Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: So . . .

re: So . . .
Davin L. — (archived)

Dan wrote: "Your choice of evidence was there, granted, but heavily overshadowed by far more formative sources than those you claim"

What, Dan- Fox news? the O'Reilly Factor? How about some links from you? You speak with such certainty and authority, surely you have SOME remnants of your vast and extensive research to share with me, right? Lord knows, having been born yesterday, I am such need of your wisdom and pedegogy!

Yes Dan, oh wise elder?? I'm waiting, Dan.

Dan wrote: "the history that led up to the War of Terror moving on Iraq says terror connections existed."

Do not assume me for a fool. I know full well of the history of Iraq rolling back on to pre-colonial days. I am well aware of Saddam, his past as a laughably bad assassin, his dreams of leading the reborn caliphate- The same dreams that lay at the center of the arabic Baathist movement (you know, like those in Syria and Egypt... the ones who profess the same political beliefs but the ones we are NOT after?)

The point is, Dan, We were not supposed to be doing this war thing because Saddam had been a very bad boy for a very long tome (over a decade of which time he was our ally). The point is Saddam was supposed to be a clear and present Terrorist danger to the United States of America... Collaborating with Al Qaeda, provably so, and all that Jazz...

And you have no evidence for this. No facts, no research, Just your laughable beliefs.

Saddam does not have a history of co-conspiring with Jihadis and radical international terrorist groups. You can't use history to support yourself. The historical lack of any evidence whatsoever does not support you.

Saddam was a bad man- but that does not make him a terrorist, or a clear and present threat to america. And that did not give us just cause to slaughter thousands of folks to not get Saddam.

Its not that you are wrong.... Your argument simply isnt. Its vaporware.

Dan wrote: "And to assume the world glide blithely along with no regard for media prejudice is to say the media has no purpose, and it clearly does. It’s the conscience of the planet, though not always (and some would say almost never) right. Yes, the AP, Reuters, UPI, APF, et al (which do get their data from such sources as "State department whitepaper, National Review, Christian Science Monitor, New Republic, BBC and etc") do guide us in our daily, oft times faulty decisions."

I'm sorry Dan, What the fuck is your point? You just had accused me of being selective in my reading and research, after me daring you to look into my sources, you now hand wave and try to cast doubt on all journalistic sources? (And the CIA and State Department stuiff is un-impugned?)

So if ALL sources WHATSOEVER are necessarily crap, how do you have your facts? Or do you wear the Magic Mana Hat that allows Dan Spires and Only Dan Spires of reading any content and telling BS from truth? So I should believe you blindly?

Sounds like you got nothing, cause if you do put forth anything, you just invalidated your own material with your 'nihalism'.

Dan wrote: "Today we await hard evidence one way or the other and your shouting from the highest mountain at the top of your lungs will not speed the proces"

No, me shouting at the mountain might make you wake your head, which you buried under that mountain. The point is that unless you are daft, the evidewnce is more than in. Powell, Rumsfeld and Bush climed EXTENSIVE knowledge of terrorist and WMD details, locations and threats. That we have not found even TRACES of Terrorist or WMD activities in the wake of such 'sure knowledge' can only mean one of two things- either lies were told, or incompetence is at play. If you were bushes boss, and this was a report to a client prepared by Bush, you would fire the boy here and now. You know you would.

Dan wrote: "The evidence you tout remains faulty, as your sources fail to prove anything other than speculation,"

Then post your evidence, findings or reasons for finding fault, othertwise you are just, in effect, lying.

Dan wrote: "while mine merely dregs up WMD usage by Iraq during Desert Storm against U.S. troops, the recently found mass-graves for Husseins experiments, and terrorist (you might call them “military”, but that just turns my stomach) training camps located on Iraqi soil."

Post your sources, or again, you are just lying or spouting Bowserian/Splixarian fantasy.

Dan wrote: "As it stands, what really happened in Iraq might never fully be known -- well, in our lifetimes, anyway. "

Only because the faithful cover the nudity of the emperor, and the morally blind hide their lazy faults. The only way for this to be known, and the only way for this to be settled is for a call for accounting be sounded- you are busy trying to hush it.

Dan wrote:
"Try all you will, the history remains intact."
and
" Play with it all you will, the past has successfully passed."

Like I said- more of your 'Im Right Your Wrong I don't Have to Support What I Say Cause Yer a Poopy Head.

The emphatic statements don't emphasise your case, rather emphasise your lack of one.

Why don't you make one... A good case for this war, this occupation, and this death. Lay it out for me, all this deep knowledge which led you to, in full consideration, endorse this killing?

Davin L.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (183 posts)