More 'religion of peace' news
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, May 3, 2026 22:51
VIEWED: 11298
PAGE 10 of 19
Quote:Apparently you don't know yourself very well. C'mon Rappy, we all remember you shitting bricks about those (phantom) WMD. Jeez, you're certainly capable of being wound up like a toy.
And I don't know ANYONE who 'cheered' at the reports of us invading Iraq.
Please, for the love of all that is good- including yourself- please learn to think like a real boy, and stop REACTING to everyone who pushes the right buttons.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why not, Christians cheer when they do it now. Plenty of Christians treat Women as second class, plenty try to censor Hollywood, plenty commit acts of terrorism, plenty cheered at the TV reports of the invasion of Iraq. American Christians cheer just as loudly at a smart bomb hitting a building as middle eastern Muslims do at a plane hitting the world trade centre. Of course it's different when they do the exact same thing...
" Plenty? " No, they don't. Unless you mean more than a handful as being 'plenty'.
And I don't know ANYONE who 'cheered' at the reports of us invading Iraq. Folks in the Mid East DID cheer and dance in the streets at the sight of the WTC being struck.
Also, a smart bomb hitting a military building is by no means " the exact same thing " as 19 hijackers slitting the throats of female flight attendants, pilots, and then flying commercial airliners full of civilians into civilian buildings,killing some 3,000 men, women and children.
Of course, if you insist that it is, then you'd be forced to agree that Islamic fundamentalists engaged in an act of war on the United States of America, and any retaliation by the U.S.A. was 100% completely justified.
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
Shitizen, this post is just silly. "Plenty"? What is that exactly? Ten? Forty?......I love precision. You sound like Barry and the Dems playing wordy gurdy with the CBO's numbers. Shove your "plenty" up your mother's ass and come back with an honest post.....punk.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the kind words in both threads Niki. I actually used to post more a couple years ago, There have always been some really good liberal posters on this board, but until you and kwicko started posting, I usually had an angle that I didn't think was being expressed...now that happens less, and most of the time I find somebody has already covered what I would have, better...that goes hand-in-hand with me getting so depressed about the Republican light democratic performance, that I took a break from being informed on a daily basis for a while.
As to my post here, thank you for the encouragement. It's frustrating to have it get no comments, simply because I'm still left in the dark about the strength of my argument. I would like to think that is happening because what i'm saying is inconveneint to the narrative, but the truth may be that somebody thinks he can easily dismiss the content of my post, or really didn't find it that interesting , or somehow, discouragingly, found it irrelevant.
Of course I'm still very curious as to how Rap or Jong would characterize or rebut my post, but I may just have to try again the next time this topic rages, which, given the thread count on it now, tells me I should already be getting writing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And I don't know ANYONE who 'cheered' at the reports of us invading Iraq. Folks in the Mid East DID cheer and dance in the streets at the sight of the WTC being struck.
Really, I remember there were reams of footage of Americans in bars watching strikes in Iraq and cheering as each hit home. You must not have been paying attention.
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Also, a smart bomb hitting a military building is by no means " the exact same thing " as 19 hijackers slitting the throats of female flight attendants, pilots, and then flying commercial airliners full of civilians into civilian buildings,killing some 3,000 men, women and children.
Indeed, a smart bomb is far more efficient.
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Of course, if you insist that it is, then you'd be forced to agree that Islamic fundamentalists engaged in an act of war on the United States of America, and any retaliation by the U.S.A. was 100% completely justified.
You have a funny relationship with logic. I'd agree it was an act of war, whether this was the first strike or a retaliation is arguable, America has been bombing the shit out of the Middle East for decades after all. Going on to say that any retaliation by the US is then justifiable is plain silly. Dropping a nuke on some random city for instance, makes little sense. And retaliating against countries that had little to no involvement in the attacks of "9/11", countries such as Iraq, isn't justifiable as a response either. Neither would be invading France, or Australia or some other random country you don't like very much.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Righteous, the more windows and viewpoints you have to look at something, the clearer the picture is for everyone.
Don't let morons who wanna smear the windows with mud to block out any view but their own discourage you, kiddo.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Righteous, the more windows and viewpoints you have to look at something, the clearer the picture is for everyone.
Don't let morons who wanna smear the windows with mud to block out any view but their own discourage you, kiddo.
-F
I like that. I don't always, maybe not even often, agree with you in most political forums, but that statement on viewpoints is dead on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You have a funny relationship with logic. I'd agree it was an act of war, whether this was the first strike or a retaliation is arguable, America has been bombing the shit out of the Middle East for decades after all. Going on to say that any retaliation by the US is then justifiable is plain silly. Dropping a nuke on some random city for instance, makes little sense. And retaliating against countries that had little to no involvement in the attacks of "9/11", countries such as Iraq, isn't justifiable as a response either. Neither would be invading France, or Australia or some other random country you don't like very much.
