.

This US Administration does not view itself as part of the UN after turning their back on them, so don't use 1441 as justification to invade Iraq. IF the US would have waited for a vote from the UN before the war in Iraq, and gathered world support, then I can see your point. But that didn't happen. I sit in awe of your logic.

I sit in awe of your lack of proof of deception. You want it to be lies, therefore it is... even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is your entire argument minus the silly insults.

And no, not all the intelligence agencies who came to the same conclusions we did were "suck ups." In fact, the months long debate was NOT even over whether or not they had WMDs, but how to go about resolving the issue. Not even France debated the point of WMDs before the war.

BTW, I see you still conveniently skip over the fact that Clinton and his admin had come to the SAME conclusion based on their intelligence. So is Clinton a liar too?

Finally, again, you miss the point of 1441. It had NOTHING to do with the UN other than the fact that the US used the UN as the legal entity from which to issue it. All it did was give the US the legal right to enforce the cease fire agreement that Saddam broke for 12 long years.

I'll tell you what, when you have proof of deception, let me know. As it stands now, too many independant sources came to the same conclusion, including countries that opposed the war and Bush's political rivals. That alone is proof enough of a negative... even though I don't have a damn thing to prove, since the burden is on you to prove your claims.

Where are your links? What countries? Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical here, but you listed two countries (and now included France), so three. If France found the evidence so compelling, why did they condemn the current administration's actions? If it was so compelling, a vote wouldn't have even been needed for the UN and W's cowboy invasion would have overwhelming approval. Anyone who claims that all the major intelligence agencies in the world thought Saddam had WMD's is full of sht, and naive. Only the ones who need to kiss the United State's ass because of self interest said Iraq had them: the Russians and Brits like you said.

Again, the burden is not on me to prove anything. You are making claims of deception. Now you are making claims that the other major intelligence agencies of the world did not find compelling evidence of WMDs in Iraq prior to the war.

Back these up or drop your claims of deception.

And, yet again, is Clinton a liar? Is his wife a liar?

Yes, yes, it's all a great conspiracy. :roll: The Russians vocally oppsed the war. Putin is HARDLY a "kiss up." Please, get a clue before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Yes, I'm the fool, I'm the one claiming that all of the world's major intelligence agencies had found WMD's and list TWO. I'm the one that needs to provide evidence, now, right? ROFL. If you talk the talk, walk the walk. What about Japan's intelligence? Canada? Germany? But the evidence was so appealing, everyone smiled and said it was ok to invade Iraq, right?

The Russians will do anything we say, we have given them billions of dollars of aid in the past and continue to do so. Text

How's the pasture over there? baa baa baaaa.

Again, every major intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion. Russia vocally opposed the war even though their intelligence showed WMDs as well, so the idea that they blindly follow us is absurd. Clinton and his wife also came to the same conclusion years before Bush.

Are the Clintons liars too?

You cannot get over these hurdles. You WANT this myth to be true, so you avoid them like the plague. Let's face it. You have no proof of deception. None.

 

[eits]

wow, this is quite possibly the most biased website i've ever seen. horrible.

however, unfortunately, dispite the fact that i take everything that website says with a grain of salt, the article is true. the iranian government is disgusting as hell.... not to mention that this happened in the bumpkin town of neka in northern iran and iran's supreme court is an all-conservative panel. another reason why she was sentenced to death was because she pulled off her chador (head scarf) while arguing with the judge. ridiculous

i just pray that the united states stays the fvck out of iran and lets the iranian people revolt (as they have slowly been building up to do) and finally become a republican democracy like they want to be. 85% of the iranian public hates the iranian government and want a change. there are daily demonstrations in the streets of iran in the thousands.... one of these days, the people will revolt.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/opinion/20040519_IRAN_FEATURE/index.html

 

[everman]

I reckon this thread is toasty enough to throw a couple steaks on top of.
*tosses steaks on thread*

 

[Powermoloch]

Only IRAN :thumbsup:

 

[The Godfather]

Ah.. the "Quaran" might not teach that women are less than men, or teach that people should go into restourants with bombs and kill people in the name of Allah. Although it does say that all other religious are mischiefs and have to be converted to Islam. Doesn't matter if its by force or not.

Anyways, but people in Islamic countries have a majority that can't read. All they do is go to church and listen to what that preacher teaches them, since they can't read it for themselves. So if the government pays the preacher to say stuff like "women are less than men" or "bomb yourself", the country will follow. It keeps controll and has the population do what the government wants them to. If someone dares to stand up, they get shot.

End of story.

(This has nothing to do with the woman getting killed)

Don't try to disporve me because i'm right.

 

[The Godfather]

BTW: If lets say a war occurs, Russia > USA

 

[Xylitol]

The Iranian court system is fililed with douche bags

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
The Iranian government system is fililed with douche bags

fixed.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: The Godfather
Ah.. the "Quaran" might not teach that women are less than men, or teach that people should go into restourants with bombs and kill people in the name of Allah. Although it does say that all other religious are mischiefs and have to be converted to Islam. Doesn't matter if its by force or not.

