atinymonkey Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Are you refuting my claims? There were two other sources there. Here is a new report that shows your rusted and ruined artillery shells:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3387607.stm And here is the news report saying they contain no blistering agents:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3407853.stm Reports have been continually paraded in front of you each time you mention your misinformed opinion on the shells. Please, just take the facts and understand them. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-01-14-mortar-shell-tests_x.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/01/mil-040119-rferl02.htm http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_19-1-2004_pg7_45
Sayonara Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 That's right. How many times do I have to post the link where we found shells containing sarin in Iraq? Oh for the love of... Stop trolling.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Stupid Google... it never showed me the one about the shells being bad when I searched for it.
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Oh for the love of... Stop trolling. To be fair to him' date=' you two have got the magical I CAN'T READ attribute. 'Polish troops find Sarin gas shells' : July 1st 2004. All of ATM's links: January, 2004. Now, either the Beeb are prescient, or they're talking about [b']two different events![/b] Woah! This isn't to say that it was right to invade, just that your counterargument is factually inaccurate.
Sayonara Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 To be fair to him, you two have got the magical I CAN'T READ attribute. Unless one reads the other thread where he brought this up, in which I demonstrated relevant and specific rebuttals.
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Unless one reads the other thread where he brought this up, in which I demonstrated relevant and specific rebuttals. Being right elsewhere is no excuse for being wrong here. The argument in this thread was invalid, and a strawman.
Sayonara Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Being right elsewhere is no excuse for being wrong here. The argument in this thread was invalid, and a strawman. I have not agreed with ATM nor have I commented on his post, and I don't see how "stop trolling" is any kind of argument. Recant or you will go to hell.
budullewraagh Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 I'd say that controlling most of the country counts as 'winning'. actually, the united states has little control over afghanistan. remember that you can never control a population as long as they resist (think vietnam). also, the whole sarin thing is mostly irrelevant. first, is this a valid source? second, are they sure it's sarin? third, are they sure it's not the weapons rumsfeld sold them in 1984? fourth, was hussein ever going to use these?
Freeman Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 What about the other 5%?How did they misguide them? What are your sources? Source I Source II Source III Source IV Source V Good to know that only 5 percent of viewers understand what FOX news is trying to say. I have not agreed with ATM nor have I commented on his post, and I don't see how "stop trolling" is any kind of argument. Maundering is more like it... more specifically, maundering without any analysis. first, is this a valid source? I know the psychic hotline is more accurate than FOX news.I'm sorry, I don't know what strawmanning means. Strawmanning
Sayonara Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Maundering is more like it... more specifically, maundering without any analysis. If you are going to stick your oar in, I suggest you come up with something much better than that. The post was in direct reply to Cap'n Refsmmat. Whether or not you find it to be coherent is not important to anyone.
atinymonkey Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 To be fair to him' date=' you two have got the magical I CAN'T READ attribute. ................................. This isn't to say that it was right to invade, just that your counterargument is factually inaccurate.[/quote'] Yes, Cap'n Refsmmat linked to two separate events I just linked to one. The Polish recently found shells, but the outcome of that event is not yet public as the Polish are sticking to non-disclosure. I could only show the outcome of the Danish discovery in January. The point is that nobody is claiming that WMD have been found, and the Fox network is the devil.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 Wasn't it in reply to Jakiri? oops, missed a page again!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 The point is that nobody is claiming that WMD have been found, and the Fox network is the devil. The good thing is they have a longer attention span then CNN or others. Others quickly skip from one topic to the other.
atinymonkey Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 It's a discussion for a different thread, but Rupert Murdock is the devil:- http://www.outfoxed.org/ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1023-02.htm Fox is encouraged to distort facts to get ratings. Appeal to the lowest common denominator > less money spent on actual research for storys > cheaper staff > more outlandindish views > high ratings. CNN can't compete using real news, it's boring.
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2004 Posted July 17, 2004 actually, the united states has little control over afghanistan. Thanks for agreeing with me and making it sound like a disagreement, you really got my point there.
matter Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 no one ever thought the U.S. had control over Afghanistan...
blike Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 CNN can't compete using real news, it's boring. Please. Every news channel has a clear agenda. It's all about who you want to be right, fair, and balanced. If we were to measure CBS, CNN, and others by the same stick, they would come out clearly leftist.
atinymonkey Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 I honestly didn't think the media was supposed to be politically biased. Perhaps I’m being naive in thinking that they should be. Fox is still the Devil though.
Chem-Maniac Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 Well, in the end it came out: There were no weapons of mass destruction, which was actually quite obvious to me and (thanks god) to my government. In fact the only things Iraq posses are a whole bunch of exited people, few radical religious groups and...oil. How can people who speak in favor of the war be so naive? And after the whole truth came out be so blind of naivity?
budullewraagh Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 the fatherland tends to be rational in thought on such international issues. those who are naive are either exposed to too much blind conservative media or are selfish fools
drz Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 wow, the history book for the iraq war could be written from this thread. Well, maybe not the entire thread, but I'm shocked how long topics stay alive around here. Thats awesome. So Blike, I read your OP, how do you feel now (sorry if this has been covered) that there are no ties to al queda, no WMD? Am I still a saddam supporter?
john5746 Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Well' date=' maybe not the entire thread, but I'm shocked how long topics stay alive around here. Thats awesome. [/quote'] Thanks to Bush, the Middle East will be a topic for years to come. We will probably build up Iraq, then help Iran fight them.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now