It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


unproportional personal flaming

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 03:01 AM
Wow TC, that could be one of the best things I've read on this board in a while. Keep up the good work, and I always look forward to reading your posts on the board.

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 04:18 AM
Like I said earier, I don't care that you guy's have a different opinion about the war on terror, I just didn't like the comment about Moku dreaming about the good ol'nazi days, that's all...

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 04:33 AM
"Because of people like him, I've found myself defending a politician"----- Thomas

No Thomas not because of him, because of you. It is you who is the decision maker. It is you who is the maker of your destiny. Am I right or am I wrong???

Then there is the fact that you admit that you might have lost the perspective of the truth by denying inquiry of what maybe. Why would you do that??? Did you not say these exellent words of wisdom below?:

"have kept people from engaging in a true and earnest search for the truth by keeping us at odds with political and national debate and argument." ---Thomas

Are you not guilty of this crime???

Are you not a critic of the people who commit this crime???

Did you not admit that you are gulity of this crime???

I think the honest answers to those questions is a faithful YES. Am I right???

For isn't it that Thomas is just a true patriot???

For he takes pride in his opinion, and his opinion knows no bounds, borders, or distinctions. For he enjoys freedom and is grateful to have what is given to him.

What people must understand is that one's politics, is one's emotion. One's emotion is ruled by reason. So the politic of man is only as reasonable as one's emotion. So it is imperative that the man of politic shows a true and honest form of emotion among men. He must be Emotionally Intelligent (E.T.) The one who clings to emotion can't be reasonable. One must let go of views and look for realites, not opinions. Opinions hold nothing other than perceptions. Perceptions are limited to views. Once again the view comes back to us. The view is becoming a never ending cycle, just as the bickering among men a never ending cycle in itself.

You See????

[Edited on 22-4-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 04:39 AM
"But how about when one makes a career out of flaming a nation? When one brings no useful information, when one does nothing but make wild and baseless assertions, knowing that they are totally beyond defense or even protocol, just what do you call that? When the flames are in a manner that any normal and rational citizen of the nation under attack feels as if the assaults are baseless and only to provoke and incite, what is that called?"----Thomas

A Propagandist

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 04:59 AM

I'm not trying to chastise you ... You haven't let me down in the slightest. Sometime's though, you've got to be the bigger guy and delete the other guy's as$ rather than flame back. Personally, I'd find that more effective in pissing him off than insulting him back.

I'm an american too, I may not like what some of Moku post's ... but he is entitled to his opinion's about america. Hell ... I'm not very fond of Bush right now. He pretty much broke the UN. It's worth nothing now when a member nation goes against everything the UN has said. If one nation can do that, then why not another, then another, then another ... What Bush did was totally wrong. People are pissed about that, not america itself. WE are america, not Bush, and some of these people forget that. WE had nothing to do with this war. Bush did. We need to remind these people of that. We have to make it clear that most of "america" was against the war. We need to make it clear that Bush lied to "america" itself about Iraq's WMD's just to gain a little support in the war. The world look's at what the american president does and then blame's all of it's people because of what the president did. That's what we need to defend against. Not the anti-american comment's. Like I said, I'm american, I'm not president Bush. I'm not the one who lied to my nation, the UN, and the whole world just so I could get support for the next election season ... Nor am I the one who ruined our nation as a result. Moku need's to look at that. What Bush did, not what america did. America did nothing.

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 05:47 AM
Bush knows that and he is not going to sacrifice oil contacts and denfense contracts to get destroyed by the UN's illegitimacy. He said screw the legalities and if he wasn't screwing the legalites to fight a oil war than I would support it, but he isn't so he doens't get my support. The only thing I support is him and his eagerness to overthrown Saddam's Regime. Yet even I know that the intent in that was not for the sake of Iraqi's but for the sake of the image of America.

(Can you feel the heat)

I don't mean to be SO honest.

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Like I said earier, I don't care that you guy's have a different opinion about the war on terror, I just didn't like the comment about Moku dreaming about the good ol'nazi days, that's all...

And, I'd like to think you were getting a bit disturbed about the continuous "America is Evil" line of crap without any substance. That is a flame as well, and one that has gone on non-stop since he arrived. But, I'll stop. Or at least give it the good ol' American try!

