Womd

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Was the Taliban responsible for 911? I could have sworn it was Osama. All the Taliban did was ask for proof. We didn't think they would turn him over either way, so we invaded.

He provided the proof that literally everyone on earth that didn't live in the middle east felt proved the case. We have since developed even more intelligence about the attacks.

Oh yeah, Bin Laden kind of sort of claimed responsibility for the attack.

And we didn't think they wouldn't turn him over. They met, they voted, and they no they wouldn't. We knew they weren't turning him over, so we went and took them out. That's what happens when you willing give refuge to terrorists and harbor and shelter them.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
We all know what you mean by posting a picture of 911 right after a quote asking what danger does Saddam pose us.

The point is, do we always have to wait until it's too late before we act? Can't we once take out the enemy before the take us out? Wouldn't it have been nice if Clinton had taken out Bin Laden during any number of the oportunities he got?

You the one who condemned me of doing "trivializing" the deaths of 911 by saying I will morn them and all others who died in the world, and threatened banishment for that now just committed something unthinkable. The same thing you accused me of doing.

Don't even start that again. You were disrespectful and 50 people asked you to stop but you had to just keep pressing the issue. When every single person around thinks you are being disrespectful then just take their word for it and stop. But you couldn't do that.

As for trvializing, get over it. Miscue's point is we can't afford to let evil grow and gather it's resources. When we do that we occasionally lose thousands of our citizens to attacks.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Miscue
You are filibustering the question.

How do you know? The non-answer you gave is "because we all know."

It's a very simple question. How do you know that was my intent?

Oh, and BTW... it wasn't me who condemned you for trivializing their deaths.

Now it all comes to light.

You accuse me of what others accused you of (confusing me with them). I did not ban you because of that.

No it was you along with others. How did you know what I meant?

I didn't say you banned me, I said in the PM you sent me; it said my actions were banishable.

How do I know what you meant, I do not Know. Like you all do not Know what I meant in my statement. Yet that did not stop you all from attacking me, and threatening banishment.

See what I am getting at.

While you might have meant what you said, it is of no business of mine to interpret what you post, for I was not the one who typed it. And if I was a mod, it is of no business of mine to then go and threaten banishment for an innocent post, that I have no idea then intentions are.

I think the irony is, the same thing you and others used to condemn me, is the thing you and probable others later in this thread, have a problem with when used against you.

[aaron_mag]

I've got to agree with CB on this one. I think the picture of the Tower is in poor taste (but that is just my opinion).

9/11 is a powerful rallying cry for Americans (understandably) but there is a potential for that power to be misused and misdirected. We went into Afghanistan for 9/11 because the Taliban was too stupid to realize that we were not going to let Bin Laden just waltz around their countryside anymore. Iraq is what we are discussing here and 9/11 was used to get the American public to get with the program without questioning "why?".

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


No it was you along with others. How did you know what I meant?

I didn't say you banned me, I said in the PM you sent me; it said my actions were banishable.

How do I know what you meant, I do not Know. Like you all do not Know what I meant in my statement. Yet that did not stop you all from attacking me, and threatening banishment.

See what I am getting at.

While you might have meant what you said, it is of no business of mine to interpret what you post, for I was not the one who typed it. And if I was a mod, it is of no business of mine to then go and threaten banishment for an innocent post, that I have no idea then intentions are.

I think the irony is, the same thing you and others used to condemn me, is the thing you and probable others later in this thread, have a problem with when used against you.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101830&highlight=banned

I already explained this to you in carefully worded, unambiguous language. And, others have explained this to you in well-worded, unambiguous language. Most of what you are saying, you are making up for whatever motivations you have that I won't point out.

And you see... this is the problem. Even if it is clear cut, you STILL interpret it in some twisted way - partly or in whole driven by these motivations. Even if NOTHING is said, you STILL interpret it in some twisted way - partly or in whole driven by these motivations. And when I speak in abstractions that certain knuckle draggers can't pick up, it will hopelessly be distorted.

You STILL have not figured out the punchline behind that picture. It will be impossible for you to figure it out if you maintain your assumptions. Until then, you will just continue with your speculations and made up stories and accusations... as it is your habit to do so.

And this... is as close of a hint that I will give you as to the original intent of that picture.

[aaron_mag]

First off the Taliban did meet and vote. They couldn't see the writing on the wall (even though their neighbors tried to explain it to them). So we had to invade them. So I don't get what CB is trying to say about this.

As for Iraq and links to the terrorist here is a quote from Albinonewt's links:

Comments below by Rice

At the same time, she cautioned that "no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far."

Rice added: "This is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."

