The best beat down of a FOX neocon I've seen in a while

[No Limit]

For the love of god man, quit with this. I am a Dem and voted Kerry, so how bout you quit profiing all of us into one catagory, as you seem pissed when anyone else does. I am getting sick of your god damn personal attacks on me. How bout you take a break and cool down.

What the hell are you talking about? This had nothing to do with you. I voted for Kerry too, but I still think he was chicken shit (like most other democrats) for going along with the war for political gain. In late 2002, right around midterm elections, every media outlet was pro-war; and I do mean EVERY media outlet. For political reasons most Democrats voted for the war knowing it was wrong but they wanted to be reelected that month (the vote came up 2 days before midterm elections) so they went along with Bush as Bush was scaring the shit out of the average american with his WMD talk. Those 20 Democrats and the 1 Republican (especially that 1 Republican) I think should be the most respected leaders in this country. They didn't fall for political pressure, they stood up for what was right.

 

[No Limit]

when did that happen? did i miss something while i've been here at school?

It's been happening for a while now, you simply haven't been paying any attention.

 

[Hapless]

Arms, firearms, whatever.

Today's society doesn't require a milita, and yet the reason for people to bear was because they were gonna form a milita to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".

No, not whatever. Firearms specifically means guns, while arms is a more general term meaning weapons. You tried to make it sound like the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear muskets. As far as your rather naive assessment of today's society...

 

[Raziaar]

I just watched it. I can't really say I thought either of them got the smackdown. I won't pretend to like O'reiley, but he certainly didn't get put in his place here. Just because you agree with the other guy, doesn't mean O'reiley got his ass handed to him. Doesn't work that way. With what they were both saying, they were just babbling, and neither could make any sort of effective jabs.



Anyways. One thing that confuses me. I don't really follow the Sheehan thing, but they mentioned something in that video that struck me as curious.


Sheehan apparently is out there protesting because of her dead boy, and other peoples kids/brothers/sisters who are dead, or might be dead. And apparently she said something along the lines of "The Insurgents in Iraq are freedom fighters?"


Well thats what puzzles me. If her boy was killed by an insurgent, and that insurgent was a freedom fighter, then doesn't it in some perverse sense(not something I would ever like to think), mean that her boy died for a good cause, the fact that the freedom fighter killed him for his freedom? So in essence, it was good that he died?

Thats what a comment like that does, pretty much. You take these freedom fighters. You're legitimizing their reason for killing american troops. And when all these boys and girls die, they're dying for a legitimate cause.


At least, thats how I view it. And its sick. Its not 'freedom fighters' killing our troops, its a bunch of terrorists.

 

[No Limit]

I just watched it. I can't really say I thought either of them got the smackdown. I won't pretend to like O'reiley, but he certainly didn't get put in his place here. Just because you agree with the other guy, doesn't mean O'reiley got his ass handed to him. Doesn't work that way. With what they were both saying, they were just babbling, and neither could make any sort of effective jabs.



Anyways. One thing that confuses me. I don't really follow the Sheehan thing, but they mentioned something in that video that struck me as curious.


Sheehan apparently is out there protesting because of her dead boy, and other peoples kids/brothers/sisters who are dead, or might be dead. And apparently she said something along the lines of "The Insurgents in Iraq are freedom fighters?"


Well thats what puzzles me. If her boy was killed by an insurgent, and that insurgent was a freedom fighter, then doesn't it in some perverse sense(not something I would ever like to think), mean that her boy died for a good cause, the fact that the freedom fighter killed him for his freedom? So in essence, it was good that he died?

Thats what a comment like that does, pretty much. You take these freedom fighters. You're legitimizing their reason for killing american troops. And when all these boys and girls die, they're dying for a legitimate cause.


At least, thats how I view it. And its sick. Its not 'freedom fighters' killing our troops, its a bunch of terrorists.

As usualy good old Bill O'Reilly took that quote out of context. I will try to pull that out when I can but I'm kind of busy with the other thread and my work schedule.

 

[Raziaar]

As usualy good old Bill O'Reilly took that quote out of context. I will try to pull that out when I can but I'm kind of busy with the other thread and my work schedule.

This it?

"Now that we have decimated [Iraq], the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country," Sheehan complained to CBS Newsman Mark Knoller."

Still sounds to me like she's calling the murderers of american troops(Sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers.) Freedom fighters.

Doesn't that kind of 'justify' the deaths of their loved ones in a rather grotesque way?

I certainly don't view things that way.

 

[No Limit]

This it?