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 11:38 AM
What I find frankly and utterly intolerable is this stream of abuse directed at Thomas. How dare anyone accuse him of tolerance, liberalism and an innate sense of fair play? I can scarcely believe that my cyberfellows would traduce his name with such words as "balanced".
Could anyone have been a highly-esteemed Mod for so long had he or she ever dabbled in the murky depths of according intellectual laissez-faire to a drivelling, liberal, politically correct keyboard-stroker? Indeed, not!
Remember, Thomas has none of my advantages. He has no photographic and digital evidence concerning Simon's little ways.
He has no pay: he is here only for love and the chance to redress Gettysburg.
And if he says you are a dim-witted, drivelling, "What -Really-Happened-Ctl +V- posting" cyber-tart: he is almost certainly right. And if, as a Southern gentleman, he counsels you upon your comportment, he is assuredly right.
Anyone questioning Thomas upon flaming is ipso fatco a poltroon, a damn Yankee, or both.
And, that said: is a civil tongue too much to ask?

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 11:50 AM
LOL! Here we go !

E-non, I here what you are saying, but I'm not following. The U.S. has been under attack for quite a while. 9/11 was not the first shot, and Al-Queda is not the only group that has declared war on us, and Syria and Iran aren't the only nations that are terrorist-sponsoring states. Iraq is as well. It isn't a matter of if Hussein has CBR weapons, its a matter of where are they? What did he do with them? Burden of proof has been on him, not us, and he's done no proving. You are blaming Bush for breaking up the U.N. when the otehr members went against us for the purpose of protecting their own under the table interests. And lookie, Germany won't forgive the new government of the debt from the old government. Now, there is a nation that should understand forgiveness. France was protecting their financial interests as well and was willing to do that regardless of whether or not a CBR weapon made it our shores and killed our people. Our lives is a risk the French government is always willing to take. Sure, most of the people there were against us (so, what's new) but that doesn't make us wrong.

When you say they all were against us so therefore we were wrong and should have done it their way, you aren't taking into consideration why they were not going along with us. Their reasons were not humanitarian or magnanimous. As a matter of fact, they displayed no better than apathy toward the safety of my family. Funny how time goes and friends forget you, huh?

Now, as far as our reasons for the war.The threat is real, and it has been real. Its not something that occured with the election of Bush. You really don't think Abu Abbas had sneaked into Iraq without Hussein's network knowing? You don't really think he was the only terrorist that Hussein aided? You don't think these mobile labs werescience projects that travelled from school to school, huh? And you don't believe Hussein would have lost a moment's sleep after handing the chemical or biological, or eventually, the nuclear weapon off to the terrorist so that the group without border or national identity could do the dirty work for the nations that hate us, do you? Of course not should be the answer to each question. The war on terror was a just cause for smashing Hussein and the threat he posed, a clear and immediate threat.You know what the funny thing is? There's nothing that says some of the chemical/biological weaponry wasn't handed off before the overthrow of Hussein.

We seem to make a big deal about the condition of the Iraqi people. Gulags, torture chambers, child prisons, etc, and I'm very glad these people are not living under this anymore. But I agree with those that say this is U.S. propaganda machine at work. Sure, every bit of it is true, but Iraq isn't the only nation that suffers under such cruelty. I don't see a mad rush to liberate the Christians in Sudan. Oh, yeah, they're Africans, to heck with them. So, why do we worry about the Iraqis anyway?

Oh, yeah. Now we come back to that three letter word that some treat like a four letter word, oil. Or, as some act as if it should be referred, The "O" word. Of course oil is the key. What baffoon would be such a dimwitted knuckle-dragger to think otherwise? I got some news for you kind peeps, my car doesn't run on water and pine sap can't be used as lube, s oyou're darned right I expect my country to ensure I have the gas to get to and from work. And by the way, did I mention the fact I have a habit of doing about 30-35 mph over the speed limit? Bring me back a few extra gallons, I'm wasteful. And I don't want a little putt-putt car again. This Taurus is as small as I'll ever go again, and I'm mad about the fact that Ford Motor Company determined I shouldn't go any faster than 110 MPH and governed it there. Get the picture? I need gas. I'll pay for the gas, I'll pay fair market value, but it needs to get here. It doesn't need to be bottled up because of a sanction that is the result of a nutbag that would rather his people starve while he sticks his fingers in our eyes rather than get rid of CBR weapons that he doesn't need anyway. Some of the "member nations" had little oil deals already going on, so they weren't really worried about it, now were they? And selling weapons parts and pieces to Hussein through back doors was pretty lucrative and he'd have the money for that as long as the "oil for food" *nudge-nudge, knowing wink* program was in place.
By the way, why is it that our fine friends in the U.N. refuse to lift the sanctions on Iraq, even though the Husseini regime is no longer in power? Wake up, friend, the U.N. is not humanitarian but a political machine, and one whose mission is to fleece and destroy the U.S. and they'll make the Iraqi people suffer more if they think it'll in some way hurt us.
But, I stray.

