once again savant. open your eyes and watch the news. everything that he supposedly didn't prove is proven on the news. ofcourse they could all be brainwashed and are reportin gthings from the last war. as I said before. technicalities can get a murder off. stop trying to get off.
It's war time...
- Thread starter TheGrimReaperKD
- Live activity
- Replies 737
- Views 13K
- Status
Savant lives in a world which only exists in his mind I think. If all you need is an excuse then any excuse will do.
PEACE
PEACE
*sigh*
if it's all over the news, where are the links (this is the internet ya know) to the articles? or the names of news channels that have stated such things (as fact)? Just say where and I'll be happy to go look.. But since I'm also woring here, I don't have the time to try and sniff this stuff out..
This isn't about technicalities, it's about people saying "this is fact" with NOTHING to back it up.. if it's fact, simply show the evidence.. stop saying "its all over".. it's not all over, I can't find anything on it on CNN.com.. if they don't have it (and they are the ones WITH THE TROOPS) then I doubt anyone has 'proof'..
And, yes.. they do keep showing tapes from last year.. with no disclaimer on the video.. if you aren't paying close attention it's easy to not know which videos are new and which are old.. Yesterday before we had confirmation of oil fields on fire, they were playing tapes from 91 and talking about 'putting out fires'.. misleading as hell.. even now that we have confirmation of buring fields, there won't be an effort to put them out for a while..
I'll play along.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81727,00.html
WOW!! I found a like in less than 10 seconds!!! Maybe I AM A SAVANT!!!
This isn't even sport anymore but I enjiy watching him squirm.
Just like Saudi Arabia was our #1 oil source.
Just like Bill Clinton wasn't a felon prior to being President.
Just like Bill Clinton didn't confess to a crime his last day in office.
Just like Bill Clinton wasn't disbarred.
Spout out raw sewage until proven X a googleplex tro be absolutely, totally, completely in error...and then barf up sewage on a different topic.
PEACE
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81727,00.html
WOW!! I found a like in less than 10 seconds!!! Maybe I AM A SAVANT!!!
This isn't even sport anymore but I enjiy watching him squirm.
Just like Saudi Arabia was our #1 oil source.
Just like Bill Clinton wasn't a felon prior to being President.
Just like Bill Clinton didn't confess to a crime his last day in office.
Just like Bill Clinton wasn't disbarred.
Spout out raw sewage until proven X a googleplex tro be absolutely, totally, completely in error...and then barf up sewage on a different topic.
PEACE
Ah I missed this BS tidbit. Foxnews among many others are with the troops. If there is a network which would hold off presenting the proof it would be CNN. Remember they refused to call the 9/11 punks anything worse than alleged terrorists.
In any event CNN radio just reported that scuds were fired. Of courseif you listen to KBULL the "baghdaddio of the raddio" from Iraq I am sure it is still in dispute...after all the Iraqis promise that:
They have no WMDs.
Will disarm within 45 days of 1991.
That no Alloies are in Iraq.
They won't burn the oilwells.
They won't burn the oilwells again.
Various and sundry other lies.
Dakota97 I'm starting to agree with you. This is easier than hunting goldfish in a barrel using a MOAB.
Cease fire terms posted.
PEACE
Actually, that report says nothing about any 'confirmed' things.. just that some are claiming there were Scuds (banned) and someone said something about one might have been an Al Samoud.. and it's sitting in parts on the desert floor, so why isn't it being looked into? Each government is calling them different kinds and numbers of missles, which again, does not constitute proof.. Hell, even the headline says "appear to have been the same weapons he either claimed not to possess or agreed to destroy"..
Also, given info on that link, the Al Samoud can NO longer be considered a 'hidden' banned weapon since that link is saying the UN KNEW they still had ~30 left, they were destroying them when Bush went to war (or at least they stopped destroying them once he said he was comming no matter what and abondon all hopes of the diplomatic approach).. I do believe that I would stop destroying missles too if someone said they were comming in no matter what.. Since we didn't let him finish disarming 'those', they really should be discluded.. The Scud is a different matter.. 2 (or so) were unaccounted for from years back and Saddam claimed to have destroyed them.. if we find that they are Scuds, then yes.. he would have been in violation (though, with only 2 it hardly seems worth war.. but that could mean more are out there..).. A perfect example of why we needed to keep searching.. Now he will use them if he has them, and Scuds go what, 375 miles? That could cause some problems..
an error I was more than happy to admit.. and even provided your proof FOR YOU to show I was in error.. Your point?
I don't ever recall saying that.. His being a felon before President isn't even subject matter I recall talking about..
