Kerry was not part of your lie. Again, you said: This is a lie. No where did I say this and you've lied in every way possible regarding it. I have documented Kerry's treason and stand behind that. But it had nothing to do with the democrats you mention nor did I say any such thing. You are a liar and you've demonstrated that post after post. This is the very reason I initially chose not to even bother with you. You cannot debate, you simply lie and argue for the sake of arguing. I had the idea that if I pointed out that I was describing WHAT WAS NOT TREASON, you would actually see that when you used that to show I was calling all democrats traitors, you might get a clue. But you are not smart enough to see it, or, are continuing to willfully lie about it. Given your history, lying is appropriate. Like I always say, facts don't matter to lying liberals. Yeah, seriously, try debating once, instead of making up lies. No doubt there are plenty of other people here that have no integrity either that will back you up, but they don't care about their integrity either.
Holy smoley GTech you are really against them darn Democrats aren't you. It really does not matter who is in charge the death and disaster will go on. Out of curiosity GTech and knowing that you are a little bit of a Republican supporter who do you think will have the best chance against Hillary Clinton? Rudy Giuliani John McCain Condoleezza Rice Arnold "I'll be back" Schwarzenegger Or someone else I think he Republicans are doomed in 2k8 but really it does not matter who's in charge as they are effectively two cheeks of the same arse.
I would say that's far more accurate than what Edz has lied about. I took great care when starting this thread to note this was "alleged" and a "charge." What I won't tolerate, is someone blatantly making up a lie about what I said. Lying is a sign of weakness and Edz has demonstrated his weakness. You would be suprised at how many people claim they care about the death of Iraqis by terrorists, but are the first ones to want the US to pull out, so terrorists can take over. I have no idea how people convince themselves that such a view is beneficial to Iraqis, but they honestly believe a terrorist controlled Iraq is the best for Iraqis. Too early to tell. I like Mitt Romney. I'd like to believe his religion wouldn't play a negative role, but I fear it will. I like Newt Gingrich. Giuliani, not so sure on. I'd need to look more at what he stands for. I don't agree, under a general umbrella. However, if democrats would step back and look at the board like a chess set, they could lock up a win tomorrow. Both Hilary and Obama have great likeability. The current "buzz" is whether they will knock each other out. I believe if the party as a whole, put them together as a team, it would be unbeatable. But egos play a huge role in politics on both sides of the isle. Join this team together though, my prediction would be an overwhelming win. Regardless of who is President and who is Vice President, given an Obama/Clinton ticket, it would be a series of firsts. The first female P or VP and the first African American P or VP. I applaud that, just wish it was a republican ticket that could bring those firsts.
A very well worded reply GTech apart from this: Drop the terrorist BS mate, Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld have got you so god damn spooked that you are under the impression that every Iraqi is a terrorist. Every Muslim is a terrorist etc. etc. It's all media brainwashing tactics mate. As I have said before, Iraq is nothing short of the biggest disaster in recent history. You can't keep playing the "terrorist" card mate. Even Dubya is trying to distance himself from it because it's wearing very thin these days. You can even see in recent speeches by Bush that the bumbling fool is even beginning to doubt his own bullshit. Edit: Are you not sure that Arnie will not throw his hat into the ring mate? He could be dropped off alone in Iraq via helicopter and wipe out all those millions of terrorists on his own with his machine gun that never runs out of ammunition. Them pesky terrorists wouldn't stand a chance mate, especially if he teamed up with Sly Stallone!
Let's work this into some reality. Since my position is very well known that I beleive *most* Iraqis want peace, want this crap to stop, want freedom and generally want to live normal lives like anyone else, your presumption cannot be correct. It is, and I firmly believe, a minority group of terrorists in Iraq that want to take control. Terrorists. It's not poltically incorrect to use such a term to describe people who strap on bombs to walk into crowded areas to blow up people. It is not politically incorrect to use a term to describe people who plant bombs in cars wired to cell phones to kill large group of Iraqis. They are terrorists. The notion that every muslim is a terrorist is false as well. It's a shield often used, when others point out specific people that actually do fit this criteria. I would say the media brainwashing (not that I believe in "brainwashing") has actually taken over yourself. Would it be fair to say that your views on Iraq most resemble the media's? And if so, how else could you possibly get your news anywhere else? You are entitled to your own views, but not your own facts. View: Iraq is nothing short of the biggest disaster. That's acceptable as a view. It is the view the media is working tirelessly to report and you have fallen prey to it. Kind of like that "sheeple" thing you mention I've seen nothing to suggest Bush is trying to distance himself from using the word "terrorist." Neither he, nor I belong to a "be kind to terrorists" club where we trade pleasantries about the kindest way to address the scum of the earth who kill people in the name of the god for virgins. I'll call them what they are...terrorists. If you want portray them in a kinder/gentler manner because you respect them, do so. I haven't talked to Arnie in a while. He got banned along with that "extremist" who was practicing his internet jihad skills. Can't say I thought it was justified, but I don't make the rules. December 20th! Rocky 6! I can't wait! I have premium theater tickets and will view the first showing of the day. Terrorists are terrorists, AGS. They don't deserve someone making excuses for their actions or trying to pawn their actions off on others.
Yes they are, and I hate them as much as you do, what I am more concerned about is that people like you are so spooked that you think everyone with dark skin, a beard and a turban are terrorists because of the media mindset. And Iraq is a total disaster mate, that is patently clear to everyone.