Still sounds to me like she's calling the murderers of american troops(Sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers.) Freedom fighters.

Doesn't that kind of 'justify' the deaths of their loved ones in a rather grotesque way?

I certainly don't view things that way.

http://www.answers.com/freedom+fighter&r=67

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

The oppressive government being the United States of America.

I will say this, what she said was dumb. But understand, this is a woman that is pissed off that this administration and she has every right to be. Because of Bush her son died. If Bush didn't start this useless war her son would be alive and there would be no "insurgents", "terrorists", "freedom fighters", whatever the hell you want to call them.

 

[Raziaar]

I will say this, what she said was dumb. But understand, this is a woman that is pissed off that this administration and she has every right to be. Because of Bush her son died. If Bush didn't start this useless war her son would be alive and there would be no "insurgents", "terrorists", "freedom fighters", whatever the hell you want to call them.

There's always going to be terrorists, silly goose.

 

[No Limit]

There's always going to be terrorists, silly goose.

You aren't serious now are you? There were no terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded and her son would still have been alive.

 

[Raziaar]

You aren't serious now are you? There were no terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded and her son would still have been alive.

You're kidding right? What were Saddams goons? Tossing people into wood chippers, gassing them. Murdering them by the thousands in awful, horrible ways, and then killing their families. Raping women.

Those aren't terrorists?

 

[Solaris]

I view the 'insurgancy' as a national liberation force.

However, the people of Iraq, are fighting each other, instead of uniting to kick out the Americans, the only people who can truely beat the US imperilist offensive, are the American people themselves.

Victory from within.

 

[No Limit]

You're kidding right? What were Saddams goons? Tossing people into wood chippers, gassing them. Murdering them by the thousands in awful, horrible ways, and then killing their families. Raping women.

Those aren't terrorists?

Saddam was doing all that in the 80s when he was our best friend.

After the first Gulf War and before the invasion of 2003 there were no terrorists in Iraq.

 

[Raziaar]

Saddam was doing all that in the 80s when he was our best friend.

After the first Gulf War and before the invasion of 2003 there were no terrorists in Iraq.

May have been your best friend. Wasn't mine I was only born in 85.

And please tell me. How can you prove there were no terrorists in Iraq anyways? Thats not something I think you could ever prove. You go into any middle eastern country, and you're bound to have terrorists about, whether or not they choose to terrorize western world powers or not.

Hell. You can go into any state in the united states, and you have terrorists. Domestic terrorists. KKK, murderers, rapists. You name it.

You can't really claim Iraq was terrorists free, how can you? No report can prove that to a fact. Thats like saying there are no christians in iraq. Utter bullshit

 

[dream431ca]

Saddam was doing all that in the 80s when he was our best friend.

After the first Gulf War and before the invasion of 2003 there were no terrorists in Iraq.

Now now...lets not jump to conclusions here. Any proof of your statement? It's just interesting to read that there were no terrorist in Iraq after the Gulf War....which again, kind of doesn't make too much sense.

 

[No Limit]

May have been your best friend. Wasn't mine I was only born in 85.

I was in Poland at the time. He was the Bush families best friend I should have said.

And please tell me. How can you prove there were no terrorists in Iraq anyways? Thats not something I think you could ever prove. You go into any middle eastern country, and you're bound to have terrorists about, whether or not they choose to terrorize western world powers or not.

That's a bullshit argument, I can't believe you are even trying to use it. How can you prove Poland doesn't have terrorists, how can you prove we don't have terrorists. The bottom line is Saddam wasn't sponsoring terrorists, he shot them on site. And we knew this, Bush simply lied to you.

Hell. You can go into any state in the united states, and you have terrorists. Domestic terrorists. KKK, murderers, rapists. You name it.

So Canada should invade us for harboring terrorists? I honestly don't know where you are going with this argument, if anything it looks like you are defending my position.

You can't really claim Iraq was terrorists free, how can you? No report can prove that to a fact. Thats like saying there are no christians in iraq. Utter bullshit

I can tell you right now the government there isn't supporting Christians :/

 

[dream431ca]

That's a bullshit argument, I can't believe you are even trying to use it. How can you prove Poland doesn't have terrorists, how can you prove we don't have terrorists. The bottom line is Saddam wasn't sponsoring terrorists, he shot them on site. And we knew this, Bush simply lied to you.

Again, I see a flaw in your statement. He asked you for proof of terrorist in Iraq and you responded with this No Limit. And no I'm no Bush supporter. I'm just asking why you didn't give any proof of your statement.