Oil is the very reason we give a tinker's rip about the middle east. I know some of you aren't religious, and many aren't Christian, but my thinking is that there is so much oil in that region is so that we will be drawn to that area and we will care about what is going on there. Otherwise we may not care how the Jew and the Arab is getting along.

So, in a nutshell. we have a U.N. where the other permanent members had their own financial agendas that worked against both our national security and the welfare of the Iraqi people, and a nation with oil needed by the rest of the world that was being held hostage by a sadistic dictator. There doesn't seem to be anything covert about this situation, and the plain view evidence is alot more overwhelming than the conjecture that I've seen. And, even if there are underlying reasons for this military action, the obvious reasons are sufficient for conducting it anyway.

Are there underlying reasons? I have no doubt. But while I see many people screaming about hard to define and prove underlying reasons on the side of the U.S., hardly anyone makes mention of the uncovered underlying reasons France, Germany and Russia were against us. There is where I see a more glaring conspiracy that is being totally ignored. It would seem to me that those who are all about the dignity of humanity and against the suffering of humanity would be wondering why the above stated nations would be against liberating the Iraqi people in order to protect their financial concerns. Isn't this, after all, what the U.S. is accused of doing, placing its economic interests above the human interests of people in other nations?

The double standards are really confusing me. It makes me think that maybe there is some old fashoined politics involved.

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 01:26 PM
He! France now says it favors lifting the sanctions on Iraq! I wonder why the change? Whatever the reason, run with it and get Iraq some revenue as I has that big debt to pay Germany for Saddam.

posted on Apr, 22 2003 @ 04:35 PM
The burden of proof is also on Bush. He claimed to have proof. All the UN wanted was to see that proof before a member nation went and did a pre-empt. Bush kept saying he couldn't give out that proof out of fear of Saddam moving it on him. Well ... Why couldn't Bush track the proof he admitted to having that sanctioned his action's for a pre-empt? I'm not saying that the war isn't right. I'm just pointing out that the initial reason for a pre-empt was nothing more than a lie. He out-right lied to gain support for this war. We haven't seen one shred of proof yet that Iraq has WMD's of any kind at all.

Look at Bush's list of evil nation's there. Look where we're obviously headed next. Something to me just doesn't look right. Bush is now saying all of Saddam's WMD's were shipped there. This is being said from an Iraqi scientist that we're not aloud to even see or interview ourselve's. Why? If Saddam's dead, then why is no one aloud to see this supposed Iraqi scientist? Make's no sense. Just like the UN wasn't aloud to see Bush's WMD proof.

The UN, if all rule's and regulation's were followed. If every member nation did it's part ... It would have worked out. What Bush just did, literally put an end to the UN. There is no more UN. When a member nation can just say "screw you, doing it anyway's" ... Then what good is the UN?

Don't get me wrong either ... I'm very happy the Iraqi's are liberated now. I'm happy Bush did free them from Saddam. I congradulate him on that. I don't like being lied to just so he get's my support for our country's first ever pre-empt.

posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 01:36 AM

Some evidence found. The scientist led them to it. The scientist also revealed material has been heading to Syria for some time. Evidence against Syria. Syria doesn't like that, you can imagine. Show the guy's face and give out his name. See him and his family in little bits. Not hard to understand.

No, Bush was not under any burden of proof. If you recall, this Bush was not even president when the first war's aggression was halted because of the agreements Saddam made. Nowhere in any page did it ever say that in 2003 when the threat has grown too far and the U.N. proven too incompetent that the president would have to prove that there is evidence of the weapons that Hussein was to prove he no longer had. Bush has not lied to you about the weapons, they've been known to exist before the threat of action by the U.S. this time, why are people all of a sudden catching cases of memory loss? Is it the aluminum cans we drink from?

You are concerned about the next stop in the war on terror? Here's a concern you should have: If Bush doesn't have the backbone to continue the war on terror, what is going to be the next target after the terrorist networks regroup and move? What, do you think the threat is gone because we've moved on Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, removed Hussein from Iraq, and have spec. Forces in places like the Phillipines and Columbia? I'd love that to be true, but you know what? There are nations that have been major players in terror for decades, and they haven't stopped yet. I imagine they think they can do like they did in the nineties, pay a little lip service and we'll knowingly look the other way, that way we look like we did something and they don't have to make any real changes. I hope Bush isn't like that.

