Right-Wingers Blame Saddam for 9/11...AND Okla. City Bombing!!??!!

ok before anyone else decides to go to defcon 5

Does anyone here know about donations to "charities" that get siphoned by extremists organizations? I've heard about them from news agencies, but forgot who posted them (Reuters, or someone to that sort)...

I mean money get laundered, and some people write checks... it's just how identifiable do you want to get.

Also, wasn't there a Mosque in NYC that the Blind Sheik was directly affiliated to Al-Quada? Oh and I think he had one of those schemes.

I dunno, I'll try to find some links to backup what I said, but hey Stampede... I'd be center mass, hence why I love your rants, and try to bring you back from the deep-deep right brother!:thumbsup:
 

georges

Moderator
Staff member
anyone who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job is a complete moron. Also do you believe what is written in the press? I do not. Saddam had hidden bunkers and hangars where chemicals could be hidden but we will never know whether they really were here or not. A possibility that they were here should be considered. I bet some of you still believe that Iran still develops its nuclear industry for new energies but in fact it develops it for creating nuclear bombs.
 
^^^

Stampede, you're quite the mystery. I start a "talk" thread, you write stuff that I disagree with and I question you on it and call you on it, and you get all pissed.

I made you an offer before:
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=3020577&postcount=9

...that we stay off each other's threads, but you didn't accept my offer and have since responded to my threads, flamed me, and argued with me. If it all upsets you so much, why not just accept my earlier offer (you can do it here in this thread) and we'll be done with it? You stay outta my threads (and don't respond to my posts in OTHER threads) and I'll extend the same courtesy to you. Deal?

I'm offering this more for your sake than mine. I don't get all emotional about our disagreements, as you seem to...


Why would I accept a previous offer, when you quoted Philbert. I took it to mean you were acknowledging him.

So... to me, you never made an offer.

No, you don't get emotional. That's your problem. You appear to be above your use of emotions to make others and myself look like loons and yourself superior. Maybe if you had some genuine feelings about your beliefs. You would understand where I come from.

Maybe one day if you ever do feel... something, like anger or passion, you would have other things to do with your time than to read about life.

I experience life, I get angry, sad, happy and sometimes just for shits and giggles goofy too. Emotions are created when individuals interact in some sort of dynamic, or didn't you know this?

If you wanted an intellectual debate... brother... you are in the WRONG place.

Granted, there are others on this board that whole heartedly disagree with me on various issues, but at least they are friendly and engage me in discussions outside of political issues, or issues you deem to be inferior or unstimulating to your brain.

I said it before and I'll say it again, you don't like it. Don't engage.

Sometimes I don't want to even come near you .... but dammit, sometimes I just can't help myself.:D
 
If you wanted an intellectual debate... brother... you are in the WRONG place.
Hahahaha :rofl: No shit Sherlock, you just won my very first CPT Obvious award! :thumbsup:
Granted, there are others on this board that whole heartedly disagree with me on various issues, but at least they are friendly and engage me in discussions outside of political issues, or issues you deem to be inferior or unstimulating to your brain.
Yes I disagree with you on a few key issues, like we both know my penis is bigger than yours... :rofl: Sorry had to throw that in there, but yeah your version of tactics are vastly different as a former Marine (because you'll never see an ex-Marine, unless he's a clone or a Resident-Evil-esque Zombie) compared to my Army background. So I win, just cause I say so :wave:
I said it before and I'll say it again, you don't like it. Don't engage.
Consider this the Warno to the latest frago, it's on like Donkey Kong!... Oh wait you were talking to someone else... Damn :helpme:
 
Hahahaha :rofl: No shit Sherlock, you just won my very first CPT Obvious award! :thumbsup:

You just became my cheeleader and slapped me on the back!! But I accept your award anyway!!

Yes I disagree with you on a few key issues, like we both know my penis is bigger than yours... :rofl:

OH!!! Alright, we'll find a 50 yard line and toss'em out!! Then we'll see, short-stack!

So I win, just cause I say so :wave:

You win just cause you made me laugh my silly ass off!!