 

[mortiz]

You're kidding right? What were Saddams goons? Tossing people into wood chippers, gassing them. Murdering them by the thousands in awful, horrible ways, and then killing their families. Raping women.

Those aren't terrorists?

See, that's the thing. In going to war, most Americans, including Bush, didn't give a shit about what Saddam was doing to his own people. The primary two reasons (both of them false) that America supported Bush's war in Iraq was because they were told Saddam Hussein had access to WMD's and he was fostering international terrorists who were a threat to the United States and her allies, I don't believe any American, when listening to Bush go on about terrorism thought about Saddam Hussein’s "goons" as you put it. Saddam Hussein didn't tolerate any kind of organized terrorism that he had no control over within his borders because he was scared that it would be a threat to his position.

There were far worse genocides going on around the world before Bush took America into the war with Iraq, but he conveniently forgot those because they didn't serve his interests.

 

[No Limit]

Again, I see a flaw in your statement. He asked you for proof of terrorist in Iraq and you responded with this No Limit. And no I'm no Bush supporter. I'm just asking why you didn't give any proof of your statement.

What proof? The burden of proof is on him. He has to provide me with proof that Saddam harbored terrorists. You do not invade another country without any proof, which is exactly what we did. Canada can invade us if they would like simply because they claim we have terrorists.

 

[Raziaar]

I can tell you right now the government there isn't supporting Christians :/

They're just like you people then

 

[Raziaar]

What proof? The burden of proof is on him. He has to provide me with proof that Saddam harbored terrorists. You do not invade another country without any proof, which is exactly what we did. Canada can invade us if they would like simply because they claim we have terrorists.

I didn't say Saddam harbored terrorists. You made the bold faced claim that Iraq was 100%, terrorist free, whether state operated or not. You made the claim of fact. I want to see those facts.

SHow me those facts that prove 100% without a doubt that iraq had no terrorist cells/training camps, etc.

 

[mortiz]

I didn't say Saddam harbored terrorists. You made the bold faced claim that Iraq was 100%, terrorist free, whether state operated or not. You made the claim of fact. I want to see those facts.

SHow me those facts that prove 100% without a doubt that iraq had no terrorist cells/training camps, etc.

I'm unsure how pursuing that will help your main argument? Even if there was some terrorist activity in Iraq that the Iraqi government didn't know about, it makes it no different from the United States or most other countries in the world (as you stated). It certainly doesn't provide a basis for war.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm unsure how pursuing that will help your main argument? Even if there was some terrorist activity in Iraq that the Iraqi government didn't know about that makes it no different from the United States or most other countries in the world (as you stated). It certainly doesn't provide a basis for war.

I still dont see how you guys can think bush knew all along, that while he was supplied this information by the CIA, and other countries' agencies that saddam had WMDS, he was also being slipped other information by the same sources saying, "No no... he doesn't really, this is just a cover up. Go on, go play in the sandbox with your missiles"


Bush acted upon awful information by the CIA and other countries agencies. You all pin him as a dumbass, but really you also sometimes pin him as an evil mastermind, which is what that would be. Why? LOL

 

[No Limit]

I still dont see how you guys can think bush knew all along, that while he was supplied this information by the CIA, and other countries' agencies that saddam had WMDS, he was also being slipped other information by the same sources saying, "No no... he doesn't really, this is just a cover up. Go on, go play in the sandbox with your missiles"


Bush acted upon awful information by the CIA and other countries agencies. You all pin him as a dumbass, but really you also sometimes pin him as an evil mastermind, which is what that would be. Why? LOL

Did you read the Downing Street Memo yet? if you haven't be sure to check out:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com

Read up on how they would need to fix intelligence, how war would be illegal without a second resolution, and how Bush had already made up his mind to go to war in 2002.

Also, read up on Joseph Wilson and how he debunked the claim that Iraq was trying to buy Uranium from Niger but Bush repeated it anyway in his state of the union address.

 

[mortiz]

I can imagine it now

Presidents Advisor: "Uh, Mr.President ."
Bush: "Yes? I hope you've got what I asked for"
Presidents Advisor: "Well, I just got off the phone with the chief of the CIA and he says that Saddam might have some WMD's but we're really not sure"
Bush: "So you're saying there's a chance?"
Presidents Advisor: "Yes Mr. President, uhh, there's a chance, but we really don't have enough information."
Bush: "I don't care, roll with it, a chance, no matter how small is good enough for me".
Presidents Advisor: "But, Mr. President, uhh, if we're wrong..."
Bush: "If we're wrong, we're wrong, we'll deal with that later, there's enough people in this country who don't watch the news to allow for the risk".
Presidents Advisor: "Yes Mr.President".