I don't know what will be the outcome of the war if we actually conduct it as Bush made it sound back in the forth quarter of 2001 and it is a little concerning, but it is also very clear what will happen if we show weakness. The enemy has no mercy for weak, spineless leaders. That is one thing I do like about them.

posted on Apr, 23 2003 @ 05:15 AM
That new's article sound's just as good as the "poof" Bush laid out to the UN before the war. Just as good as the "very good" source's we had when we killed Saddam twice and still aren't sure if we got him. Just as good as the two key people we THINK fled to Syria ....

The burden of proof is on Bush. It became his when he told the UN council that he had PROOF of WMD's. Proof mean's a direct knowledge, not a good feeling. When he claimed to have proof, he should have aloud the UN to view it. What he did show them was worthless crap. What his Daddy did has nothing to do with what he told the UN. He told the UN he had PROOF that sanctioned his action's for our country's first pre-empt. If Bush didn't lie about the WMD's, then why is he making a bee-line trying to find what he just got done telling the UN he already KNEW about?

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 01:09 AM
I'm still stuck on your "Burden of proof lies on Bush" point of view, when the resolution clearly dictates otherwise. This is a very important point as when we come to understand that the proof was Hussein's burden we can understand that all else is academic.

Once we move beyond that point, we'll never get to a point with which you'll be happy as I imagine Hussein was much to crafty to have volumes of film footage of him personally mixing together the chemicals with various people whom you trust and would believe as witnesses.

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 04:58 AM
Res 1441 called for Iraq to turn in an account of all banned weapons that has to verified by UN inspectors. That's how Iraq "proves" it has no WMD. While this was underway and while everyone was happy a peaceful solution to ousting Saddam had been found, the Administration publicly emitted the opinion that Iraq is hiding WMD's that could be a grave threat to america's security, saying there was 100% proof which couldnt be shown in public, and attacked Iraq on the fallacious grounds of resolution 1441, saying they know Iraq had WMD's and tat Iraq intended to use them against the USA. That's where the burden of proof comes from. It's normal the american people feel duped into paranoia by Bush now, because they were.

[Edited on 26-4-2003 by Maxwell Smart]

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 10:03 AM
Thank you Max! I was just about to post something to that end.


Now it turn's out that the WMD threat was nothing more than an "emphasis". To me, that sound's more like an outright lie to gain support for going into Iraq.

Seriously though ... What actual proof do we have that there were WMD's in Iraq? None ... We weren't aloud to see this "proof". Just as we're not aloud to verify against the Iraqi scientist. What we do have though ... Is the word of one guy who wanted to finnish daddy's job.

posted on Apr, 27 2003 @ 01:21 AM
What Hussein was required to do from the beginning (I'm not referring to 1441, by the way, go all the way back into the 700's, 12 years ago) he never did. He was required to provide proof then, and he has never complied with or cooperated. Not a good answer, Max.

What'd I hear today, of some significant chemical find?

I'm not worried about the 100's of thousands of pounds that has been speculated is buried in the desert and we may eventually find, its the few hundred pounds that would make its way here and kill thousands.
As a matter of fact, I'm not worried about them now, unless they left before we got there. Thankfully, we have a president that will take care of business, and I mean that which is on the top side of the desk in the oval office!

I wonder if any made it out of the middle east before we decided to act without the inept U.N.?
If it did, and if it is used against anyone, do you think people will fuss at the U.N. for dragging its feet for all these years, or at Bush for not acting faster?

posted on Apr, 27 2003 @ 08:38 AM
Gee ... I truly hope this significant find is better than the half dozen or more other find's they had previously. You know ... the one's that turned out to be nothing.

Could u provide a link to the story about this new find? I haven't heard anything on the new's yet about it. Just some BS with NK going on now

posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 03:13 AM
What TC has said something tasteless and rascist??

Must be a "joke"!!

TC is allowed have his occasional excesses.


Don't criticise Mods.
Invariabley they all stick together.I am very surpised Zion has said anything.

posted on Apr, 30 2003 @ 01:42 PM
Um, John, have I missed something? Racist comment by me? Please point me to that comment so that I will know what to ask forgiveness for and repent.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in