And by the same token, *WE* tend to think of 9/11 as an unprovoked attack (that's how it's portrayed in American media, at least), which "justifies" whatever response we undertake in retaliation.
But how do we know *THEY* don't view it as a retaliation for OUR "unprovoked" attacks? Anyone remember a certain Iranian airliner that was shot down by the U.S. some years ago? Killed an awful lot of civilians, and it was a purely unprovoked attack against a nation we weren't at war with.
Just sayin' - one person's "unprovoked attack" is another person's "retaliation for an unprovoked attack", and on and on it goes, an eye for an eye until the whole world is blind...
Al Qaeda "retaliating" for us downing an airliner makes at least as much sense as us "retaliating" against Al Qaeda by invading Iraq.
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Shifting the goals posts, then.
"What I really meant was...."
You are such a douchebag, Rappy.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
You are the douchebag in this thread...even Niki2 is trying to bring it to your attention...
You fucking stupid cunt. How in the world can you sit here and make an asshole of yourself. QUOTE Aur...in the context of which you blather, otherwise shut the fuck up and stop being a skidmark...fucking fag. You smelly little ballsack....come to me cunt...come....I will own your mind...I will own your dreams....You, little prick, may be a bigger score than Kwicko. I look forward to our chats.......
God, you and Rappy are both so easy.
For FOUR YEARS now I've been very clear, I've even told Rappy several time - I enjoy pissing you off. How have you NOT gotten this.
Too easy.
What I find amusing is that I can come here with the express purpose of trolling Rappy - and I still manage to be more eloquent, polite and coherent than your sorry ass.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Apparently you don't know yourself very well. C'mon Rappy, we all remember you shitting bricks about those (phantom) WMD. Jeez, you're certainly capable of being wound up like a toy.
And I don't know ANYONE who 'cheered' at the reports of us invading Iraq.
You mean like Bill Clinton, and these folks ?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002......
You really do excel in FAIL.
And M4P ? Still huntin' down that 'lie' ?
"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love that. What does any of the above have to do with Americans cheering at the invasion of Iraq (which literally MILLIONS did) or our bombing the hell out of other countries? Nothing. All it does is attempt to change the subject by pointing out that a lot of other people were convinced Saddam was a danger and had WMD. Huh??
That in no way changes the fact that you were wrong; millions of Americans DID cheer our invasion, end of story.
I'm guessing from the quotes you put up that you're trying to say "Yeah, well, the DEMS believed we were right in invading, too!" But it has no validity whatsoever; whatever was done to convince Americans, politicians included, that Saddam was a danger, yes, most of us bought into it. Some of us did not. And they did cheer. Ergo:
Quote:You were wrong.
And I don't know ANYONE who 'cheered' at the reports of us invading Iraq
Re
Quote:is also incorrect. I’ve met many, many women on line and in person who are abused by their husbands…usually they have children and believe they can’t support themselves and their children by getting out, so they stick it out. Some of them manage to get free and I’ve been really tickled to see them succeed and make it on their own, and in some cases find a guy who appreciates them later on.
" Plenty? " No, they don't. Unless you mean more than a handful as being 'plenty'.
Yes, Sharia law is harsh on women and in “plenty” of cases Muslim men treat their women as second-class citizens. But you know incredibly little about actual Muslims and Muslim families except what you’ve been propagandized into believing; millions of Muslim women are treated wonderfully, more and more of them are becoming professionals, etc. You just don’t care to recognize that and would rather blather on about the ones you hear about.
As to smart bombs v. 9/11—uh, can you remember Abu Grabe? And a few other atrocities that could be mentioned??? Like the soldiers who shot and killed a whole bunch of people just for the fun of it? Americans aren’t angels—maybe we didn’t kill 3,000 at once, but there’s just no question that we’ve killed more innocents by FAR than Muslim terrorists have. Which again, you are incapable of conceiving, and again, that means nothing.
Quote:Absolutely, I don’t think anyone has argued that ever, here or elsewhere. But retaliation against two countries, the VAST MINORITY of whose citizens had nothing to do with attacking the US, is not justified. If our country wanted to root out and retaliate against the people and groups who committed 9/11, that would be 100% justified. I’d be willing to bet, however, that we’ve killed FAR more people who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 than we have those who DID. Which, again, you won’t even consider, so we’ll just have to wait for you to put up more quotes to show Democrats are bad guys…despite same being totally lacking in pertinence.
Islamic fundamentalists engaged in an act of war on the United States of America
Boy, Righteous, do I know exactly what you mean, every word! They weren’t “kind” words, by the way, I call ‘em as I see ‘em. NEVER believe your posts aren’t important, or that others have said what you feel “better”…each of us presents our own unique perspective, and I guarantee what you post would include something distinctly your own…to which I say “bang on Frem” for his remark about windows.
Oh, by the way, speaking of "cheering" destruction....
(there was no reason, they just did it for fun)
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME