Saddam did NOT GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by goregrinder
Actually, i'm 25 and in grad school. I'm done with this conversation, but i'll give you one more parting piece of advice. People like Uninen get what they give. You are doing the same thing to me that you accuse me of doing. yet another bit of ATS hypocrisy.


Just tragically immature then? I've got to admit GG you make me laugh, twice you've said you are through with the subject but when I reply you can't help but respond. You seem to define victory by having the final word on something and nothing more. What's all that about?




posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 04:57 PM
link   
lol, nice work Fulcrum. (gays typo)
________________________________

I agree with the topic of this post 100%. Saddam did NOT GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE.
____________________________________
Everything happening after the assasination of JFK was MEANT to happen. Domination is very rampant in regards to freedoms as of today. Look at the "patriot acts" The first one was bad enough.... now the second one.. like cmon bush... OPEN YOUR EYES.

If president moron wins the 2004 election then all hell will slowly break loose. I for one want change.

Change is the stepping stone for a brighter future. We are only doomed to repeat ourselves if the new age of change does not take place.



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I have refrained from entering this melee for quite some time but JN has forced my hand.

Why do you have this crusade mentality about GG? You bitch about ganging up and personal insults.
Let's have a look:


well me defending you was nothing to do with politics, it was to do with the usual gang of assholes getting together to bully and wind up people until they react and get banned. Meanwhile they come away as clean as a preachers sheets by saying "We were just entering into a debate". If debating is just generally insulting someone without using bad language so you can't be nailed for it then the meaning needs to be redefined for me. I am just glad to see that you remain calm enough from the assholes baiting not to react and get banned, that's all these sad people want. Don't give them the satisfaction.

I see two personal attacks right there.



man that's an insult to gay people to compare them to these bitter bastards, there is no comparison.


And another one.

You sir ARE the pot calling the supposed kettle black.

Once again, why don't you take your personal attacks to U2U or somesuch. The rest of us are a bit sick of it.



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 05:25 PM
link   
errr...the bitter bastards comment was made at no one in particular, just the wide range of ignorant idiots. I eventually got to the point with GG that I was sick of his baiting of other people, so when I saw him do it to other people, I would do it to him and see how he likes it for a change. If you look through my posts for my entire ATS history you'll find that it is very rare that I will attack someone unless I have been pushed too far. I am a fair man so when I see anyone (even if it was you) being ganged up on and bullied I will step in and even up the score, I #ing hate bullies. It amazes me that it always seems to be the same usual suspects ganging up ready for another bashing, that is why you confuse me for attacking someone when in fact I am taking on repeat offenders.

Regarding your request about me and GG settling this over U2U's, I did so asking what we should do to settle this in private but I never recieved a reply, that ain't my fault mate, sorry.



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 05:35 PM
link   
What gives you the right to call other peoples opinions ignorant? There are always "gang up" situations on this board. In fact, the majority of times it is the left ganging up on the right. You don't notice it because you lean left so you usually agree with those arguments. As soon as people who lean right chime in on a debate you see it as "ganging up" on the poor underdog.

I see it(in this case) as going after a view that they(as well as I) don't agree with. I hate racists and I will jump on them every chance I get. I refrained here since it was being handled by others.

One should avoid making friends of your enemies enemy. Look at Iraq
.

edit: My typing skills suck...

[Edited on 30-9-2003 by Fry2]



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2
There are always "gang up" situations on this board. In fact, the majority of times it is the left ganging up on the right.



Fry2

Back that up with some statistical evidence.

From what I have observed, Colonel gets the most attempted lynchings, whether he brings them on himself or not.

I think the solution is to question and criticize the arguments of others rather than slandering the people.

I have seen some cowardly members join in on a mob attack with a few cursory terms of abuse, as an attempt to demean their target, without contributing to the argument in any way at all. I hope they don't deal with real life situations that way.

I like your point about the fine line between friend and enemy.



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 05:45 PM
link   
At least the left most of the time manage to stay on topic.

I'd like to see you prove that statement though about the left ganging up more.

Seriously tough I am right in the middle, I have some left tendencies but I ain't no liberal and a agree with some right ideas but I hate #ing conservatives (republicans). Please don't pretend that you know me or what political agenda I have, I'm angry because I'm sick of #ing corruption, not because the #ing taxes have gone up or down.

[Edited on 30-9-2003 by John Nada]

[Edited on 30-9-2003 by John Nada]



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I was trying to keep Colonel out of this.


MA, you are one that I would expect had seen this even though you are quite a bit to the left. It will take me a bit to dig through all of the most recent slag fests to give you a statistical comparison but when time permits i'll attempt to do so.

Wow, was that actually a compliment from the grumpy MA in that last part? I'm shocked



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Me? Grumpy?

Never.

I just hate stupidity and corruption with a passion, but am generally an affable guy, in a saintly kind of way.




posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
astro

Sorry, but by definition, the invasion WAS unilateral in foreign affairs terms. That has nothing to do with the number of countries that pledged forces at all. I have no problem with your misinterpretation though. It is entertaining to see other less literate members jump on your bandwagon.

To back up your case, and to educate other ATS readers, I would like to see you list the "about 30" countries which have participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

US, UK, Spain, Australia, Poland. You complete the list, I will be much obliged for your effort.


Yes the term does have to do with the number of countries and also the number of UN resolutions= 14. ...and to show my support for education of ATS members as well as my own, and for the sake of accuracy, I will admit my intial number of 30 some was an estimate to which I was way off. I should be shamed. The list of coalition countires follows...


Forty-eight countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan


So there ya go. I guessed and I was wrong..it was a stat I had heard in another thread and I admit passing evidence without credibility is a practice I dispise and now find myself guilty of. I will endeavor to hold myself to more accurate stats when using them to refute this sort of ideology.



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 09:10 PM
link   
astro

I have no problem with estimates and recall, or your list.

The best argument for unilateralism comes from George W Bush himself, stipulating "you are either with us or against us".

The "with us" component isn't looking too healthy. The Coalition of the Willing is a strange animal indeed, and as has been pointed out, look how far some of the nations will corrupt themselves for favorable trading and aid terms.

Jakomo started a whole other thread on this as well as a result of this one.



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Someone mentioned that kurds wants and will get their own nation!

I doubt they will. Kurdistan is the richest area in the area. This is where most of the oil is, Gold, coal, iron Everything. If the Kurds get their own country and that is the borders after how they are spread out thru Turkey, Syria, Irak, Iran and Adzerbadjan then Kurdistan will be a very rich country and it's neibhours the counterpart. Therefor I guess Kurdistan was divided up between.

Anyone ever thought of that it might have been the Turks who gassed those Kurds?????
I would think they would be the ones most willing to do such a thing. Saddam is harmless compared to alot of Turks.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join