Iraqi terrorists

[KidViciou$]

i requested a few times that he further explain his post, but he doesn't even acknowledge my requests. either i'm invisible or he's just being an idiot and looking for a fight

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: element
You're right it's like peeing into the wind talking to a bunch of 13 year old weenies with no comprehension skills whatsoever.

A. stfu.
B. piss off.
C go f_ yourself in bed with a friggin dirty old sock around your 2" trouser buddy.

Suggesting some of that stuff to a 13 year old could be grounds for some serious charges being leveled against you. Are you prepared to face those consequences?

 

[element]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: element
You're right it's like peeing into the wind talking to a bunch of 13 year old weenies with no comprehension skills whatsoever.

A. stfu.
B. piss off.
C go f_ yourself in bed with a friggin dirty old sock around your 2" trouser buddy.

Suggesting some of that stuff to a 13 year old could be grounds for some serious charges being leveled against you. Are you prepared to face those consequences?

what did I suggest? Are you sure you have enough brain matter to figure it out? I am prepared for anything much less the likes of you. What does f___ stand for? Go find yourself? what is a trouser buddy but your hello kitty keychain?

 

[element]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: kogase
Guy makes preposterous argument. People point this out. Guy goes a little crazy. Hilarity ensues.

If it is so preposterous, why can't you talk about why it is so? Calling it preposterous serves no more purpose than me calling you a bufoon. how about some reasoning as to why you think so?

You seem to really like peeing into the wind tonight...rough day?


A. Hot bath.

B. Heavy meds.

C. Go to bed.

You're right it's like peeing into the wind talking to a bunch of 13 year old weenies with no comprehension skills whatsoever.

A. stfu.
B. piss off.
C go f_ yourself in bed with a friggin dirty old sock around your 2" trouser buddy.

I'm a girl, you creep.

You're probably a middle aged male cretin pedofile for all I know. Creep away creep.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i requested a few times that he further explain his post, but he doesn't even acknowledge my requests. either i'm invisible or he's just being an idiot and looking for a fight

Yes, he seems to be in it for the insults...


Sets up a flame-bait thread and sits back and makes enemies of all.


Fairly common syndrome.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i requested a few times that he further explain his post, but he doesn't even acknowledge my requests. either i'm invisible or he's just being an idiot and looking for a fight

If you don't get it, there is no sense in trying to explain it to you. You won't be able to add anything to the discussion.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i requested a few times that he further explain his post, but he doesn't even acknowledge my requests. either i'm invisible or he's just being an idiot and looking for a fight

Yes, he seems to be in it for the insults...


Sets up a flame-bait thread and sits back and makes enemies of all.


Fairly common syndrome.

It wasn't a flame bait thread until you flaming tards turned it into a flamefest from lack of proper social skills. Figures.

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i requested a few times that he further explain his post, but he doesn't even acknowledge my requests. either i'm invisible or he's just being an idiot and looking for a fight

If you don't get it, there is no sense in trying to explain it to you. You won't be able to add anything to the discussion.

what do u have to lose by trying?


edit: you know what? i gave you too much credit, i see now that was your entire thought and i have to tell you, no, youre wrong

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
i requested a few times that he further explain his post, but he doesn't even acknowledge my requests. either i'm invisible or he's just being an idiot and looking for a fight

Yes, he seems to be in it for the insults...


Sets up a flame-bait thread and sits back and makes enemies of all.


Fairly common syndrome.

It wasn't a flame bait thread until you flaming tards turned it into a flamefest from lack of proper social skills. Figures.

It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

 

[KidViciou$]

btw, if the attacks in other countries were because of iraq solely, why wasn't the US hit? the reason why is because it's not just about iraq. the terrorists see it as an attack on islam. the reason we weren't hit is because it takes much more planning to hit us than other countries


and condoleeza rice even said that there was no link between al-qaeda and sadaam hussein. instead of attempting to think you should listen to the news every once in a whiel

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
btw, if the attacks in other countries were because of iraq solely, why wasn't the US hit? the reason why is because it's not just about iraq. the terrorists see it as an attack on islam. the reason we weren't hit is because it takes much more planning to hit us than other countries


and condoleeza rice even said that there was no link between al-qaeda and sadaam hussein. instead of attempting to think you should listen to the news every once in a whiel

I'm hearing crickets in here.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
btw, if the attacks in other countries were because of iraq solely, why wasn't the US hit? the reason why is because it's not just about iraq. the terrorists see it as an attack on islam. the reason we weren't hit is because it takes much more planning to hit us than other countries


and condoleeza rice even said that there was no link between al-qaeda and sadaam hussein. instead of attempting to think you should listen to the news every once in a whiel

well at least you gave it a try. I give you props for that. So you finally did get it, what I was saying? Now that wasn't so hard was it? You might actually get some respect now. Go figure.

I will answer like this: You should not only listen to the news every once in a while, but think for yourself as well. At no point in time did I mention anything about Saddam Hussein. He is out of the picture now. My statement was trying to back up a link between the terrorists and Iraq. By that I mean The Iraqi people. People who reside or did once reside in Iraq.

As for why we weren't hit. I don't presume to know why the terrorists choose the targets they choose, and when they choose them. Perhaps as you said because security in the U.S. is tighter now since 911. Besides the terrorists did lop off the heads of some U.S. citizens abroad, so in part, your statement of why we weren't terrorized post 911 isn't true. We were.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: element
So I'm thinkin...

