aquapub

You didn't ask how, just the part no one can answer-where. The how is obvious. He was a committed anti-US terror-sponsor with Uranium, vials of botulism, cyanide, mustard gas, sarin gas, etc. Not rocket science to reason out how he could give it to terrorists.

In a post-9/11 world, genocidal Islamic terror-sponsors with WMD cannot be tolerated. Calling that "making up a boogyman" reaches new heights of obliviousness.

And here we see why intelligent, reasonable adults reject liberals so often and so thoroughly in the voting booth. Your logic, which is representative of the vast majority of liberals, insists that we wait for each individual terror-sponsor to attack us separately, and only after each individual attack, respond by attacking only the particular group that hit us. In other words, remove the Taliban and wait for Saddam, Iran, or North Korea to hit us before doing anything about them.

That's suicidal and idiotic.

"The Treasury Department and other federal agencies are pressing Saudi Arabia to monitor closely bank accounts designated for relief aid to Palestinians, senior law enforcement officials say. The American authorities say some of the bank accounts may be conduits for terrorist financing...More recently...the Saudis have taken steps to tighten regulation of their banks and charities..."

The New York Times. June 24, 2003. U.S. Presses Saudis to Police Accounts Used to Aid Palestinians. Pg. 12.

So you even acknowledge that I didn't literally mean you smoked crack, yet still you insist on being offended by such a harmless wisecrack, portraying it as some uncivil act of malice?

Seriously, grow a sack.

Editing posts in no way constitutes being a jerk. I figured this was a BS assertion.

The only way you could've won this argument would've been to have come up with something more intelligent than: Hamas and those who give Hezbollah its orders (Iran and Syria) are nothing alike.

When I said it was justified for me to call you a crack smoker for making absurd arguments, I was claiming that it was how ludicrous your argument was that justified it. And no, moderators are not infallible. Just because a moderator does something doesn't make it valid.

__________________
http://www.patrioticunderground.com/

CaptainCourtesy

Moderator's Warning:

It's called the "Don't Be A Jerk Rule". You've been infracted for it before for this precise reason. Stop doing it or you will be infracted for it again. And, all moderation issues must be PMed in accordance with rule 6A. Everyone needs to stop or infractions will ensue.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

aquapub

So, back to the part where we established this smokescreen about the Sauds (meant to undermine our legitimate measures to remove terror-sponsors) didn't withstand serious scrutiny...

"The Treasury Department and other federal agencies are pressing Saudi Arabia to monitor closely bank accounts designated for relief aid to Palestinians, senior law enforcement officials say. The American authorities say some of the bank accounts may be conduits for terrorist financing...More recently...the Saudis have taken steps to tighten regulation of their banks and charities..."

The New York Times. June 24, 2003. U.S. Presses Saudis to Police Accounts Used to Aid Palestinians. Pg. 12.

__________________
http://www.patrioticunderground.com/