Billo_Really

Do you have a point?

Or is this a bull**** attempt to be witty?

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

Billo_Really

Your claim is bull****! If we cared about the Iraqi people, we would have had at least an idea of what to do for them once the regime had been removed.You also do not express any remorse for the half-million that have died as a result of our illegal invasion. So s.h.i.t-can your notion that we attacked because we care. I don't believe it for one second. And it is disengenous of you to even push that point.

First off, prove I am just trying to elicit pity and second, you just proved my point above by bringing up some stupid 9/11 reference to Iraq rather than deal with the half-million that have died as a result of our illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

Cutting a check to the widow of a suicide bomber does not constitute support of terrorism. Show me specific proof any of that money went directly to an act of terrorism. So no, Hussein was not supporting terrorism.

This is a total fabrication and dishonest attempt at trying to say Iraq was not a "nation". Or it is just your opinion, which you have every right to have. But don't try to put that in this conversation when our US government apparently recognized Iraq as a nation.



And a sovereign nation at that. So your inference they could be attacked legally without UNSC approval because they weren't really a "nation" (in your eyes), doesn't wash.

You're trying to tell ME, what MY intention was, with what I stated. That's pretty arrogant! I'll say this again, you spent no effort tying to find out what my point was. That was obvious in your post.

Trajan Octavian Titus

But the mass slaughter of the Kurds and Shia, that was Iraq's soveriegn right, right?

Trajan Octavian Titus

Fuc/k off and read:

Fuc/k off and read:

Nah, the confessions aren't evidence at all.

Trajan Octavian Titus

They were everysingle one of them retaliatory strikes.

Khayembii Communique

And you think these no-fly zones prevented this? The fact is that the "retaliatory" bombings by those imposing the no-fly zones killed Kurds and Shia civilians, those they claimed the zones were there to protect!

Again, read Hersch's article. He covers all of this "evidence".

Trajan Octavian Titus

[/quote]

lmfao we use precision weapons pal we attacked missille installations and the like.

Again Hersh got bad information the plotters confessed to working at the direction of the IIS for Christ's sakes.

DivineComedy

“H32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
I
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” RESOLUTION 687 (1991) Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991

“A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.” (TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002)

“March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks

“The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” PROUD OF MY SON: Mahmoud Hamdan Kwasma, the Haifa bomber (Allah predicted 9/11 1400 years ago)

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in543981.shtml

***** Beginning of Argument *****

“Violating the rules of civility or not violating the rules of civility?”; “Terrorists or not terrorists?”; this is a dilemma for such a topic:

Fully acknowledging that after 13,333 posts on this message board Billo_Really has been provided full awareness of all aspects of this matter, if Billo_Really’s argument is valid when he says, “Cutting a check to the widow of a suicide bomber does not constitute support of terrorism. Show me specific proof any of that money went directly to an act of terrorism. So no, Hussein was not supporting terrorism”;

Consequently, by proper analogy this argument follows; If giving blessings to the families of civilian clothed Hamas suicide bombers and calling them “Martyrs” is not supporting terrorism and a material breach, therefore, it is not uncivil to copy and post this sentence and give Blessings for my saying, “Billo_Really and anyone that makes such an argument that ‘Hussein was not supporting terrorism‘ is either ignorant, lying, a liar, a terrorist propagandist, an idiot, or a fecal encephalitic moron, etc.;” In the future whenever Billo_Really or anyone on this message board supports the position that cutting “money to families of suicide murderers in Israel,” to the family of a civilian clothed terrorist Hamas suicide bomber, under a banner calling such terrorists “Martyrs,” was not a material breach of 1441 which recalled H32 of UN cease-fire resolution 687, copy and pasting this sentence with your Blessings will not constitute a material breach of the rules of civility; if it is found that such copy and pasting and Blessings would be a material breach of the rules of civility Billo_Really’s argument is not valid.

***** End of Argument *****


PS. I go now to collect my 72 horny bisexual women, one of which must look like Sharon Stone so my wife will be happy.

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

Khayembii Communique

"The public does not know that in the very areas you established as 'no-fly zones' to protect (7) the population living there, 144 civilians died and 446 were wounded by UK/US airforces. The FCO classified these reports as Iraqi propaganda with a UN imprimatur" even though much of it was collected and verified by UN staff travelling in the areas at the time of the strikes."
-Hans von Sponeck

And that was just in 2001.

Yeah, he covers that. Again, read it.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Sure they were and I'm sure it was the U.S. not the Iraqi deathsquads, sorry pal your propaganda gets no play the no-flys were established because Saddam was slaughtering Shia and Kurds in mass for trying to overthrow him after the liberation of Kuwait.

Can't read it your link is a payed subscription however let me guess he says that the confessions were forced right? Sorry pal your revisionist history gets no play here, facts are facts and Saddam through the IIS tried to assasinate G.H.W.B. and those responsible confessed to that effect.