 

[Raziaar]

I dunno what the downing street memo is. I don't know if you know this or not, but my life does not revolve around politics.

However, I did find this little bit on the wikipedia page for downing street memo. I love wikipedia. I can learn things without using my brain.

Criticism of the Memo

Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says.

It has also been pointed by many observers that in the same exact memo, the mention of the possible use of WMD is discussed:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

Critics argue, this contradicts the purported “smoking gun” of the issue of WMDs being fabricated.

While the authenticity is generally regarded sound, recent events such as “RatherGate” added additional skepticism on the validity of the memo. Jim Cox, USA Today’s senior assignment editor for foreign news commented: "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source, There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."

Oh, and then there's this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_memos

 

[No Limit]

I dunno what the downing street memo is. I don't know if you know this or not, but my life does not revolve around politics.

However, I did find this little bit on the wikipedia page for downing street memo. I love wikipedia. I can learn things without using my brain.




Oh, and then there's this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_memos

Did you read the entire memo or not? Since it only took you 7 minutes to reply it doesn't seem like you did.

 

[Raziaar]

Did you read the entire memo or not? Since it only took you 7 minutes to reply it doesn't seem like you did.

Of course I didn't! I'm not in any state to read shit. I'm barely skating by reading these forums as it is. I can't keep my eyes from crossing.

BTW. I hope its not one of those 5000 page things you Libby's(see, when I say stuff like that, I say it with fond enthusiasm and not like other people who say it dripping with hatred. No limit!) are known to paste often, expecting a casual internet goer to read up on hoping they'll just give up rather than wasting 5 weeks of their life on.

 

[No Limit]

Of course I didn't! I'm not in any state to read shit. I'm barely skating by reading these forums as it is. I can't keep my eyes from crossing.

BTW. I hope its not one of those 5000 page things you Libby's(see, when I say stuff like that, I say it with fond enthusiasm) are known to paste often, expecting a casual internet goer to read up on hoping they'll just give up rather than wasting 5 weeks of their life on.

If you are not willing to take this seriously right now dont waste my time, come back when you are ready.

 

[Hapless]

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Nope, no terrorists in Iraq before 2003. Oh, except for Abu Abbas. Oh yeah, and Abu Nidal. Not to mention the fact that Iraq paid a bonus to the families of Palestinian terrorists, or, "martyrs," as you would probably call them. Freedom fighters fight for freedom, not to establish an oppressive theocracy.

 

[Absinthe]

Freedom fighters fight for freedom, not to establish an oppressive theocracy.

The government in Iraq is being set up as a theocracy.

 

[Hapless]

The government in Iraq is being set up as a theocracy.

Oh, so the insurgents want to set up a constitutional democracy or republic? My bad. I thought the insurgents wanted us to get out so they could turn Iraq into a Talibanesque nightmare. Silly me.:|

 

[Absinthe]

Don't be retarded, Hapless. I never said such a thing. I was merely pointing out that either way it's not going to be daisies and sunshine in the long run.

 

[Hapless]

Don't be retarded, Hapless. I never said such a thing. I was merely pointing out that either way it's not going to be daisies and sunshine in the long run.

Sarcasm and retardation are two different things. I would expect you to know the difference.:smoking:

 

[No Limit]

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Nope, no terrorists in Iraq before 2003. Oh, except for Abu Abbas. Oh yeah, and Abu Nidal. Not to mention the fact that Iraq paid a bonus to the families of Palestinian terrorists, or, "martyrs," as you would probably call them. Freedom fighters fight for freedom, not to establish an oppressive theocracy.

I really do wish you'd post around here a little more often, and I'm not being sarcastic. I'll have a reply for you on Monday, time to start the weekend right now :thumbs:.

 

[Jintor]

Dear No Limit:

Hi!

Jintor.

While on the subject, can we get back to insulting/defending O'Reiley, instead of falling back into time-old-time-old 'Republicans vs Democrats'?...

 

[CptStern]

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Nope, no terrorists in Iraq before 2003. Oh, except for Abu Abbas. Oh yeah, and Abu Nidal.

and dont forget US sponsored terrorist group Iraqi National Accord

Not to mention the fact that Iraq paid a bonus to the families of Palestinian terrorists,

there's a difference between rewarding and funding ...also, the US has supported terrorists like Orlando Bosch, I dont see any difference here

or, "martyrs," as you would probably call them.

dont put words into his mouth ..not supporting the occupation of palestine does not equate support of terrorism

Freedom fighters fight for freedom,

like the taliban?

not to establish an oppressive theocracy.

which you are paving the way for ..saddam was secular ...the current government is heading away from that ..women's right pretty much non-existant, islamic law taking precedent over state law. You've pretty much guarenteed a religious state

 

[mortiz]

Don't forgot Saudi Arabia's involvement in terrorism.

