It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberal Dems Send money to Saddam's Lawyer

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Is it because you think americans couldnt do something like this?

I bet the service man that had sex with a male Iraqi, then killed him, wasnt abuse or wrong.


The "freak" that raped and killed that young man is garbage and will be trashed. Humans are capable of many things. Americans are no exception. But the things done in Abu were not abuse.




posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
But the things done in Abu were not abuse.


Well its a good think a 500 million others dont see things like you.

Maybe YOU should be locked up a treated the same, then see what you think.

Are cops wrong when the beat the # out of someone?



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by DrHoracid
But the things done in Abu were not abuse.


Well its a good think a 500 million others dont see things like you.

Maybe YOU should be locked up a treated the same, then see what you think.

Are cops wrong when the beat the # out of someone?


OK, HAVE YOU PERSONALLY SEEN THE ABUSE? When the news media doesn't show what happened because it would "upset" the audience the illusion begins. You have no reference point from which to observe the truth. Then the media can TELL you it was abuse. You become "sheep".



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid


OK, HAVE YOU PERSONALLY SEEN THE ABUSE? When the news media doesn't show what happened because it would "upset" the audience the illusion begins. You have no reference point from which to observe the truth. Then the media can TELL you it was abuse. You become "sheep".



Have you? I think not. I am far from a sheep. I know someone with an agenda when I see them, Hi.

You can not trust what the media puts out. When the country acts on it, there is something to it. Is the army going to charge people if not true? They must be Libs also. Bush must be one also.

If the troops where never sent over to Iraq, we wouldnt be having this argument. Did the Libs do that?

[edit on 21-12-2004 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Mr Cobra. You must be supporting Saddam then. You don't want troops in Iraq then Saddam was your guy? Are you sending him money to pay his lawyer? (back on subject) Now Saddam is a guy that understands abuse and torture.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Mr Cobra. You must be supporting Saddam then. You don't want troops in Iraq then Saddam was your guy?



SO now I am supporting saddam, if Im not with you I am against america nice.

I am just keeping emotion out of it. Bush was wrong, to send those troops to thier death. He was wrong, he lied, Saddam was no threat. He didnt even have a stupid plane. There are so many other countrys that are a threat.

Mr Bush is using what he taught was the way of least resistance. He was wrong.

I really like how you refuse to answer questions, and redircet your bad nature on to others.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
To answer, yes I have seen much of the data on Abu. I have also seen torture in person.

Anything else?

Saddam was a threat. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Simple denial of the truth.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
I have also seen torture in person.
Glad to see you really know what it is.
Anything else?
You really are in a time warp, and in a closed mined space.
Saddam was a threat. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Simple denial of the truth.
Say you


Good day to you, I cannot contune to talk to someone that will not even give another point of view the time of day.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I ask you to open your mind and find out the truth. Research real abuse. Have a point of reference other that "they said so" data. I am making a judgment based on actual observation. Data that should be available to anyone.

Why were the falling bodies "Censored" from the 911 videotape? Those poor souls know what torture and abuse really is don't they.............



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

Anything else?

Saddam was a threat. Saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Simple denial of the truth.


Dr.Horacid the only threat Sadam was, it came in the name of "oil" keeping the US and its Oil american base companies out of his country and out of profiting.

By the way, we have very nice threads in that you can search for it that have very reliable information with links on what the problem was between Sadam, Bush and the oil business.

Oh, I forgot "revenge" also, remember "Sadam wanted to kill my daddy"

[edit on 21-12-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Please, please get a new playbook from Hillary. The same old talking points are getting old. Iraq wasn't about "Oil" or Saddam trying to kill 41. It was about stopping the horrors Saddam did to his own people from speading to the rest of the world. And perhaps to stop a UN scam.

When Saddam does go on trial, France, Germany, and Russias "leaders" should be very nerveous. Chirac, Shroeder and Putin might be "outed". All puns intended.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Please, please get a new playbook from Hillary. The same old talking points are getting old. Iraq wasn't about "Oil" or Saddam trying to kill 41. It was about stopping the horrors Saddam did to his own people from speading to the rest of the world. And perhaps to stop a UN scam.