I said I didn't hear about it and had a hard time believing it given that the implications should have been sever adn apparently were not.. someone (probably you) supplied links that supported the fact that he admitted to misleading statements.. maybe even other stuff.. don't recall.. In any event, I also recall saying how pathetic it was that it wasn't brought out to the public very well, especially since I had just watched something on TV where Clinton stated that the 'wording used' to define the act wasn't accurate to what happened.. and he was 'accurate' based on what they had defined.. So, again, we were seeing misleading things comming from the media.. And I conceded that he was perhaps even criminally wrong, but it also showed how the justice system favors the rich and famous (I sure wouldn't survive a purgery on the higher courts.. apparently Bill did)
another part of the same speal, and not something I think I was directly involved in.. some of my comments in responses around this stuff might have implied I foud that hard to believe, but yes.. I saw the article that showed he agreed to loose his liscnese for a time..
funny thing about the last part, you still haven't proven X.. and when you 'do' prove something, I, unlike you, admit to being in error.. It only becomes such a mess because you insist on posting the same crap 30 times before offering one shred of evidence to support your stated facts.. if you would show your proof, then we could actually move on and maybe even learn a few things, and share knowledge.. oh, wait, that would be too much like wanting to learn.. something you think I don't want to do yet claim you do want to do.. it's better to post tons of crap over and over for the sake of doing it "to watch him squirm".. na, that's not arguing for the sake of arguing, which you accuse me of..
Thanks for the link, though it's not reasonable as proof.. While I agree it's very possible that he has more Scuds (if two of those actually were), there still isn't any kind of concensous as to what missles were actually fired..
oh, and don't forget, the Al Samoud missles no longer matter since we told him we were comming in before he was allowed to destroy them.. That's our own fault now (not to mention, the 93 mile mark was 'barely' passed according to the testers.. so these are 'barely' illegal.. what is 'barely' passed the mark? 10 ft? 1 mile? 5 miles? I don't know.. but it's moot now)..
Now, if you care to show me a link where someone has 'confirmed' what kind of missles those were (the exploded ones might take till after the war).. inspect the one in 2 pieces on the ground (again, they thought that one 'might' have been an Al Samoud.. so..) or a confirmed use of Chem or Bio weaps, then I'll concede that Saddam hasn't been disarming like he said he was..
Course, that still doesn't change the fact that Bush walked away from efforts to keep a disarm campaign running. The very point that has MOST of the war protesters upset..
The local radio here mentiond Fox News being kicked out of Baghdad and all other news groups reduced themselves to skeleton crews in Baghdad.. I've not seen anything on other news channels (I don't have foxnews, just cnn and the regular channles.. cbs, abc, nbc, etc).. And, I never said cnn was the only group there anyway.. sooooo.. again, your point?
2 things.. one, this is well past your original post of 'we have proof'.. If the confirmations are 'just' (at 2:18 MST on 21 Mar) comming in, then all your wind prior to this is moot.. and 'now' is when I would concede the point (though I still havn't seen or heard any confirmations, I'll keep watching cnn.com).. second, I already stated I don't have radio.. I have to rely on seeing this stuff on the web at work.. I'll be watching more when I get home.. Oh, wait.. no I won't.. I'm going out tonight.. maybe during the day tomorrow I'll watch some more of the injustices the US insists on commiting..
Again.. you keep putting up crap that is NOT relavant to TODAY.. the resolutions they were in violation of were bing dealt with 'before' Bush went in.. we were 'making' him disarm.. he was destroying weapons.. didn't like it, but was doing it.. until we said "we are comming anyway".. Try to keep it relavant..
Funny how you keep claiming the ease with which you dismiss or disprove my statements, yet it takes you days and days and tons of pointless and misleading posts to get to that point.. IF there is 'now' confirmation, you haven't gained or proven anything.. You have been saying for days there is 'proof' to which there wasn't... just because you 'eventaully' are right, doesn't mean you 'were' right then.. But, I know that's a concept that's way over your reading level.. so I'll not continue with it.. I have to go back to CNN.com and scan for your proof //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
bite me //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Scarry how you know that
Dude what you have proved again is your total lack of sense and credibility. First off you did say it was CNN who was with the troops in a context implying they were the only ones. Let the forum judge who is telling the truth on this.
Second I haven't heard of Foxnews being booted from Baghdad and it makes no difference as to my accuracy as I stated Fox among others was with the troops and there are no troops in Baghdad so again we obfuscate.
Next you say you want a weblink and when given one you weasel as predicted and now want the radio.
BIG CLUE DUDE I'm at work also and my radio is a Bose hooked to a PC getting the radio over the web. Being the computer industry employee that you are I assume that you are aware of this technology. In any event you obviously have web access as you are posting.
Your masochistic tendencies are amusing and your hole is getting pretty deep...almost to Baghdad.
PEACE
Second I haven't heard of Foxnews being booted from Baghdad and it makes no difference as to my accuracy as I stated Fox among others was with the troops and there are no troops in Baghdad so again we obfuscate.
Next you say you want a weblink and when given one you weasel as predicted and now want the radio.
BIG CLUE DUDE I'm at work also and my radio is a Bose hooked to a PC getting the radio over the web. Being the computer industry employee that you are I assume that you are aware of this technology. In any event you obviously have web access as you are posting.
Your masochistic tendencies are amusing and your hole is getting pretty deep...almost to Baghdad.
PEACE
you might have taken it to mean I was tyring to imply they were the only ones, I was expressing that I knew CNN to be on the tanks with the troops and would be right there as things happened.. I've not seen anything from any other stations implying they actually had people with troops, but that is certianly a possiblity.. I implied that if there was 'proof' that CNN would probably know about it before others, but that was based on my not knowing other news groups were with troops.. still doesn't diminish my point..
I agree it makes no difference.. If they are with troops, the state of Baghdad or what the Iraqi government wants or doesn't want as far as reporters in Iraq is now moot.. In that context, provided Foxnews is actually on board troop transports, etc, then yes.. they could have 'proof' as early (if not before) other stations.. not really pertinant anyway at this point, is it?
The 'weaseling' had nothing to do with anything more than the ambiguity of the language in the article and the conflicting statements with go against 'proof'..
I never said I want the radio now, I said I don't have access to radio here.. so at present (until I get in my car or home) I have to rely on articles on the web...
Guess what? not all of us have radios at work.. Nor do we all have speakers/headsets hooked up to our computers at work.. I have no way to get any sound at all at work.. Yet another example of how you would rather attack someone before getting reasonable information.. kind of like the war that's going on now.. hmmmmm.. BIG CLUE DUDE
Deeper and deeper...This statement says it all IMHO.
As to the radio you whined about it AFTER being given a weblink which you whined about AFTER being told the news sources which you whined about AFTER being told the truth.
Yet you regurgitate your puke over and over without ANY backup. Live up to your own standards or shut the hell up man.
PEACE
hey did you see the pics of the iraq people that didn't want, or ask to be liberated. nothing like the people that don't want us there to be chanting,
AMERICA,
AMERICA,
AMERICA
AMERICA
AMERICA
AMERICA
AMERICA
AMERICA.
YEA, LETS JUST LET SADDAM KILL THOUSAND MORE INNOCENT LIVES, WHEN HE RUNS OUT OF HIS OWN, MAYBE HE WILL GIVE THE U.S. THE HONOR OF KILLING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS.
AMERICA,
AMERICA,
AMERICA
AMERICA
AMERICA
AMERICA
AMERICA
AMERICA.
YEA, LETS JUST LET SADDAM KILL THOUSAND MORE INNOCENT LIVES, WHEN HE RUNS OUT OF HIS OWN, MAYBE HE WILL GIVE THE U.S. THE HONOR OF KILLING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS.
Again, this has nothing to do with anything.. I was implying nothing more than the source that I was using (established as being on the fronts) didn't have any info (still doesn't) that offers proof to your statements. If you think you need to hold to the idea that there might have been some other implications in that statement which ruin your proof, then so be it.. I can't make you let it go.. Let it go, it's not relavant to any points.. Yes, there is a bit of an assumtion that CNN would have it before anyone else, but that is MOOT and not relavant *sigh*
what the f** do you mean I was whining about it? You said you 'just heard' it.. I said I don't have a radio.. you said it was CNN radio, so it should be on their site soon.. (still not on their site).. I ask again, wtf does this have to do with anything? You also stated foxnews.com 'had proof' but it didn't , it had differing reports.. That just means that I WILL NOT take your word that there is proof.. nothing more... If there 'was proof' offered on CNN radio, then it will be on the site soon..
but, again.. wtf does this have to do with anything? you have NOT, as of yet, offered 'proof'.. just allegations from foxnews.com.. granted, one or both of the missles in question might have been Scuds, but no one has confirmed that, only speculated as of yet.. so, you have not told me a 'truth'.. *boggle*
At some point you will finally let it sink into that block on your neck.. I'm not making statements that allow for 'backup'.. I'm waiting for proof that Saddam is in violation of the resolutions about having WOMD, Chem, or Bio weaps.. as of yet, there is no 'proof' (accounting for upto 30 Al Samoud missles that we knew he had when we told him we were comming in no matter what)..
I really would like you to show me an example of where I'm not living up to 'my standards' for debating with you.. other than I said you are not worth wasting the time on since you keep playing the same games over and over and over.. But, since I'm bored
naw, really.. keep beating the CNN and radio horse.. it goes far to back up your claims that there is 'proof' that Saddam is possesing WOMD/chem/bio weaps.. really, it does.. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif
- Status
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