Yet, Bush would prefere to ignore that since certain rich Saudi Arabians help fund his administration.

 

[Hapless]

and dont forget US sponsored terrorist group Iraqi National Accord

THe fact that this is an article from Common Dreams aside, as well as the fact that just about every source in there is anonymous, it really doesn't sound like they were very effective.

there's a difference between rewarding and funding ...also, the US has supported terrorists like Orlando Bosch, I dont see any difference here

Don't know much about Orlando Bosch. Might have to research that. How many U.S. citizens did he kill? In the meantime: rewarding or funding=supporting.

dont put words into his mouth ..not supporting the occupation of palestine does not equate support of terrorism

I think NoLimit is quite capable of defending himself, thank you. Are you saying that sending suicide bomber after suicide bomber to blow themselves up with maximum civilian body count in mind is NOT terrorism?

like the taliban?

As I recall, the Taliban had established an oppressive Islamic theocracy. I fail to see your point. Unless it is to say that at some point in the past when it served our purpose, we supported them.

which you are paving the way for ..saddam was secular ...the current government is heading away from that ..women's right pretty much non-existant, islamic law taking precedent over state law. You've pretty much guarenteed a religious state

Saddam's government was secular=Saddam's government was better than what is in place now?

Ah, the other half of No Limit's brain. Hi! :cheese:

 

[Razor]

Didn't end up agreeing with either of them, both had good points and both had bad points. Donahue seemed to prefer pulling out of Iraq straight away which is wrong and ridiculously stupid, but then O'Reilly wasn't much better in some of the other things he said.

Is this Cindy Sheehan the woman who protests because her son died in Iraq, i am not a fan of Mr Bush and never will be one, but she is more of a radical and has far too much of a single agenda. Yes, her son died in Iraq, her son was in the military, but what about all the other monthers and fathers of the other 2000 odd soldiers who died in Iraq and are dying in Iraq...the only reason Cindy Sheehan is getting so much of a voice is because she is a lot more radical then all of the other parents who lost children and family in Iraq. A single person can make a difference but she has a one track mind and i would prefer Mr Bush get beaten by someone who can see things from both sides rather then just someone who can see it from her point of view only...or from what the American media have portrayed her as though.

 

[CptStern]

THe fact that this is an article from Common Dreams aside,

Published on Wednesday, June 9, 2004 by the New York Times

as well as the fact that just about every source in there is anonymous, it really doesn't sound like they were very effective.

tell that to the 100 dead civilians:

"Allawi's INA organised terrorist attacks in Iraq. This campaign never posed a threat to Saddam Hussein's rule, but was designed to test INA's capability to effect regime change. It is estimated to have caused up to 100 civilian deaths"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyad_Allawi

Don't know much about Orlando Bosch. Might have to research that. How many U.S. citizens did he kill?

what does it matter? or are they only terrorists when they kill americans?

In the meantime: rewarding or funding=supporting.

therefore the US is guilty as charged by your own definition

I think NoLimit is quite capable of defending himself, thank you.

you're not just targeting No Limit, you're implying that anyone who supports a free palestine supports terrorism ....just like how you imply that if someone is antiwar they support terrorism

Are you saying that sending suicide bomber after suicide bomber to blow themselves up with maximum civilian body count in mind is NOT terrorism?

yet when the CIA sponsors terrorist Iyad ALlawi to kill innocent civilians it's not the same thing?

oh and btw ..let's get this straight: saddam rewarded the families of terrorists ..after they had commited the act, not before ..he sent no one. Again you're twisting history to suit your agenda

As I recall, the Taliban had established an oppressive Islamic theocracy. I fail to see your point. Unless it is to say that at some point in the past when it served our purpose, we supported them.

yes:

"freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability." Ronald Reagen referring to the Mujahideen

Saddam's government was secular=Saddam's government was better than what is in place now?

oh how you like to put words in my mouth ..please explain how you came to that conclusion?

Ah, the other half of No Limit's brain. Hi! :cheese:

unwarrented ...but were it true I'd at least be head and shoulders above those with the singled minded pigheadedness to see through a war (based on lies) to the bitter end just so as to not lose face