I certainly don't have that mindset. But there are a number of people without integrity who have tried to portray that. It's not politically incorrect to be aware and there is much to be aware about. Some would prefer to sweep these issues under the carpet of political correctness. That doesn't serve anyone, especially in these escalated times. Willful ignorance doesn't solve problems. (not saying that applies to you, just a general comment) So you would agree then, that your position on Iraq is reflective of the media so often chastised? It's sort of catch-22 there. I'm sure you are aware of it though
Let the motherf*cking Iraqis look after themselves. Why do most Americans pretend like they give a f*ck anyway? Your troops will go home, British troops too and the mess is left for the Iraqi's and neighboring countries to sort out. Just leave a few billion $$ and get the f*ck out. You don't give a shit really, do you?
I often wonder why people from other nations pretend to care about our soldiers. Do I want the minority terrorist factions who are killing Iraqis daily to take over the country? No. I don't see how anyone could long for such. At some point, when enough Iraqis are trained to take over, it will happen. And the violence will not end then, but they should be prepared to deal with it. To pull out before that is in place would make things much worse. Do Iraqis really deserve that?
I dont care about your soldiers. How about that? Why should I care, they are nothing to do with me. I dont care about Iraqis, solamis, turks, nigerians, I dont pretend to be interested in their affairs like most americans do about Iraq. Stop pretending you give a f*ck. You are just backing your precious leader because thats what you've been doing for the last few months and its hard to change your view when you've banged on about it for so long. You dont give a shit about Iraq, the same as you dont give a shit about turkmenistan, why should you? You only care about your own troops and because they are in Iraq you like to cast opinions, but otherwise you dont give a f*ck. Carry on supporting your leader and trying to talk about Iraq like you care. In a couple of years you will be caring about some other major world issue that at the moment you are ognorant of. 600, 000 dead? Nah, more like 50,000, I read it on a website. and PS yes I'm a brit talking to an american on an internet forum, something special about that?
Call me an idealist, but I don't want anyone to die, even my enemies. I just know that can't be. If a guy could peacefully hate my guts, then so be it. I'd much rather he not be killed for that, but I have to make a practical chose at one-point. I don't like the idea of anyone dying. As a human and perhaps a person with 'christian-like' beliefs, I feel an endless guilt that I haven't done enough to help others. And even a level of humility in the fact that I don't know if I'm supporting/doing what's right or wrong, and continual desire to know if I am. Although I doubt I'll ever 'KNOW'. Maybe I will. *shrug* I can't agree with your feelings, but they are your own. I don't have that level of exclusivity.
I think you may have misunderstood my sentiments. I was trying to point out that of all the problems in the world, most Americans/Brits who claim to care about the situation in Iraq only care because its American/British troops that are being risked. This is an Iraqi problem, created by American foreign policy, but its the Iraqi's who will sort it out. Its the Iraq's who are suffering. I wasnt expressing anything negative towards US troops. Just that I have no attachment to them beyond what any human has to any other human on the otherside of the world.
I can't claim that, but I'm sure that applies to many people. It's a regional issue in the long-run, and a world issue if let undone. I think the Iraqi's will suffer losses as long as they're willing to permit it. Not to sound harsh, but they must come to a grave concensus to put all differences aside and think of each other as brothers. Once they willfully elect politicians whom hold that sentiment, and actually enforce a security of that nature and stature....long-term stability is incredibly heightened. I think the Iraq's would have suffered under our sanctions just as bad...while under the rule of Saddam. You just wouldn't get the press coverage that blood does. Without some of the sanctions, Saddam would still be attempting to take over the middle-east, though...and probably killing more people in his wars than anything. Fair enough, but I must say on general level...the comments you made sound rather cold. Now I have no right to dictate what you should or should not feel, but that's just how I perceived it.
We all care, but we shouldn't pontificate. We are observing it while others are living it. We have tried to help, but we have failed. Things are worse, and will be worse for many years. We need to remove our weapons and send in money and compassion. Cold towards Gtech.
The wierd thing about this article is that the sentences GTech excerpted off the original article were deleted in a revision made 5 hours later. Go back to the original link source and you can see that the article was amended. (I can vouch for the original story-I saw GTechs inititial post and read the link immediately) So, even as some were wondering why other news sources didn't pick this up, it could have been rumour that was never substantiated-- or totally something else. I like newspapers for this kind of thing though. Imagine if this was simply unsubstantiated rumour. In that case the newspaper changed the story. Of course in the blog world, we being an example, a rumour can live forever. Of course if they altered the story for a different reason....that's a different story. Just strange.
There is just no way around the above quote GTech. I know exactly well what you meant by pointing out what was not treason, it's clear as day. The meeting between Yasser Arafat and Clinton which you describe as normal diplomatic meeting between heads of state. But that is not the point i put forward. The point i put forward is that you call an undisclosed meeting a whole other issue, what do you mean by a whole other issue? In the above context you give of the impression to people that you would regard a undisclosed meeting by the Democrats with these terrorist groups as treason. Not only i got this impression but EarlPearl as well by reading through his posts. So if you want to prevent this miscommunication you need to choose your words more carefully. And stop calling me a liar if i only say what is to be perceived from the above quote. If such a meeting would have taken place and only knowing it took place and nothing else how would you classify such a meeting?
A terrorist, like all criminals is innocent until proven guilty. Gtech loves talking about terrorists, the more terrorists activity there is, the more excited he gets.