Anyways, but people in Islamic countries have a majority that can't read. All they do is go to church and listen to what that preacher teaches them, since they can't read it for themselves. So if the government pays the preacher to say stuff like "women are less than men" or "bomb yourself", the country will follow. It keeps controll and has the population do what the government wants them to. If someone dares to stand up, they get shot.

End of story.

(This has nothing to do with the woman getting killed)

Don't try to disporve me because i'm right.

unfortunately for you, you're wrong on all counts (except that the koran doesn't say to mistreat women or bomb yourselves in a restaurant in Allah's name). you're kinda close that people swallow anything the cleric says, though. you're kinda close because this mainly happens in the bumpkin villiages. this does not constitute a majority of people in islamic countries....

however, something that fuels radical cleric rhetoric = the actions of the united states. whatever the united states does in the middle east, good or bad, helps clerics brainwash people to radicalism.

 

[imported_ceefka]

It's very much more the culture than the religion that makes these things happen. It's almost too much for words. I can't believe people choose a regime like that.

A "religious" judge... Yeah, right! He will come before Allah someday.

eits : Not the US alone. Europe (eg Denmark) will do fine too.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, every major intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion. Russia vocally opposed the war even though their intelligence showed WMDs as well, so the idea that they blindly follow us is absurd. Clinton and his wife also came to the same conclusion years before Bush.

Are the Clintons liars too?

You cannot get over these hurdles. You WANT this myth to be true, so you avoid them like the plague. Let's face it. You have no proof of deception. None.

So as I said before, the Bush administration is a beacon of truth. They cannot tell a lie, and there is 100% transparency throughout the executive branch of our government. Despite the fact you admit ulterior financial motives, I'm sure the case to go to war was 100% legit from bottom to top. If you live in the world of Amused, of course.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: ceefka
It's very much more the culture than the religion that makes these things happen. It's almost too much for words. I can't believe people choose a regime like that.

A "religious" judge... Yeah, right! He will come before Allah someday.

eits : Not the US alone. Europe (eg Denmark) will do fine too.

the people didn't have a choice. yeah, they voted, but they were made to choose between a radical douchebag who made big promises of change and a lame duck douchebag who hadn't done jack-ass-crap for years.

the united states endorsed the current president, even (even though he was one of the hostage handlers during the american hostage crisis in iran)!

also, i think any american involvement in a war in iran would be terrible for us and the middle east altogether. america's like the dude no one likes... if another person says something, it'd be funny. if america were to have said the same thing, they'd be viewed as an unfunny assface. i know you've met people like that... we're that guy. that's why we need to stay the hell out of it.

not only that, but we need to let iran be an example of change from within their own country. we need to let the iranians change their own government and enjoy democracy for what it is and not for what khamenei wishes it to be. that idea will spread... it's like a reverse policy of containment.

sometimes, you need to be patient and let change happen to benefit the long-term goal and not be a prick and only care about instant gratified results (such an american mentality).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, every major intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion. Russia vocally opposed the war even though their intelligence showed WMDs as well, so the idea that they blindly follow us is absurd. Clinton and his wife also came to the same conclusion years before Bush.

Are the Clintons liars too?

You cannot get over these hurdles. You WANT this myth to be true, so you avoid them like the plague. Let's face it. You have no proof of deception. None.

So as I said before, the Bush administration is a beacon of truth. They cannot tell a lie, and there is 100% transparency throughout the executive branch of our government. Despite the fact you admit ulterior financial motives, I'm sure the case to go to war was 100% legit from bottom to top. If you live in the world of Amused, of course.

Ah, more appeals to insults, straw men, and ridiculous extremes. But amazingly enough, not a single fact.

The fact is this: The "Bush lied" claims about WMDs are completely unfounded.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, every major intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion. Russia vocally opposed the war even though their intelligence showed WMDs as well, so the idea that they blindly follow us is absurd. Clinton and his wife also came to the same conclusion years before Bush.

Are the Clintons liars too?

You cannot get over these hurdles. You WANT this myth to be true, so you avoid them like the plague. Let's face it. You have no proof of deception. None.

So as I said before, the Bush administration is a beacon of truth. They cannot tell a lie, and there is 100% transparency throughout the executive branch of our government. Despite the fact you admit ulterior financial motives, I'm sure the case to go to war was 100% legit from bottom to top. If you live in the world of Amused, of course.

Ah, more appeals to insults, straw men, and ridiculous extremes. But amazingly enough, not a single fact.

The fact is this: The "Bush lied" claims about WMDs are completely unfounded.

are you joking?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, every major intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion. Russia vocally opposed the war even though their intelligence showed WMDs as well, so the idea that they blindly follow us is absurd. Clinton and his wife also came to the same conclusion years before Bush.