Consider this the Warno to the latest frago, it's on like Donkey Kong!

Hysteria_Train_by_Soulnova.gif
 
Why would I accept a previous offer, when you quoted Philbert. I took it to mean you were acknowledging him.

So... to me, you never made an offer.

Whoops! That WAS sloppy on my part! I've confused you with Philbert - probably because you display similar behavior. You come on to threads that I start, make wild claims, I disagree, then you get all pissy (oh, excuse me, you show your emotions.). In any case, I'll extend the same offer to you that I did him (I guess Philbert was the one who ignored my offer, so either he's REALLY accepting it or he just wants the chance to whine again in the future) - here's the deal:

"I find that you primarily serve to pollute the threads I start. It's as though you're stalking me here. Trolling. You just snipe and don't say anything substantive. Lots of ad hominem, nothing constructive or enlightening. I can think of several people here at the FO forum that I regularly disagree with but who still have interesting and constructive things to say, and they contribute to an edifying discussion. You are not among them.

So, is it a deal?

I'll be happy to steer well clear of any and all threads you start, and to never respond to any of your individual posts, as well..."

No, you don't get emotional. That's your problem. You appear to be above your use of emotions to make others and myself look like loons and yourself superior. Maybe if you had some genuine feelings about your beliefs. You would understand where I come from.

Maybe one day if you ever do feel... something, like anger or passion, you would have other things to do with your time than to read about life.

I experience life, I get angry, sad, happy and sometimes just for shits and giggles goofy too. Emotions are created when individuals interact in some sort of dynamic, or didn't you know this?

The above three paragraphs are nothing other than a perfect example of ad hominem. Your points about the subject matter were discredited and so now you're just taking wild stabs at my character, all without any basis in fact. You know next to nothing about me. You have no basis to ASSUME that I don't "experience life...get angry, sad, happy", etc. And I do plenty other than "read about life" - although I fail to see how that's much of a putdown, really. Yes, I read a lot. And that is a problem, how, exactly??

I appreciate engaging others in dispassionate arguments. I find the Limbaugh and O'Reilly playbook to be boring and unproductive. Interesting, authentic debates are not to be found on those shows - although they offer plenty of EMOTIONS (mostly anger, though - Glenn Beck's offering lots of tears though, lately, I noticed). If you like the yelling and screaming - as if that's required during a debate to prove that one is human or something (how lame) - I can see how you've worked in (conservative) talk radio before. Makes perfect sense.

If you wanted an intellectual debate... brother... you are in the WRONG place.

Speak for yourself, stampede. So the "FreeOnes Talk" section should really be more about (virtually) yelling, shouting, and lobbing cheap flames at each other, rather than say discussing things as intelligent adults? I also don't buy the premise that a porn forum is necessarily or must be a hang-out for a bunch of knuckle-dragging cretins with nothing interesting to say. One can appreciate the female form and sex and things erotic without also thinking and having ideas about numerous other things (society, arts, politics, science, the state of humanity, etc.). Why CAN'T this be a place for intellectual debate of some sort?

Granted, there are others on this board that whole heartedly disagree with me on various issues, but at least they are friendly and engage me in discussions outside of political issues, or issues you deem to be inferior or unstimulating to your brain.

If we go back through every interaction we've ever had, I'd be willing to bet that you were the first to veer off the path of friendliness. Just because I tell you that I disagree or that I think you're wildly offbase (that is, offering my view) about something doesn't mean I'm unfriendly. If you don't wanna talk politics or society or whatever, then why come on a thread (such as this one) relating to it, that I started? I also have a fun thread that I started about "What Exactly Makes a Female Ass 'Hot'?" - is that more your cup of tea? If so, fine, please weigh in!! :hatsoff:

I said it before and I'll say it again, you don't like it. Don't engage.

(Where's the icon for the smiley guy slapping his forehead in disbelief???)

Sometimes I don't want to even come near you .... but dammit, sometimes I just can't help myself.:D

Wow, I'm kind of afraid to think about what that could mean...
 
