ya know, it's funny....this story was reported on over a year ago. I wonder why the "unbiased media" ::) is re-reporting this story now.They are not re-reporting he story. The date they mention is the date the UN took inventory before and between that date and now the stuff is gone. So they would report on the end of the period which is ... now.
Also, I don't see what the big deal is. These are just explosives, after all. Nothing Iraq couldn't get by trading some Oil For Food....unless NOW this stuff is relevant. ::)Oh so now it isn't a problem? You were the one going bananas over the conventional arms bought by Iraq. But indeed I'd say this is much worse. The US is supposed to be there to put and end to terrorism. How do you figure people stealing high explosives is gonna help in that area? Now we don't have a government owning the stuff (a government that could/would not threaten the US BTW), but we have terrorists roaming the place with these high explosives. You don't see how that is worse than Saddam buying a few anti aircraft missiles?
Maybe France just came and picked up the stuff they hadn't received payment on yet.Who knows. They did sell them plenty of stuff before the sanctions, but they would have told the UN about it.
60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE
News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode.
Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."
Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].
The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive."
An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.
According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. [VIDEO CLIP]
It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story.
The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday."
CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged.
"Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters.
Here, Cooter, you forgot to blame this one on Bush, too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6325688/
380 tons of explosives could probably cause an earthquake. I can't help it that Bush is a fish in a barrel. These are decisions that he and the people he put in charge are making. We bit off more than we can chew and it's becoming more and more obvious.you think that's obvious, but you can't see that Kerry would make things worse.
A proper (pre-war) planning of what to do after the invasion would have prevented this problem (and many many others) The gung-ho approach Bush and Rumsfeld took to execute this war hindered this planning (or maybe they just weren't able to foresee the need to plan this since "the Iraqi's would be freed and everything would be peachy") It makes sense Kerry would have taken the time to do some thinking (and then of course there is the simple fact that he is capable of thinking, which would also be an important factor)380 tons of explosives could probably cause an earthquake. I can't help it that Bush is a fish in a barrel. These are decisions that he and the people he put in charge are making. We bit off more than we can chew and it's becoming more and more obvious.you think that's obvious, but you can't see that Kerry would make things worse.
They are not re-reporting he story. The date they mention is the date the UN took inventory before and between that date and now the stuff is gone. So they would report on the end of the period which is ... now.fredster said it pretty well. Was your defense the "several caches" comment?
Oh so now it isn't a problem? You were the one going bananas over the conventional arms bought by Iraq. But indeed I'd say this is much worse. The US is supposed to be there to put and end to terrorism. How do you figure people stealing high explosives is gonna help in that area? Now we don't have a government owning the stuff (a government that could/would not threaten the US BTW), but we have terrorists roaming the place with these high explosives. You don't see how that is worse than Saddam buying a few anti aircraft missiles?perhaps you missed the ::)
Who knows. They did sell them plenty of stuff before the sanctions, but they would have told the UN about it.There were things going on there that you previously stated they were doing "to protect investments in the area". There were also weapons being sold to Iraq, violating the sanctions. Now you are telling ME that "they would have told the UN about it". I must be a kettle, because you just called me black.
"But since the disappearance was reported Monday by The New York Times, he said, he wanted the Security Council to have the letter that he received from Mohammed J. Abbas, a senior official at Iraq
The explosives were -not- looted.
I'll just explain that "France" did not violate the sanctions. If french weapons were sold to Iraq they could have come from anywhere.woops, I forgot to change my rhetoric.
"Weapons dealer from france" != "France"I'll just explain that "France" did not violate the sanctions. If french weapons were sold to Iraq they could have come from anywhere.woops, I forgot to change my rhetoric.
MaybeFranceSyria or Russia just came and picked up the stuff they hadn't received payment on yet.
My "defense" on this thread is that the article Crazy Cooter pointed too claimed the explosives were there in september 2003 and that there was an inspection again on october 15th (doesn't mention a year, but I assumed they meant 2004) So this is in fact a newsreport on an investigation that just took place."President Bush ordered an investigation of the disappearance shortly after being notified by the IAEA on Oct. 15". This is a report about this "investigation" (of course with some background info)
But this isnt the case.
blablabla
If this is the "October Surprise" from the left, get ready for 4 more years of Bush.
Bush's response hits it out of the park:and said "dangerous weapons" are now in the hands of terrorists with the compliments of George W B. opposed to in safe storage.
"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."
"If Senator Kerry had his way... Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control those all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. <snip>Friends like Rumsfeld?
"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."and because of this investigation it is now news again. If Bush would have had a clue about ehat he was doing there he might have started the investigation earlier. Maybe even before it was stolen in the first place.
...and said "dangerous weapons" are now in the hands of terrorists with the compliments of George W B. opposed to in safe storage.Well they were stolen at least after 15th of march 2003 and the Iraqi's said they were there after the US came by (who just passed by this complex with 1000 buildings)
They were taken from storage before US forces arrive.
You plan as best you can, but you don't have a freaking crystal ball. All this talk of a 'plan' that contained contingentcies for every occasion is rediculous.Of course I understand you cannot plan ahead for every contingency, but wouldn't it make sense to at least be prepared for the "contingency" that you actually win the invasion? The US forces were not trained for this "contingency" at all (at least that's the excuse they gaave when hell broke loose). Our troops were trained for months on how to deal with the Iraqi's. The US forces should have had similar training, but Bush was in too much of a hurry. I'm not blamingh the military. They were trained to fight and that they did well. If they had some backup police forces or training how to do it themselves for after the war things would have gone a lot smoother. Just a few monthes could have made a huge difference and have cost a lot less deaths.
Don Rumsfeld is not a terrorist.But then Saddam didn't have any terrorist friends either. Well the palestinians loved him, but that's about it.
The were -certainly- not there 8 May 2003 when the Iraqi Survey Group showed up.Isn't that just the point that they didn't have it under control?
Of course, no one has explained to me how insurgets that dont yet exist move ~40 truckloads of explosives out of a facility under US/allied control.
Much more important is the fact that Bush claims he was going to war to put a stop to terrorism.You people? Can't he have 2 reasons. Or more even. "War on terror" and "keeping WMD from terrorists". I don;t really see the distinction though.
Um... you people keep telling us Bush said the war in Iraq was all about WMDs. make up your mind.
It now seems the terrorists are up by at least 350tons of high explosives due to his invasion.Yeah, but then there is no proof he wanted to do so (or ever did) so we have to assume he wasn't going to do that. But then who needs rational thinking when a nuke could go off any minute in NYC.
The Iraqis --always-- had access to these weapons, and the ability to give them to the terrorists whenever they wanted to.
Isn't that just the point that they didn't have it under control?and you can't prove they weren't there after April 4th. So? I guess that's why Bush finally called for an investigation.
Thats the point you'd LIKE to make, but you cant.
You cant even show that the weapons were there when we arrived.
Youre premise is that a force of insurgents (that did not yet exist) used a force of at least 40 trucks that they did not have to pull 380 tonds of material out from under our noses -- while completely rejecting the FAR more plauseable and better supported idea that the explosives were taken BEFORE we got there.
Thats because to admit that they might have been taken before we arrived is to remove blame from Bush - and after all, thats the point isnt it?
You people? Can't he have 2 reasons. Or more even. "War on terror" and "keeping WMD from terrorists". I don;t really see the distinction though.Did I say that? You asked me what Bush claimed were his reasons. Trying to drag me away from the topic again? You feel you lost the argument already?
Actually there were three reasons.
Are you admitting that his argument for going to war in Iraq because of WMD was valid?
Yeah, but then there is no proof he wanted to do so (or ever did) so we have to assume he wasn't going to do that.Huh? You have the weirdest reasoning. They stole/looted the explosives. That's not exactly the same as that Saddam would have given it to them.
LOL
You HAVE to assume that he was never going to break out the explosives and give them to terrorists when you;re claiming that he did exactly that!!
LOL
But hey - when you start out with "I hate Bush" and work your argument backweards from there, I guess you get things like this.I start out with the understanding that the US military was let down by an idiot (or rather two of them) at the helm yes. The military should at least have been aware that these facilities housed this stuff and checked if it was still there and if still there guard it.
No one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there.well there is proof they were there
We took care of the problem.and created a much bigger one
No one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there.
well there is proof they were there
We took care of the problem.
and created a much bigger one
Did you even read any of the links pointed out here?QuoteNo one seems to have any 'proof' these weapons were there.
well there is proof they were there
When? 1998? 2001? Show me the money Patrickl.
I do think that Saddam was less of a threat (to the US or Europe) than thousands of new terrorists and them owning tons of high explosives yes. I have to admit that I'm talking real world threat rather than imagined threat if a certain doomsday scenario would come true yes. Besides "they" stole more than just high explosives. There were earlier incident where for instance highly enriched uranium was stolen.QuoteWe took care of the problem.
and created a much bigger one
I guess that depends on if you can't see the problem that was there in the first place. Apparently you liked and supported Saddam. You don't believe he was a threat to you. We did.
Sorry if you don't agree that he would have come after the US and the UN was corrupted. Sorry if you can't see the real world.
Our troops were trained for months on how to deal with the Iraqi's.According to Mr Kerry and the Democratic propoganda machine, "this administration made a choice to go it alone in the war in Iraq". Therefore, when you say "our troops", you are wrong according to the words of the Horse-faced Waffler. You don't have troops there. Ask Mr Kerry. He'll be more than happy to tell you. ;)
But then Saddam didn't have any terrorist friends either.And we know this to be true because the terrorists, who find nothing wrong with killing the infidel invaders for the good of their god, told us so. So it simply must be true. Or we could ask Mr Kerry, he'd probably like to pick this story up and use it for a few days...at least until the 2nd ;)
It comes down to what you believe to be more likely:
-The Iraqis moved ~40 truckloads of explosives out of the area between 5 April and 8 May with American troops all over the place.
Well? These questions arent rhetorical.
Your question may have just been answered
This doesnt answer my question.
LOTS of things are maked "explosive". Unless you can show that these containers hold the explosives in question, its pretty meaningless.
And you STILL havent explained the logistics of moving 380 tolds of explosives from the facility, with American troops all around.
That, apparently, is a quesiton you'll have to ask the Bush team.
Excellent cop out. Better than I expected.
No no no no no.
It may even be possible that the Bush team struck a deal with Iraqis to move the munitions and were scammed (think Chalabi).
Ok - you've moved to fantasy...
Not even close to the same context - and inaccurate. Wow.
Still dodging the questions?
QuoteYou haven't proven anything in your defense, and you are now falling back on "I asked you first!" Weak.Well you are the one claiming the subject of this thread is nothing but an "october surprise" and false. It seem pretty clear to me: high explosives where in safe storage; Bush goes gung-ho into Iraq; explosives are missing. You seem to be on the end that has to come up with some to proof if you want to refute this. The proof for "our" case is already there.
I'm not the one making charges - I dont have to prove anything.
If we haven't found any WMD's in Iraq, and if the powders in question are powerful enugh to bring down a jet airliner all by themselves, then what exactly WOULD be classified as a WMD?
patrick, this was a story that was brought up (re-reported) again in an attempt to inflict maximum damage to Bush while leaving him as little time as possible to reply.Well, I guess I need another link yeah. That link is about a complex which might have the same name. Nothing about looting and/or high explosives. You mean there can be only one article per complex? Maybe the whole war coverage is just a rerun of one news article since they all mention Iraq?
Here, I'm gonna link a CBS site so you can feel comfortable with the source ::)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/iraq/main547667.shtml)
but then there are the videoimages taken on site that the barrels were still there on April 18th. Now who is denying the truth?
the truth... that there were barrels there marked "explosive"?
Are there explosives other than RMX and HMX? Yes?
So what do the videos prove?
Wouldn't it be a normal thing to get the ammunition from the depots just prior to an invasion?No that doesn't make sense at all. But that isn;t the point. There is PROOF that the explosives were there (either January 23, March 15th or April 18th) and they are now not there. Either way they are now gone and this could/should have been prevented. Especially if you set out to counter terorism in the first place.
Indeed.
And if these explosives are SO valuable that the Iraqis were willing to try to get them after the facility was overrun, why would they NOT pull them out before the war?
At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.No. I'd rather have that the Russians did really take them home, but it unfortunately seems very unlikely.
At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.
Never mind that we have pictures of Iraqi trucks at the site on March 17 2003:As I suspected, the satellite picture proofs nothing:
This reconaissance picture, released yesterday, shows two trucks parked outside one of the 56 bunkers of the Al Qa Qaa Explosive Storage Complex on March 17, 2003, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
(AP)
At this point, you people think the explosives were taken after we got there because you WANT to, not because there is any reason to.
Uh oh....Ah, some proof finally ... oh no ... just more smokescreen. Interesting theory though.
Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...
Make their case?
You havent made yours.
All you have is that there was (supposedly) 377 tons of explosives in these bunkers in Jan 2003, there was some amount of some sort of explosives in one of the bunkers 18 April 2003, and none on 8 May 2003.
Thats the entire support for your case of Bush "dropping the ball".
SCENARIO 2: Bush didn't know the stuff was supposed to be there. Poor planning, the information was there. He dropped the ball in this scenario.what information was there, and who did this information come from? They were in the area back in April 2003 and this is being reported NOW. Who had information, what was this information, and where was this information?
Who had information, what was this information, and where was this information?
"Back in 1995 the UN was asked to destroy these explosives. They didn't do so on the basis that they weren't part of a WMD program and therefore they weren't that important, and it was Hans Blix that ran the International Atomic Energy Agency at that point.They are dual use explosives. Not completely illegal is something different than "not important". You really should read more unbiased sites Drew. If you only read distorted information then you will stay ignorant to the whole story.
They are dual use explosives. Not completely illegal is something different than "not important". You really should read more unbiased sites Drew. If you only read distorted information then you will stay ignorant to the whole story.and again, if they were so important, why were they not destroyed in 1995, instead of "putting a seal" on them?
Besides, why did the IAEA put seals on them and why did they check those seals later? Yes, because they were important.
They weren't illegal if they were used for construction work so inspectors weren't allowed to destroy them as per the resolution.They are dual use explosives. Not completely illegal is something different than "not important". You really should read more unbiased sites Drew. If you only read distorted information then you will stay ignorant to the whole story.and again, if they were so important, why were they not destroyed in 1995, instead of "putting a seal" on them?
Besides, why did the IAEA put seals on them and why did they check those seals later? Yes, because they were important.
You continue to point to the negligence of Bush to act upon some report by the agency who didn't think them important enough to do anything about OTHER than "put seals on them".
You say terrorism is up, the reports on actions are up....tell me, do those reports you point to show WHAT hey are reporting, as it seems to me that including all the stuff going on in Iraq would indeed raise that number. And it's an increase I'm perfectly happy accepting, as it's happening over THERE, instead of over HERE.That's just the lame truth yes. Make sure there is always a war and the terrorists will rather go there. Burn the earth and you will be safe yourself. All the good comes from America ho yeah. That sure is a pathetic way to look at things. Man can you sink any lower. You really deserve a retard like Bush. 4 more years of that fool and your country will be at war with everyone and completely broke. If a few terrorist attacking is enough to bring down the US what do you think will happen if you really piss enough people off?
Patrick, you think you're safer in your country sitting there being pacifists. Who do you think they will turn against if they ever DO defeat the U.S.? You think they're gonna sit there and twiddle their thumbs and contemplate how nice their world is now that we're out of it? Your lollipops and rainbows view is fine, as long as America is there as a shield between you and the terrorists who hate anyone NOT muslim, and hate (but to a lesser degree) anyone else not muslim ENOUGH!Are you missing the fact that in Europe the terrorist threat was actually decreasing (at least before Bush started his mess) and everywhere else it's increasing?
Seriously, not even you can believe terrorists are a threat to a country. By definition, terrorists are annoying, but not a threat to whole country.
No, this is not a threat to a country as a whole. How can this attack make the terrorists "take care of the US"? It will of course kill people so the police should try to prevent it, but there is no way terrorists can take over a country. Their aim is to scare people. If you get scared they have won.Seriously, not even you can believe terrorists are a threat to a country. By definition, terrorists are annoying, but not a threat to whole country.
:o
OMG this makes it official. You have no grasp on reality. If you think that 3000 dead with the potential of larger attacks is not a threat, you.....
...people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake.
You now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.
These people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake.before we were attacked on 9/11, Bush had done nothing. Go ahead, ask any liberal in America. We couldn't hear ENOUGH of how much Bush WASN'T doing, and now YOU want to blame Bush's actions, which were nonexistent towards terrorists, for the deaths there.
What a bitter, spiteful man. Yet another instance where Bush wants to burn someone because they aren't doing as he would like.We see collossal failure on the IAEA's part when first discovering these items, and you think it spiteful to want the head of the organization out. Kinda makes me wonder, if you'd give THAT guy a pass, why don't you also wish to give Bush the same pass. Same thing by your reasoning - they let the "weapons get looted/stolen and into the hands of terrorists". What's your reasoning on one, but not the other? Oh, that's right, Bush is ugly, stupid, and talks funny.
Drew, this stuff was sealed up because we were afraid of it being used to detonate a Nuke. The material itself wasn't necessarily "banned". The "retarded dental floss" worked (except on one occasion, but the material was returned).Now you're trying to paint this stuff as being "sealed up". The seals were at best a preventative to using the materials which seem to be easily defeated with wire cutters. They weren't cemented into the bunkers. If they could be easily looted/stolen, then they weren't SUFFICIENTLY "sealed up" enough to prevent their theft and possible use. If you are claiming that they were sealed up to prevent use with Nukes, then you've got nothing to worry about, right? There WERE NO NUKES over there, as you're wont to tell us, and since the "sealing" was so stellar as to prevent their use in detonating a nuke, we're still safe.
Like I said, this stuff has been happening for a long time. Adopting a NIMBY attitude won't help. Terrorism is global problem and needs a global effort to minimize it. We just don't have the resources where we can say at any point "the war is over". We need to bring in more help.A global effort like Russia and Syria were working on, selling weapons to Sadaam? A global effort like France, working to keep Sadaam in power to aid their country, pump up its economy by getting oil on the cheap and screwing its own people by aiding a psychotic dictator?
P.S: how did you know i was a sparky? ;)your browneyelashes gave you away.....long, flowing, but just a bit too much "color" :-X
Clinton or Bush might perhaps have prevented the attacks on the WTC, but they are not the REASON for those attacks. The reasons for the attacks were actions taken long before they started. Aggressive actions are the cause of terrorism. Bush junior has set in motion a whole new session of terrorist attacks. You can count on that (even more so than the current surge of attacks in Iraq)....people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake.
The 9/11 attacks were in planning at the end of the Clinton era. The 1993 WTC bombing was under Clinton's watch. This isn't a 'people like Bush' phenomenon.
Sorry, you are the one detached from the "world". You seem to belief "the whole world" believed there were WMD in Iraq and that Iraq has something to do with terrorism. I guess you even still do. I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.QuoteYou now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.Well then, I sure am glad I am not 'over there.' I will ignore your insult because I have already established you are not living in the real world.
{edit: They needn't 'take over' the country to destroy it. 2-3 dirty bombs in major cities could wipe out our economy.}Again, you just blindly lap up the scare tactics of the Bush administration. Remember the Sarin attacks in Tokyo? This is supposed to be one of the most lethal WMD that Saddam was supposed to have. The scare mongers claim it can kill hundreds of thousands of people in an attack. You know how many people died in those attacks in Tokyo? 12!
Anyway, this is why I hate debating politics. I am not having fun here, and all I am learning is that in general the world seems to care more about terrorist's rights than US security. Yet we always send our troops and money when one of you all gets in trouble. It is so very incredibly frustrating.No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken. You will probably only notice this in a couple of years, but by then it's too late.
P.S: how did you know i was a sparky? ;)your browneyelashes gave you away.....long, flowing, but just a bit too much "color" :-X
The identifying marks of a "sparky" ;D
This is the reason I started the Sept 11 thread. People are in complete and utter denial about what happened that day, and about what the US is up against.
I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.That one only said that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in and didn't give a full report on how the WMD were destroyed. It does not say there were WMD in Iraq, just that there was no proof they weren't there. Don't try to pull that nonsens on us again.
One must then wonder:
Why did UNSCR 1441 pass 15-0?
No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken.I already explained how to deal with terrorists, or at least how to try to.
Interesting.
Does this make Kerry "sadly mistaken"?
And how else to you propose we "deal" with terrorists?
No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism.It'd be nice to have someone other than left-bent people from the rest of the world to tell us about terrorism, as I'm positive some from your part of the world with a right-bent to them would obviously tell us differently, if not wholeheartedly believe as we do, if not more so.
That was later and by that time it was already clear that the US had no reliable intel on where theWMD were. Hans Blix had searched and found nothing based on the "solid" tips of the US.the reliable intel Mr Blix and his organization was giving us regarding the "explosives" they sealed up and dealt with? Yeah, we gave him solid tips. From the same intel you seem to think consisted singularly of the CIA, and are unwilling to even consider that of the other countries having the same intel, offering the same position on Sadaam....yet you contiue to insist it's the U.S. and the CIA that gave the intel leading us to decide for war.
Sad warmongers.
Sad warmongers.
News:
War is sometimes necessary.
This is one of those times.
You dont have to -like- reality, but you should accept it.
Hmmm.Well it's just that I hear the same rethoric from Bush and his fanatical supporters
Goering also ate bread and breathed air.
Does that mean there's something wrong with those things, too?
Must be. You better cut it out with the breathing, or people will start looking for swastikas in your closet.
{image removed out of courtesy because the reality of 911 being proven was too much for a certain board member to handle.}
You're moral superiority is sickening. Get back to me when you can walk on water.why'd they release the photos to you?
I've seen the videos of human bodies punching through the glass atrium after an 80-story fall. I've seen unreleased photos of body parts strewn across the ashen ground...does that make me qualified enough to understand the true horror of 9/11?
What was too much for me to handle was your crass manipulation of the tragedy for selfish political gain. That'd make you no better than the terrorists...as they seek to manipulate people through fear and emotional turmoil. Think about it and ask yourself what you think you can possibly accomplish by sinking to their level.said the man working to show tragedy in Iraq as being directly and completely Bush's fault - each and every death as if Bush had killed them with his bare hands.
What is really interesting is that he blew up and used the foul language in the Sept 11 Experiences thread that he wanted to see deleted, rather than the thread with the photo that he 'objected' to.
Well done. >:(
why'd they release the photos to you?
said the man working to show tragedy in Iraq as being directly and completely Bush's fault - each and every death as if Bush had killed them with his bare hands.
To call for a deletion of a thread and then act in a fashion to ensure if it isn't, your own words will accomplish that which you view to be right....were you born that sanctimonious, or are you REALLY that much better than us?
To answer your final question, given the fact that I don't feel the need to sink to emotional blackmail and debased pandering...yeah, I am really that much better than those who would, and those who'd support them (You/Santoro). Glad we could finally clear that up.
The thread is back anways you big whiners.
mrC
Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html) Rules (http://www.arcadecontrols.com/arcade_message_rules.html)I would consider my post antagonistic in nature. My bad, and I am considering myself warned.
To answer your final question, given the fact that I don't feel the need to sink to emotional blackmail and debased pandering...yeah, I am really that much better than those who would, and those who'd support them (You/Santoro). Glad we could finally clear that up.
The thread is back anways you big whiners.
mrC
Hey Saint, I was listening to Lewis Black today....do you happen to be a fan of his work? You strike me as exactly how he was portraying himself.....can't remember the CD, but it was the one where he is in Minnesota.
Never heard of him :) Send me a link?http://www.lewisblack.net/ (http://www.lewisblack.net/)
Never heard of him :) Send me a link?http://www.lewisblack.net/ (http://www.lewisblack.net/)
Too bad we didn't have anyone guarding it. :-\
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)
"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."