This was all prior to the invasion of Iraq when they were trying to build support for the war. Note that they didn't want to "push it too far" because they knew it was all B.S. Saddam and links to Bin Laden are a joke because Saddam was NOT a muslim fundamentalist. He persecuted muslims and was not religious. Not to mention the fact the whole Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia. There can be no argument that Saddam was/is a major bastard but he was not linked to 9/11. We now have captured Iraq and no earthshattering link between 9/11 and Saddam has been uncovered. Why is that?

Is the ousting of Saddam good for the Iraqi people? Of course. In afghanistan I think most would say life is way better than during the Taliban regime. So the question becomes did you support the war (if you did) because of WMD and a threat against the U.S. or did you support it to help Iraqis? If it was the latter than we are in the process of meeting that goal. I think, however, that most people supported it because of the former reason. I mean whether the casulties are "light" or not are not important if it is your son or daughter that is a casulty and I can imagine it is exceedingly important to the parents that their sacrifice was for the "right reasons". The "right reasons", however, are open to debate and people are entitled to their opinion on the matter.

[paintballguy429]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by paintballguy429
OMG could you be any more immature. The people that are killed often have NOTHING to do with terrorists and are often children! A response like "Maybe next time they'll learn their lesson" is immature and sheer stupidity. These people are innocent and do not deserve to die.

You yourself said that they chose not to hand over the terrorists that Israel wanted. They made a CHOICE, and they had to live with the consequences of that choice. That's how the world works. Maybe next time they won't harbor terrorists and murderers.

And no, they don't deserve to die. But, no they are not innocent. They harbor and support the terrorist infrastructure. They've been taught since birth that evil scum Arafat and his government to hate the Jews and to destroy the Jews and only then will their suffering end. Little do they understand that they suffer because Arafat refuses to end the war. He's had the chance a dozen times and he won't do it.

Hitler was a threat to all of Europe and with its alliance with Japan, more than half of the world. Iraq was a threat to no one.

-Except the neighbors he invaded
-Except the hundreds of thousands of people he murdered
-Except the Ex-President of the US who he tried to assassinate
-Except for anyone that one day might be struck by terrorists trained and armed in Iraq.

Besides the entire globe, you're right. Nobody was threatened.

Yeah, the 8 year old kids that Israel is slaughtering really learned their lesson. You're about just as brainwashed as the terrorists with your pro-American pro-Israeli propaganda.


Iraq invaded Kuwait more than 10 years ago. He was defeated. It is 2003. That proves nothing. Again, you have yet to show me any proof that he knowingly harbored and trained terrorists. A threat to the entire world? Not at all.


As for Miscue, you know that your 9/11 post was just pathetic, so now your trying to play little games with everyone? You know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but you do know whenever you mention it and wave the flag you can get all yur little brainwashed patriot warhawks to come to your aid.

[paintballguy429]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by paintballguy429
I think it's ironic that we apply international law to countries to Iraq as a justification for invasion, when in reality the US has broken many UN arms agreements aswell as Israel. If you want to use UN law as reasoning for attacking a country, at least apply it equally.

Then I suppose you'd like to see China brought down as well? And the Palastinians? And North Korea? And Russia? And France? And Syria? And Yemen?

As much as I would like it to apply to everyone, if we pick out everyone that's broken a rule then we have nobody left to enforce them. So I'm willing to stick withthe most agregious offenders for now, and that's Iraq.

As for the terrorists in Baghdad, show some proof.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

No, I don't believe that the US should be policing the world. I just find it hypocritical for you to use "international law" to condemn and invade Iraq when in reality, the US is a very large violator of UN laws. It's great that we expect everyone else to abide by what the UN says, but the US could care less when it applies to us.

Ahhhhh....Zarqawi?

You're still using that? See, the deal with Zarqawi was that the Bush/Powell needed a link between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda, found him and ran with it.

In reality, Zarqawi has been living in Northern Iraq, which has been out of Hussein's control since the Gulf War



That's old news man, thought you'd be able to come up with something better.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Miscue

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101830&highlight=banned

I already explained this to you in carefully worded, unambiguous language. And, others have explained this to you in well-worded, unambiguous language. Most of what you are saying, you are making up for whatever motivations you have that I won't point out.

And you see... this is the problem. Even if it is clear cut, you STILL interpret it in some twisted way - partly or in whole driven by these motivations. Even if NOTHING is said, you STILL interpret it in some twisted way - partly or in whole driven by these motivations. And when I speak in abstractions that certain knuckle draggers can't pick up, it will hopelessly be distorted.

You STILL have not figured out the punchline behind that picture. It will be impossible for you to figure it out if you maintain your assumptions. Until then, you will just continue with your speculations and made up stories and accusations... as it is your habit to do so.

And this... is as close of a hint that I will give you as to the original intent of that picture.

You will never understand the point I am making. I made a post that was completely innocent of anything you all said. I get threatened with banishment. Some other guy post something worse then mine, and you all joke with him over it, nothing happens to him. You post a picture that can be said to be trivializing the deaths of the 911 victims, and using their deaths to back your need of violence (though I do not think that is the case). Nothing happens to you. You say I interpreted your picture wrongly, so you are now in the clear. I saw you interpreted my words wrongly, yet I get threatened with banishment. Shouldn't the person who posted the words or the picture know what they meant it as, not some person with a preformed bias (on both parties) trying to say what they think the intent was?

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


You will never understand the point I am making.

I agree... as you will never understand the point I am making. Although, for two entirely different reasons.

[paintballguy429]

Man. Miscue are you going to wine all the time or are you going to try and back up what you say?

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
.....yet I get threatened with banishment....

Can we please quit calling it banishment! It makes AO sound like some sort of Medieval Kingdom or something. The proper term is banned.....

Or maybe banishment is the proper term......Sir Miscue de Vegas has banished the Squire of College until he finds the holy grail of truth that he is constantly claiming to have found....

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Can we please quit calling it banishment! It makes AO sound like some sort of Medieval Kingdom or something. The proper term is banned.....

Or maybe banishment is the proper term......Sir Miscue de Vegas has banished the Squire of College until he finds the holy grail of truth that he is constantly claiming to have found....

It doesn't sound right to say he threatened me with banned, I could say he threatened to ban me, but I like the ring of he threatened me with banishment.

The point I was making about the Taliban was that if you asked a person who attacked us on 911, you might here Osama or the Taliban, you ask what organization did, and you might hear Al Queda or the Taliban. The Taliban never attacked us like many people falsely believe. All they did was allegedly giving Osama shelter. While that is bad in itself, they did not attack us like so many think.

Miscue, you are missing the entire point. I could care less what I think your picture meant, for if say it is meant as this, I will agree with you. For you posted it not me.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
How do I know what you meant, I do not Know. Like you all do not Know what I meant in my statement. Yet that did not stop

No CB, we knew exactly what you meant, you were very clear. Anyone that originally misunderstood you probably had it figured out by your 5th or 6th protest.

But, we found it offensive, something that you failed to understand.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
First off the Taliban did meet and vote. They couldn't see the writing on the wall (even though their neighbors tried to explain it to them). So we had to invade them. So I don't get what CB is trying to say about this.

I remember that vote clearly. I couldn't believe it when I heard their response.

This was all prior to the invasion of Iraq when they were trying to build support for the war. Note that they didn't want to "push it too far" because they knew it was all B.S. Saddam and links to Bin Laden are a joke because Saddam was NOT a muslim fundamentalist. He persecuted muslims and was not religious. Not to mention the fact the whole Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia. There can be no argument that Saddam was/is a major bastard but he was not linked to 9/11. We now have captured Iraq and no earthshattering link between 9/11 and Saddam has been uncovered. Why is that?

Because Saddam really didn't have anything substantial to do with it. He might have harbored a terrorist or two or maybe provided some itelligence (there's some evidence that he may have), but it was clearly Bin Laden's show.

However, that doesn't mean he wasn't dangereous. He clearly had links to terrorist organizations. This is the same guy that offered reward money to any family of a Palestinian suicide bomber. He had terrorists living in his palaces and meeting with his staff. He clearly had links. He doesn't have to be involved in 9/11 to have terrorist links.

Is the ousting of Saddam good for the Iraqi people? Of course. In afghanistan I think most would say life is way better than during the Taliban regime. So the question becomes did you support the war (if you did) because of WMD and a threat against the U.S. or did you support it to help Iraqis? If it was the latter than we are in the process of meeting that goal. I think, however, that most people supported it because of the former reason. I mean whether the casulties are "light" or not are not important if it is your son or daughter that is a casulty and I can imagine it is exceedingly important to the parents that their sacrifice was for the "right reasons". The "right reasons", however, are open to debate and people are entitled to their opinion on the matter.

Well, it is no longer open to debate that he had the components, resources, materials, and knowledge to create vast quantities of WMD. What is currently open to debate is what happened to the ones we know he used to have, when the inspectors left several years ago. I suspect they are sitting in a bunker that we haven't checked yet, but we won't know for a long time. That's a lot of bunkers to check.

I'm also again wondering if we aren't sitting on evidence (like I suggested many times) I used to think it was political suicide to sit on the evidence for a long period of time, but now with the revelations about the hundred bunkers to check it's pretty easy to just lie about what bunker we found it in. I wonder if Bush isn't holding that until after the primaries?