If this is so, why not tell the people? Instead, only give lies.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


Would you be willing to explain this concept of "fairness" to those individuals that suffered maiming, torture, and death under Saddam's rule?
Would you be willing to explain this concept of "fairness" to the family members that lost loved ones and friends under Saddam's rule?

Incidently, even if given a "fair" trial, the verdict will undoubtedly be guilty: guilty of crimes against humanity. His sentence will also be "fair" too, huh? Life in prison? Is this a "fair" sentence? Some, like me, would argue that what is really "fair" is that he be get what he gave.


This same reasoning could apply to the current administration and their wrong doings, but you'd be quick to defend that.

If a fair trial is not given, it will further degrade this country and it will slowly slip deeper in a corporate police state...



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid

When Saddam does go on trial, France, Germany, and Russias "leaders" should be very nerveous. Chirac, Shroeder and Putin might be "outed". All puns intended.


Running out of steam, ain't you Horacid, you know very well that companies in American were also in the the food for profit scandal, or you fogot about that.

Oh I forgot when the list of names were released the american companies name's were blank because they are under "protection"



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
I ask you to open your mind and find out the truth. Research real abuse. Have a point of reference other that "they said so" data. I am making a judgment based on actual observation. Data that should be available to anyone.

Why were the falling bodies "Censored" from the 911 videotape? Those poor souls know what torture and abuse really is don't they.............


So, you, just like some of your fellow countrymen, in fact a large portion, believe Saddam was responsible for the WTC coming down? Or maybe they were censored because you could see Rumsfeld & Co actually pushing people out of the building. Sounds ludicrous, I know, but no more so than the ignorant claims you are making in this post.

You can make speculative claims all you like but you're losing any kind of credibility grasping at straws, especially when you are incapable of telling the difference between Iraq and Al Queda.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka

So, you, just like some of your fellow countrymen, in fact a large portion, believe Saddam was responsible for the WTC coming down? Or maybe they were censored because you could see Rumsfeld & Co actually pushing people out of the building. Sounds ludicrous, I know, but no more so than the ignorant claims you are making in this post.

You can make speculative claims all you like but you're losing any kind of credibility grasping at straws, especially when you are incapable of telling the difference between Iraq and Al Queda.


NO, I am not saying Saddam is directly responsible for 911. The point I am making is the term "torture" and "abuse" no long have a reference point because the US news media "edits" out data that is deemed "too graphic". Example, the Beheadings were not shown in the US. To many in the US can't understand "real" torture. We don't get the actual details. It become easy to "label" anything as "abuse" without merit.



[edit on 21-12-2004 by DrHoracid]



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
NO, I am not saying Saddam is directly responsible for 911. The point I am making is the term "torture" and "abuse" no long have a reference point because the US news media "edits" out data that is deemed "too graphic". Example, the Beheadings were not shown in the US. To many in the US can't understand "real" torture. We don't get the actual details. It become easy to "label" anything as "abuse" without merit.


Fair enough.

Do you not think that the more graphic depictions of war are left out so as not to have the US public question the legitamcy of the conflict to begin with? I mean, I'm sure that a fair portion of the American people may change their minds if they were to see the true horrors of war. If it's kept out of sight and off US shores it's as if it isn't really happening.

Do you not agree?



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
[Fair enough.

Do you not think that the more graphic depictions of war are left out so as not to have the US public question the legitamcy of the conflict to begin with? I mean, I'm sure that a fair portion of the American people may change their minds if they were to see the true horrors of war. If it's kept out of sight and off US shores it's as if it isn't really happening.

Do you not agree?


No, I think it is the arrogance of the US new media. Sanitizing both sides of the issue. Everything becomes "surreal" in a sense. GW-1 was the first "videogame" war.

When something like the Marine that shot the "wounded" terrorist is shown it becomes "sensational" because there is no reference point. There is a worldwide "agenda". Even when the French fired on the crowd in the Ivory coast the video was "sanitized".

This grabage began in the 1960's with the TV show "Gunsmoke". No blood was shown in a gunfight. Deemed "too graphic".



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join