Are the Clintons liars too?

You cannot get over these hurdles. You WANT this myth to be true, so you avoid them like the plague. Let's face it. You have no proof of deception. None.

So as I said before, the Bush administration is a beacon of truth. They cannot tell a lie, and there is 100% transparency throughout the executive branch of our government. Despite the fact you admit ulterior financial motives, I'm sure the case to go to war was 100% legit from bottom to top. If you live in the world of Amused, of course.

Ah, more appeals to insults, straw men, and ridiculous extremes. But amazingly enough, not a single fact.

The fact is this: The "Bush lied" claims about WMDs are completely unfounded.

are you joking?

Absolutely not. And before you make the same tired and unfounded accusations, read all my posts in this thread about this subject.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, every major intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion. Russia vocally opposed the war even though their intelligence showed WMDs as well, so the idea that they blindly follow us is absurd. Clinton and his wife also came to the same conclusion years before Bush.

Are the Clintons liars too?

You cannot get over these hurdles. You WANT this myth to be true, so you avoid them like the plague. Let's face it. You have no proof of deception. None.

So as I said before, the Bush administration is a beacon of truth. They cannot tell a lie, and there is 100% transparency throughout the executive branch of our government. Despite the fact you admit ulterior financial motives, I'm sure the case to go to war was 100% legit from bottom to top. If you live in the world of Amused, of course.

Ah, more appeals to insults, straw men, and ridiculous extremes. But amazingly enough, not a single fact.

The fact is this: The "Bush lied" claims about WMDs are completely unfounded.

are you joking?

Absolutely not. And before you make the same tired and unfounded accusations, read all my posts in this thread about this subject.

i wasn't intending on making any "same tired" post. i was simply going to laugh at you.

"HAHAHA quoted for idiocy"

there you go. that's what i was going to post. not the "same tired" tactic of trying to explain 2+2=4 to someone who will never understand, no matter how hard i try.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, every major intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion. Russia vocally opposed the war even though their intelligence showed WMDs as well, so the idea that they blindly follow us is absurd. Clinton and his wife also came to the same conclusion years before Bush.

Are the Clintons liars too?

You cannot get over these hurdles. You WANT this myth to be true, so you avoid them like the plague. Let's face it. You have no proof of deception. None.

So as I said before, the Bush administration is a beacon of truth. They cannot tell a lie, and there is 100% transparency throughout the executive branch of our government. Despite the fact you admit ulterior financial motives, I'm sure the case to go to war was 100% legit from bottom to top. If you live in the world of Amused, of course.

Ah, more appeals to insults, straw men, and ridiculous extremes. But amazingly enough, not a single fact.

The fact is this: The "Bush lied" claims about WMDs are completely unfounded.

are you joking?

Absolutely not. And before you make the same tired and unfounded accusations, read all my posts in this thread about this subject.

i wasn't intending on making any "same tired" post. i was simply going to laugh at you.

"HAHAHA quoted for idiocy"

there you go. that's what i was going to post. not the "same tired" tactic of trying to explain 2+2=4 to someone who will never understand, no matter how hard i try.

Lovely, another person who simply insults me, yet shows no proof of deception.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Amused
Again, every major intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion. Russia vocally opposed the war even though their intelligence showed WMDs as well, so the idea that they blindly follow us is absurd. Clinton and his wife also came to the same conclusion years before Bush.

Are the Clintons liars too?

You cannot get over these hurdles. You WANT this myth to be true, so you avoid them like the plague. Let's face it. You have no proof of deception. None.

So as I said before, the Bush administration is a beacon of truth. They cannot tell a lie, and there is 100% transparency throughout the executive branch of our government. Despite the fact you admit ulterior financial motives, I'm sure the case to go to war was 100% legit from bottom to top. If you live in the world of Amused, of course.

Ah, more appeals to insults, straw men, and ridiculous extremes. But amazingly enough, not a single fact.

The fact is this: The "Bush lied" claims about WMDs are completely unfounded.

are you joking?

Absolutely not. And before you make the same tired and unfounded accusations, read all my posts in this thread about this subject.

i wasn't intending on making any "same tired" post. i was simply going to laugh at you.

"HAHAHA quoted for idiocy"

there you go. that's what i was going to post. not the "same tired" tactic of trying to explain 2+2=4 to someone who will never understand, no matter how hard i try.

Lovely, another person who simply insults me, yet shows no proof of deception.

you just said you didn't want the "same tired" post. i can only assume that you've:

a) been bombarded with obvious proofs of deception ever since this shitstorm war started.
b) someone already gave you proof and tried dismissing it as not being proof.
c) you're an idiot.
d) all of the above.

there's only one right answer... i chose d. in doing so, i saved myself the time and trouble by laughing at you rather than doing what others probably already did.

 

[SparkyJJO]

that's just aweful

 

[Howard]

Well, this went off-topic.