BF2S Forums Happy Death of Al Zarqawi DAY!!

PekkaA wrote:

lowing wrote:

PekkaA wrote:

I just can't accept Bush's or anyone elses idea of  preventive defense. It would be excuse to do almost anything. I didn't mention me being in army to gain brownie points. Just to point out that maybe I know what I'm talking about. Come on, you're working over there ie getting paid of what you do. I wouldn't exactly call it sacrificing for your country . Or would you do it for free or if it put your life to danger?

the last time our country was attacked, people enlisted voluntarily by the droves to fight for our country.

So the answer would be ...............yes

Aargh... Question was pointed to devildriver, and it had a lot to do with his recent post. You just decided to answer without knowing what the question was. I don't even want to know what you're trying to prove.

Ohhhhhhhh once again I apologize........I read "I just can't accept Bush's or anyone elses idea of  preventive defense. It would be excuse to do almost anything" as to mean ANYONE ELSES idea of preventive defense. See I thought that actually meant anyone elses....my fault.

I am not trying to prove anything.you asked a question and I answered it.

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Only you would see no parallels between Pearl Harbor and 911..amazing

I didn't say I couldn't see any parallels, did I?  What I said was it wasn't comparable.  After Pearl Harbour, the US went to war with Japan, who had committed the attack.  After 9/11, the US went to war with Afghanistan (which there was some logic to, as it had close links to Al Qaeda), and Iraq, which had no links to 9/11.

hmm let me try and digest this............you can see parallels.........but not comparisons......hmmmmmmmm oooooooooook.

The two wars were not tied together until terrorism started creeping up after Saddams rule ended.....For the 57th time we went back to Iraq to finish the war started 15 years prior, when a cease fire was declared because Iraq agreed to UN resolutions. Iraq broke the rules  and had almost a decade to comply when he refused  cease fire ended and the shooting started again.

lowing wrote:

The two wars were not tied together until terrorism started creeping up after Saddams rule ended.....For the 57th time we went back to Iraq to finish the war started 15 years prior, when a cease fire was declared because Iraq agreed to UN resolutions. Iraq broke the rules  and had almost a decade to comply when he refused  cease fire ended and the shooting started again.

No, that was about the 3rd or 4th excuse used.  Originally Bush said it was to deal with terrorists, but someone called that bluff.  I may not have been so cynical about the invasion of Iraq if they hadn't changed reasons every time I checked the paper.

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

Iraq wasnt the target, Saddam Insane was, Who was known to have provided funds to Al Queda.

How about you read about on Iraq before you say that?  Al Qaeda hated Saddam because he ran a secular government.  At on time they tried to topple him.  Then they decided they had bigger fish to fry and left him alone.  Toppling Saddam did more for the terrorist cause than Bin Laden ever could.

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

As well as weapons, and we suspected him to have WMD's.  So maybe we didnt uncover any, but no one said something that causes that much turmoil is easily found.

So where in Iraq is the stockpile hidden.  You can search THE WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY now, I think it's time to admit defeat.  We'll still have our memories, like the time you found the mobile chemical weapon factories which had been buried for years, or the time it was reported a nuclear stockpile had been found, and it turned out it was a waste storage facility and when it was opened the soldiers had broken the seal.  But it's over now.

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

So here it is for you, Al Queda+Well trained terrorists=9/11.

Actually, Al Qaeda had little to do with 9/11.  It was a group of operatives, most of whom were Al Qaeda members, working independently.

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

Al Queda+Saddam+suspected WMD's+a treaty non-compliance+proof Saddam equipped and funded Al Queda+the genocide that he ordered on the people who threatened him-Iraqi Nationals=WAR

That's almost right.  Take out the equiped and funded Al Qaeda part, because it's false, and the genocide part, becuase it's irrelevant, and you have a war between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

The only difference really between Pearl HARBOR, and 9/11 is the fact that Japan had a well trained Naval Fleet, 9/11 was just a bunch of retarded lower class imbeciles willing to die for some beliefs that are apparently incorrect.

And Japan attacked a military base, and the US were isolationist, and a number of other things.  I also find it funny that you pick on my spelling, when mine is the correct English spelling, yours is an Americanisation.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-06-10 21:21:31)

lowing wrote:

well ya shoulda read the papers all through the nineties cuz it was in there.

lowing, do you have a learning difficulty?  Honestly, I'm curious.  I didn't say the reasons were baseless (though many of them were).  I said that in the early years of the third millenium (becuase that's when the Iraq war we're talking about was waged), the reason that the US was going into Iraq was constantly changing.  If you learnt reading comprehension, you'd know that.  Then again, you were in the US army, they probably made sure you didn't.

lowing wrote:

told ya before Bubbalo, the war started in 1991. If you are going to continue to ignore the fact that Iraq broke the UN resolutions and thus the cease fire. I am sorry there is nothing more I can say to you.

Fine.  America's reason for recommencing hostilities changed every 10 seconds.  The only agreement he broke was allowing weapons inspectors full access, and even that was more of an annoyance.

Uh-huh.  So, not waging a war of aggression which creates a terrorist training ground has been tried where exactly?  In fact, which of my ideologies, specifically have been tried before.  And look, you making the first insult, yet again!

Bubbalo is just a liberalist.  Thats all I can say, no government is the best government... I have figured him out, no matter what facts we give, hes just gonna have more and more bullshit to cover it up.  Theres no winning here, because people like me come with facts I.E. SUSPECTED WMD's I never once said their were.  And youre a dick for putting words in my mouth.  And yes in a sense you are right, it was a group of Muslim extremists that were in Al Queda, and guess what?  The group of Muslim extremists is still here, so that small group is a bigger group now.  And no, they werent working independently, they had funding and we had proof some funding came from both Saddam and Osama.  Al Queda never hated Saddam, the only time there was ever a problem was when Saddam cut the funding to their organization, so mr. military buff why dont you read up on Iraq?  All this stuff is taught in college classes, and mostly briefed to me before I went over there the first time.  And by the way, just because youre teachers in your classes brainwashed you into believing that harbor is spelled retardedley like 'harbour' dosent mean that you're right and im wrong.  I never once bashed the way your people spelled things, and I feel that since a big deal like that happened in AMERICAN history, it should keep its proper and OFFICIAL name.  So how bout a better idea, you quit thinking your snobby ass dosent stink, and ill keep doin what im doin.  Straight and simple, the more facts that people here put up to you, the more bullshit you have to knock it down.  So just shut up man, cause im tired of arguing with you, and its why you have a -10, because youre a dick to everyone.

Horseman 77 wrote:

It will be fun watching " histories losers " try and spin osama bin laden's death.

The whole world is passing you by and leaving you in the Dumpster of failed ideologies.
You need to time travel back to the 1960's when all the views and great Ideas you have were untested and hadn't already failed a thousand times over for forty years straight.

Move on already, put your mom's computer to better use.

What you have to understand is, as this is the first "War on Terrorism" by the US, what you may see as a spin on Osama Bin Laden's death may very well be a smack of reality, right in the face.  The truth is, we don't know yet if killing Zarqawi and capturing Saddam helped or hurt the insrugency.  But if you look at the numbers, you can see casualties are getting higher and higher.

Xietsu wrote:

OOOH HE CAUGHT YOU HORSEMAN! RED-HOOVED!!


(P.S. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=29075 <--- Go here and partake in duh pohleeng.)

My hooves are Black with a white stripe in Each thank you, and no he didn't, He just dosen't read well.

PS you got cuaght and booted though, how did you sneak back in ?

PekkaA wrote:

Whittsend, can you read? Is there something wrong with your eyes or brain? Did I claim that he was removed because he was too stupid?

Sorry for the tardiness of this, but I have been away.

I didn't say that; I asked a direct question:

whittsend wrote:

What resourses have claimed he was too stupid to plan or execute attacks?

To which I got the above rant as an answer.

The context in which the question was asked (emphasis mine):

PekkaA wrote:

No doubt he was a monster and deserved to die. But according to many resources, he was too stupid to plan or execute attacks Darth_Fleder is talking about. Like I said before, more like a perfect excuse to us army. Your reactions once again proof my point. More intelligent and therefore more dangerous person wouldn't necessarily raise such an anger as raving lunie.

I definetly agree that he was "removed" (what a ridiculous synonyme for killing) because of his brutality, NOT because he was a Al Qaida's mastermind.

Do you actually read other peoples posts or are you just too busy to wommit your arguments ? ? ?

I said he was removed because he was too brutal, using the article to back up the point (http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news … id=2369959).  The article clearly states that he was responsible for most of the attacks Darth_Fleder mentioned, indicating that some, at least, do not believe he was too stupid to have done so.  In any case, the removal to which I was referring, was not his death at the hands of US forces, but his demotion at the hands of his terrorist handlers; which was quite clear from the context in which I said it if one understood the actual chain of event.  If one had little or no knowledge of the recent history of the subject, I can see how one might get confused.

Why do I have to explain this?  It isn't hard if you pay attention.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-15 07:59:38)

that pilot was t3h accuracy

It's sickening the way stuff gets spun.  People want to cry that there is no progress in the war, but when we accomplish big things it gets downplayed.  Everything is so contradictory.  It's just like how people were complaining when we invaded Iraq, saying "we're diverting focus from Afghanistan!  We should focus on one thing at a time."  Now those same people bitch that we aren't in other countries.  "Why aren't we in Africa where there is more killing than the Middle East?"  What drives me mad is that if a president wearing blue were in office, the world would love everything he did.  What kind of flack did Clinton get from around the world when he dropped bombs to divert attention from a scandal?  None.