I also don't buy the premise that a porn forum is necessarily or must be a hang-out for a bunch of knuckle-dragging cretins with nothing interesting to say. One can appreciate the female form and sex and things erotic without also thinking and having ideas about numerous other things (society, arts, politics, science, the state of humanity, etc.).

I completely agree with this.
 
You just became my cheeleader and slapped me on the back!! But I accept your award anyway!!



OH!!! Alright, we'll find a 50 yard line and toss'em out!! Then we'll see, short-stack!



You win just cause you made me laugh my silly ass off!!



Hysteria_Train_by_Soulnova.gif


Great Sig! I would just change the Guinness to Harp! :glugglug:
 

Facetious

Moderated
Re: Right-Wingers Blame Saddam for 9/11...AND Okla. City Bombing!!??!!

Really ? I blame janet reno - waco and general wesley, order a couple a tanks, clark. :thefinger
 
anyone who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job is a complete moron. Also do you believe what is written in the press? I do not. Saddam had hidden bunkers and hangars where chemicals could be hidden but we will never know whether they really were here or not. A possibility that they were here should be considered. I bet some of you still believe that Iran still develops its nuclear industry for new energies but in fact it develops it for creating nuclear bombs.

Sorry, but wrong. In the U.S., and probably the world, the first Gulf War had all those snazzy black and white videos of missile strikes blowing up what the US Military termed chemical weapons factories or SCUD missile factories. These videos were shown on CNN. Saddam would have one his lackeys then run out and spray "Baby Milk Factory" in arabic and English on the rocks. It got to be kind of sad that Saddam exposed himself, during the first Gulf War, to be a completely incompetent adversary.

In reality, the first Gulf War effectively destroyed Saddam's conventional and WMD. The second Gulf War had nothing to do with Saddam as a threat to anyone. Bush just made it all up and lied in his State of the Union speech in 2002. Saddam was an old man who enjoyed getting rich off of conning the UN for the "oil for food program." That was who he was, in reality, in 2002.

We invaded Iraq to drive up the price of oil so Bush and Cheney's Big Oil and Halliburton pals could get rich.

We couldn't even capture or kill Osama. Did it really seem likely, given Bush's State of the Union speech in 2002 ("we will hold terrorists and the countries that harbor them accountable") that we will let Osama escape to any country? If Osama snuck away to Paris we would parachute troops into the Champs Elysees to get him. Bush got bored with the War on Terror after he declared "Mission Accomplished"...basically.

When he gave that victory speech on the deck of that aircraft carrier he decided at that exact moment that he would leave the Iraq and Afghan messes for the next administration....
 
he would leave the Iraq and Afghan messes for the next administration....
Dude,.... better read up on COIN, also go get some books written by David Galula. He has some great information....
It takes 8-10 years to effectively win one, and the British are the best at it...

Oh and don't get all upbeat, we came from an insurgency ourselves, as Americans... so taking that as a win for us.... we're at 1 win (American Revolution) and 1 loss (Vietnam), and currently involved in 2 counter-insurgencies so who knows what our stats will be in the next few years.

Post WWII, this has been the norm... better get used to protracted war, because it'll be bloody as hell, and people like myself know this. I mean you can even Wiki this and find what I say to be true (and I hate wiki).
 
^
That could be a useful site. How will they position the Wars in Afghan and Iraq? As part of The War on Terror or simply a continuation of American Capitalism Expansion?

I have not believed we are actually fighting anything that resembles a war since Saddam was defeated. And I no longer believe it was a benefit to the U.S. to even do that.
 
Dude,.... better read up on COIN, also go get some books written by David Galula. He has some great information....
It takes 8-10 years to effectively win one, and the British are the best at it...

Oh and don't get all upbeat, we came from an insurgency ourselves, as Americans... so taking that as a win for us.... we're at 1 win (American Revolution) and 1 loss (Vietnam), and currently involved in 2 counter-insurgencies so who knows what our stats will be in the next few years.

Post WWII, this has been the norm... better get used to protracted war, because it'll be bloody as hell, and people like myself know this. I mean you can even Wiki this and find what I say to be true (and I hate wiki).

Lets not forget Korea which we also did not win,at best we can call that a draw.Since WW2 the US has shown an inability along with the other powers of the world like the former USSR to do things like 'nation building".We can do things effectively which have limited aims like the 1st gulf war during which Bush Sr wisely decided not to "go to Baghdad" and displace Saddam.What we are attempting to achieve in afghanistan and Iraq will almost certainly be seen as a failure in the future,just as our military adventure in Vietnam was and the Russian adventure into Afghanistan was.Just another example of why our huge defense spending is really a collosal waste of resources which have gained us very little.
 
^
That could be a useful site. How will they position the Wars in Afghan and Iraq? As part of The War on Terror or simply a continuation of American Capitalism Expansion?

I have not believed we are actually fighting anything that resembles a war since Saddam was defeated. And I no longer believe it was a benefit to the U.S. to even do that.
Well good thought and topic, I actually won't know this until my kids go through school. Also, that's what protracted war is...you hold and area and wait to be attacked. Sad, but true... yes once you have an area you can flood the terrorists/insurgents/criminal element out, and try to build from that.

Also let's not forget that history books are written after the fact, not during the conflicts. Oh and usually written by the locals that won the war :thumbsup:. So until the war is over, I say lets not dwell on body counts, or dollars spent (as Republican as I can get, look at what's next) for either good or bad. I mean it's bad business to get cold feet in the middle of a deal. Also I'd say it's bad to plan an exit strategy before you even put boots in the sand too, only because a plan is good right up to execution, then it falls completely apart.
Lets not forget Korea which we also did not win,at best we can call that a draw.Since WW2 the US has shown an inability along with the other powers of the world like the former USSR to do things like 'nation building".We can do things effectively which have limited aims like the 1st gulf war during which Bush Sr wisely decided not to "go to Baghdad" and displace Saddam.What we are attempting to achieve in afghanistan and Iraq will almost certainly be seen as a failure in the future,just as our military adventure in Vietnam was and the Russian adventure into Afghanistan was.Just another example of why our huge defense spending is really a collosal waste of resources which have gained us very little.
Korea is still in cease fire, that war isn't over... just not active. But I'd call that a draw. We still held the south, and they are flourishing, compared to North Korea.

Well look at the Brits, they defended Ireland, from the Irish.... as funny as that sounds that was the case and point. The British have won these wars. Afganistan (70's) and Vietnam (60-70's) were paid by the opposition forces. We could spend days and days posting back and forth... who did what and why, but I'll save that for my next round. Also, ask around, western countries start off very poorly in COIN. The only 2 wars we got it perfect were in WWI and WWII where we had millions of troops providing safety and security for non-combatants.

There is some that stuck out that I bolded... Do you know the full reasoning behind that? CNN reported semi-inaccurate (ie accurate at the time, but proven false later) information, like we hit a civilian movement moving from Kuwait to Baghdad. Later it was found out that Saddam's army was actually using civilian vehicles to transport shit. Otherwise we would be wrapping up Iraq, and fully focused on Afghanistan.

Also, I beg to differ on the "collosal waste" of defense spending. The powers that be are actually improving medical care, missile defense, and protection of our troops. Do some research... Dragon Skin, Hemostatic Dressings, TCCC/TCMC, and look at the old "SDI Star Wars" vs what we have today. Pretty good stuff, If you ask me.

Now don't get me wrong you have some valid counterpoints, but I'll need some more time to give you intelligent data (meaning cited sources, like the COIN link above), and a vast amount of pure raw data for you to come up with your own conclusion.
 
...like the 1st gulf war during which Bush Sr wisely decided not to "go to Baghdad"...

I don't mean to be splitting hairs here, but that was the 2nd Gulf War. The first was from 1980 to 1988.
 
I don't mean to be splitting hairs here, but that was the 2nd Gulf War. The first was from 1980 to 1988.

You are splitting hairs lol.But I will apologize for speaking from an amero-centric perspective and to americans the "1st gulf war refers to the one Bush Sr prosecuted driving Saddam out of Kuwait.I guess you are refering to the Iran-Iraq war which also was at best a draw for those two.
 
Top