Suggestion, take a day off from thinking.

:laugh:

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
btw, if the attacks in other countries were because of iraq solely, why wasn't the US hit? the reason why is because it's not just about iraq. the terrorists see it as an attack on islam. the reason we weren't hit is because it takes much more planning to hit us than other countries


and condoleeza rice even said that there was no link between al-qaeda and sadaam hussein. instead of attempting to think you should listen to the news every once in a whiel

well at least you gave it a try. I give you props for that. So you finally did get it, what I was saying? Now that wasn't so hard was it? You might actually get some respect now. Go figure.

I will answer like this: You should not only listen to the news every once in a while, but think for yourself as well. At no point in time did I mention anything about Saddam Hussein. He is out of the picture now. My statement was trying to back up a link between the terrorists and Iraq. By that I mean The Iraqi people. People who reside or did once reside in Iraq.

As for why we weren't hit. I don't presume to know why the terrorists choose the targets they choose, and when they choose them. Perhaps as you said because security in the U.S. is tighter now since 911. Besides the terrorists did lop off the heads of some U.S. citizens abroad, so in part, your statement of why we weren't terrorized post 911 isn't true. We were.

Pretzel-Logic.


I think he's drunk.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
btw, if the attacks in other countries were because of iraq solely, why wasn't the US hit? the reason why is because it's not just about iraq. the terrorists see it as an attack on islam. the reason we weren't hit is because it takes much more planning to hit us than other countries


and condoleeza rice even said that there was no link between al-qaeda and sadaam hussein. instead of attempting to think you should listen to the news every once in a whiel

well at least you gave it a try. I give you props for that. So you finally did get it, what I was saying? Now that wasn't so hard was it? You might actually get some respect now. Go figure.

I will answer like this: You should not only listen to the news every once in a while, but think for yourself as well. At no point in time did I mention anything about Saddam Hussein. He is out of the picture now. My statement was trying to back up a link between the terrorists and Iraq. By that I mean The Iraqi people. People who reside or did once reside in Iraq.

As for why we weren't hit. I don't presume to know why the terrorists choose the targets they choose, and when they choose them. Perhaps as you said because security in the U.S. is tighter now since 911. Besides the terrorists did lop off the heads of some U.S. citizens abroad, so in part, your statement of why we weren't terrorized post 911 isn't true. We were.

Pretzel-Logic.


I think he's drunk.

You're an ass. A stupid one at that if your miniscule brain got twisted like a pretzel from such simple logic.

 

[KidViciou$]

how could the iraqi people be in cohoots with the terrorists? they would need a "point man"

and like i said, the terrorists are "fighting" for the iraqis, whether they like it or not


i understood that as your original argument, but like i said originally, your reasoning was disjoint

 

[element]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
how could the iraqi people be in cohoots with the terrorists? they would need a "point man"

and like i said, the terrorists are "fighting" for the iraqis, whether they like it or not...t

Exactly. the terrorists are fighting for the Iraqis. Why would they do that if there were no ties between them? That is all I was trying to say.

 

[conjur]

This thread needs to be locked just for sheer stupidity.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/2002/bali/default.stm

BBC News Online collects news, analysis and features from the terror attack in Bali on 12 October, 2002

When did the US invade Iraq? Hmm???

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: conjur
This thread needs to be locked just for sheer stupidity.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/2002/bali/default.stm

BBC News Online collects news, analysis and features from the terror attack in Bali on 12 October, 2002

When did the US invade Iraq? Hmm???

What? Haven't you been following this?

It is WE who are stupid and cannot follow the simple indisputable logic of element.

We All should be banned...NOT HIM!

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
how could the iraqi people be in cohoots with the terrorists? they would need a "point man"

and like i said, the terrorists are "fighting" for the iraqis, whether they like it or not...t

Exactly. the terrorists are fighting for the Iraqis. Why would they do that if there were no ties between them? That is all I was trying to say.

that's still wrong, i said they are fighting in the name of the iraqis whether they like it or not. and the only tie between them is that they are muslim

 

[eilute]

I believe that there has been some Al Quida activity in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

 

[KidViciou$]

lil more than some

 

[element]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: conjur
This thread needs to be locked just for sheer stupidity.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/asia_pacific/2002/bali/default.stm

BBC News Online collects news, analysis and features from the terror attack in Bali on 12 October, 2002

When did the US invade Iraq? Hmm???

What? Haven't you been following this?

It is WE who are stupid and cannot follow the simple indisputable logic of element.

We All should be banned...NOT HIM!

All you've done is thread crap. Contributed nothing to the discussion. You SHOULD be banned. If you disagree with me that's fine, but you don't have to be a thread crapping ass about it.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: element
So I'm thinkin...

Suggestion, take a day off from thinking.

Like you could do better. Suggestion, stfu. k? thx.

LMAO. Take my advice. You will sleep better at night. Your theory is so far out there you sound like a Lib.

 

[Engineer]

*sigh*...Yep, the Liberals say so...

More liberals spouting off...

Foxnews even stated it.

More stuff from the libs.

Even Colon Powell states that the libs are full of crap.

Who believes liberals anyway. :thumbsup: