DescentBB

Tricord wrote:Sorry, you are not. Communication is what is understood.

Or misunderstood! I'm the source, if there is a dispute on the meaning of what I said then ask me!
I have clearly outlined what I said...when I said it...and most importantly, why I said it! You may call me a liar if you choose but don't tell me I don't know what the hell I was saying.
I challenge you to examine my statement and show me how anyone could think I really meant to throw blame...'strike a blow' or otherwise insult Diedel with the mere mention of the word 'nazi'. Go ahead, try to do it! Post your logic here for all to see!

As to the rest of your argument, you keep telling me what I think even if you have to fabricate it out of thin air and then argue against it!

If you ever want to quote me correctly and then demand I explain my position I'll be glad to but I will now quit trying to defend the positions you have assigned to me because they are only mine in your twisted little world and thankfully I don't live there!

Tricord wrote:Deal with the terrorists who attack you. Leave the rest of the citizens to their devices. Give them time to evolve morally. Time that was available to your socity, why wouldn't it be granted to theirs as well?

When left to their own devices the ones who attack us hit and run...slip back into their civilian population who hide them and support them.
Letting that continue and waiting for an evolution that is 10 centuries late is not acceptable!!
Don't be ridiculous!

I seriously doubt time would have been alotted to us if we behaved the same way so your analogy is completely flawed...try again.
*****************************

Diedel, you are lost. You completely ignore or deny without explanation the facts that are plainly presented. Why should we bother with you?
Lothar has repeatedly given you chances to respond yet you just spam us with your commentary. Go get a paint can and spray it on the walls of your city maybe they will appreciate your spew.

Will,

a) your Nazi statements

You brought this in here, and later made a more direct reference by comparing America's current torture practise with the Nazi's 60 years ago. Don't tell me you didn't have second thoughts with this.

b) Clear facts

Which facts? Most of them are lies. Period.

Bush lied about Iraq (see the 9/11 panel's report) as well as what has turned out about Iraq's WMD. Read this: It is an official statement and has all been proved to be complete bulls. During months of intense search, your army found as good as nothing. Maybe you'll find some proof here (even if I get you won't like the site. It's btw. unknown to me too, I found it with google.). Or how about this one? Before you start offering dozens of links to sites saying the opposite, better check the dates their reports are from.

The U.S. has broken international law with their war on Iraq. (See my post with the UNO charter)

The U.S. has an officially sanctioned torture practise, approved to by the commander in chief in Iraq, so the Washington Post has reported. Other news sources have reported that a minister (afaik Rumsfeld, not 100% sure though) has approved to such practises as well. It's a fact that the U.S. is using such practise in prisons they built outside of the U.S. (you know how to use Google, don't you?) Well, and how about this, huh?

And what about this? No matter whether the man has received proper treatment later on, this is in breach of proper execution of American laws.

What else do you need?

This all makes you look like a bunch of doggone hypocrites.

As I said, you're all over the map but you fail to do your homework. Tsk tsk, very sloppy. Regarding the last link you've provided in your above post:

Hawash pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban. Prosecutors agreed to drop charges of conspiring to levy war against the United States and conspiring to provide material support for terrorism.

"You and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban. Is this true?" U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones asked Hawash during the hearing.

"Yes, your honor," Hawash replied.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93944,00.html

Diedel, your problem is you have arrived at a conclusion based on your own bruised nationalism that everything America does is wrong and then you attempt to selectively fit the facts to support that bigotry.

PS *If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, no one's going to listen to you anyhow.* That's my way of informing you that the World Socialist Organization is not generally considered a credible source to collaborate an anti-American viewpoint.

No bash,

you don't do your homework, you **** [edit] moron!

It's not the question whether Hawash was accused later on.

His detention was unlawful, that's the point! He must only have been arrested if he was charged with a crime right away, or if he had witness material! In the latter case, that material should have to be presented right away.

As it was, that law was abused to detain somebody w/o any charge or him being an important witness.

Do you copy now?! I doubt I can explain it simpler!

Every 2nd time I write something here, somebody rips out a sentence or two and builds a crap argumentation on it because he seems to be incapable of getting my whole picture and following a line of thought deeper than two 10 letter sentences.

For what you say about my attitude towards the U.S. in general: I can only tell you that you have no clue at all about my personality, my beliefs and what I think about the U.S. I definitely do not think in the stereotypes you love to. You very obviously also haven't bothered reading even 10% of what I had written here so far.

If you are so lazy, superficial and dumb, why don't you just STFU?

If there is something I hate then it is lazyness and dishonesty, and you really upset me!

His detention was lawful and his guilty plea makes it clear that it was warranted. Next case!

It wasn't lawful and you obviously lack the intelligence to understand why. Hopeless case.

Well, I guess both sides are so convinced of each other's unwillingless to listen and to recognise each other's points, it has become pretty pointless to continue the argument.

If the discussion matter was domestic US stuff I wouldn't bother trying to argue with you guys, but since it's a world-wide issue I thought there would be a discussion since we're all concerned.
Instead, I've seen reproaches all over the place, so I don't think this thread will evolve constructively.

I have learned a great deal about how the Bush voter thinks, though. At this point, I'm afraid to find out more. It's revolting. However, it seems it's not only the US voter who has a weird view of political policy and what governments should be like.
Like I said, one fourth of the flemish population voted for an extremist-right party in Flanders last sunday. A party that has fascist and racist tendencies, and very twisted ideas about how Flanders should be governed. I don't know what gets into people who vote like that.

Oh well, I have nothing new to bring to this thread. I will reply to replies if the opportunity presents itself, but other than that I'm done.
Don't take my retreat as a confirmation for your views, though. I'm just tired to get answers on a "What?" question when I asked a "Why?" question in the first place.

Diedel, enough is enough. You keep crying, "Bush lied! Bush lied!" without giving one scrap of truth. Oh, and by the way, Rumsfeld did NOT approve what went on at Abu Ghraib. He authorized some information-gathering strategies, but nothing like those six or seven whackos pulled off. Also, I doubt that the World Socialist Organization or Non-Violence.org justify "fair and balanced" viewpoints on the Iraqi war. You keep disparaging Bush and the war effort without any proof. As for the UN charter, I see nothing in it that would suggest that the war in Iraq was wrong. Let's face it, the UN has lost its relevance, as indicated by its own unwillingness to back up its resolutions. Plus, they put nations like Iran on Human Rights commissions, for the interest of "fairness." I would like nothing more than for the US to get out of the UN. We can use that New York property as McDonald's world headquarters. Good luck without us.

Tricord, so now the Bush voter is "revolting"? Guess that means you find me revolting as well. I will be able to vote for the first time come November, and my vote will happily be for Bush. He has led us through the most difficult time in our nation's history since the Vietnam era, and despite Diedel's constant ranting, he's not a liar *cough* Kerry *cough*. Think of me what you will.

Edit: Diedel, we won't "fall" anytime soon. And if we do, your precious little Germany won't be far behind.

Why do people keep confusing me with Tetrad?

Oh, crap . Similar number of letters, same first letter, and there you go. Let me edit that...

P.S. This now concludes this amusing interlude. Please return to heated, senseless debate .

You guys are so exasperating! Diedel is so convinced of German Superiority that he is blind to everything and all he wants to do is bring the US down to the same level as Germany with his constant blabbering about torture. All you have to say is â??I know about some Nazis that live in Americaâ?

I just about need my boots in here.

I think this forum should be called 'crybaies and mudslinging'

This thread has turned into such a mess... I'm having a tough time deciding whether to respond and get back on topic, or just close the damn thing. But in the mean time, this needs said:

Diedel wrote:you fool

Matthew, quoting Jesus, wrote:anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Seriously though... Diedel, over and over again in this thread you've said that the US should hold a higher standard, that the US should uphold the law, etc. You've said that civilized people should hold to a higher standard.

But then, when it comes to insulting your fellow man, you seem to hold as low a standard as anyone. You have no problem with calling people "insanely stupid", "fools", "thoughtless", "almost hilarious", etc. -- quite often, before that person has said anything even remotely insulting to you. Explain this to me, please: what *higher standard* do you apply when it comes to insulting your fellow man?

Tom, I'd like your view on my law-related post before you close this, please.

Looks like Deidel is the new spokesperson for hypocracy.

BTW: Regarding the Abu Grab incident, the US government launched their own investigation long before the media got wind of this.

So take THAT you nazi!

"How do you guys feel about the fact that Bush is, in short, financing this war with tax cuts? Which means that the government deficit reaches staggering proportions, and that in the end the US citizens will be the victim of that?"

First, I want to disspell this myth. The war is not being financed by tax cuts. That makes no sense. How do you finance ANYTHING with tax cuts?! The war is being financed by borrowing. So are the tax cuts! Bush has run up the largest federal deficit in our nation's history.

Interesting that Lothar backs the bush tax cut, but criticizes the government for overspending. Unfortunately supporting a tax cut for his reasons doesn't work out in practice, because Bush himself shows us that politicians that cut taxes will just find the money by borrowing! That to me is worse than collecting the taxes needed now, because we will be paying back the Bush Tax Loan (I mean, cut) with interest in the years to come.

I agree with tax cuts, but not unless spending is concurrently cut.

I suppose your counter argument is that you are saying it will cut spending by force in the longterm, but that's a rather irresponsible and poor way to manage our finances. We'll be in worse financial shape by not going into debt than by going heavily into debt and paying it back with interest in the long time. Yeah, great we need help the economy now...but what about the economy in 20 years when the creditors must be paid and nobody will lend us reasonable rates anymore and we're still in the hole?


In regards to american culture spreading everywhere, I'd say that is a cause of globalization rather than any fault of america.

"With respect to free health care, IMO, it's not worth the tradeoff in taxes. "

Let me offer a point of contemplation: How would Americans have been protected better, hundreds of billions of dollars spent fighting Saddam, or directly caring for its own citizens?

"France and Germany wimped out"

Can we keep this to civil arguments? Why is a country who chooses not to go on a pre-emptive war against a contained enemy a wimp?

Will said:
"Does France selling military equipment to Saddam against the very U.N. resolution she voted for somehow qualify her as an ally worthy of our consideration?!? "

Forgive and forget is a mantra we know well. Ever heard of Iran-Contra where we sold to weapons to both sides?

The United States of America - Fighting terrorism by being the world's largest arms supplier. It's one thing to make your own arms for defense, but it seems backwards to fight a war on terror as the world's largest arms supplier.


Diedel said:
"About the "detainees": You are breaking your own standards and laws as well as international ones you have agreed to with the treatment of e.g. the prisoners in Guantamo Bay. Period. I couldn't care less about what they have done. The western democracies used to distinguish themselves from the dictatorial states of this planet by their democratic, legislative and humanistic standards. You don't. You violate exactly what you pretend to defend, and you don't see or admit it. In my eyes you are lying to yourselves and the world. "

Well said. The Patriot Act has given our government some undeniably 1984esque powers.

Diedel wrote:"9/11 panel: No Iraq-al-Qaida link"

(found today on MSNBC)

I guess you can base your argument on an MSNBC article. That's certainly one way to go. You could have done something REALLY crazy and actually took a look at the commission's findings:

The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin* to cease [support for anti-Saddam Islamists in Northern Iraq] and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda*.

"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded." [Staff Statement No. 15, Page 5]

Call me crazy, but that seems like a "link" to me.

As to your apparently delicate sensibilities; in the course of this thread, you've devolved into the same mud-slinging, name-calling troglodyte that you claim to despise. You have, therefore, forfeited your right to express outrage when it comes back at you.

With regard to your other statements (and this really applies to everyone), I will quote a line from a movie whose name I cannot recall: "The amount of ★■◆● you DON'T know could probably fill the Grand Canyon."

You should never throw out crap like "Saddam never had WMDs" or "There was never a link between Saddam/Al-Qaeda" because the truth is, you KNOW exactly nothing! No one on this board has enough information to make any definitive statements regarding Iraq/WMDs/AQ and likely never will. So please, stop throwing out these absolutes because they are nothing more than your opinion.

"The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect."

Pebkac wrote:"The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect."

This is kind of "cover my butt" strategy. In other words: Never make a real statement, and you never will get into trouble. Or in other words again: Act spineless, and you will be able to bend everyway you'll have to whenever required.

I find it more honorable to express a firm belief and correct yourself when you find it was wrong.

For many people this however is a reason for mockery.

I did not say Iraq never had WMDs. I said that after the 2nd Gulf War, none were found by your own people. That's a fact.

If you properly interpret your own quotes from the 9/11 panel report, you will the following things being actually said:

1) Iraq did not actively support Al Qaida (-> training camps)
2) Iraq sought a "cease fire" so that Al Qaida would stop anti-Saddam Hussein activities in Iraq (to me pretty understandable and no argument at all Iraq would support Al Quaida)
3) The report states (not quoted here) that there was no involvement of Iraq in the 9/11/01 attack on the U.S. of A.

I find it a said thing that so few honest arguments can be found here so far. All you are trying all the time is to twist and distort everything that has been said and found to be true since the invasion of Iraq by U.S. troops to support your point. You can't though, and that you simply cannot get a foot on the ground argumentation-wise here for me is a strong hint that you are wrong.

As far as insulting other people goes: I did not start with it, and I certainly based my offenses more on reality (and on what was said here) than those who offended me here. Generally, I am not someone to start a fight, but if you want one with me, you can have it.

I really don't care about your trying to turn this against me, too. It speaks for itself (and against you) that you only address me, but not those who have insulted me here first.

Top Wop wrote:Looks like Deidel is the new spokesperson for hypocracy.

BTW: Regarding the Abu Grab incident, the US government launched their own investigation long before the media got wind of this.

So take THAT you nazi!

Waha! If the media hadn't uncovered it, you would have covered it up once and for all, and continued your evil practise of running secret prisons in countries less scrupulous to torture prisoners and let them do the dirty work for your investigators. So where are the Nazis? Looks like they (or their spirit) found a new home ...

Lothar wrote:This thread has turned into such a mess... I'm having a tough time deciding whether to respond and get back on topic, or just close the damn thing. But in the mean time, this needs said:

Diedel wrote:you fool

Matthew, quoting Jesus, wrote:anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Seriously though... Diedel, over and over again in this thread you've said that the US should hold a higher standard, that the US should uphold the law, etc. You've said that civilized people should hold to a higher standard.

But then, when it comes to insulting your fellow man, you seem to hold as low a standard as anyone. You have no problem with calling people "insanely stupid", "fools", "thoughtless", "almost hilarious", etc. -- quite often, before that person has said anything even remotely insulting to you. Explain this to me, please: what *higher standard* do you apply when it comes to insulting your fellow man?

Most of the quotes refer to an action or mind set of the addressee, and not the entire person. That makes a big difference. There have been made statements here that deserve no other attributes, like it or not. They may be provocative, but see it as a strong appeal to them to check their position.

As far as the "fool" thing goes: Sorry, but at a certain point of discussion (or rather: non-discussion) that's all that remains to say. If somebody behaves and talks like a fool, I might either turn away (admittedly better choice), or call him what he is (baaaaaad, doh! ). What the guy I called a fool uttered here was pretty moronic. Well, maybe I should have called him a moron then.

Diedel, I don't think you fully appreciate who poorly educated you appear to the rest of us. But, hey, feel free to let insults fill in the gaps of your education. Dogs bark. You're in typical Euro leftist denial. It pains you that your neighbor's house is bigger or stronger or better built than yours so you complain about the weeds.

Krom,

I wonder what level of education I have. It looks like it's not sufficient to properly interpret what I said.

It's also pretty amazing, that given all the recent scandals around American actions abroad you still believe that America is superior.

You have a fine way to ignore everything that has been said here about moral issues etc.

Why don't you just say: "I give a flying f* about moral standards - we're the strongest and we will do whatever we like, muahahahaha!"

That would at least have been honest.

Muahahahaha.

Tricord wrote:I have learned a great deal about how the Bush voter thinks, though. At this point, I'm afraid to find out more. It's revolting. However, it seems it's not only the US voter who has a weird view of political policy and what governments should be like.
Like I said, one fourth of the flemish population voted for an extremist-right party in Flanders last sunday. A party that has fascist and racist tendencies, and very twisted ideas about how Flanders should be governed. I don't know what gets into people who vote like that.

Tricord,

it's so very very simple. It makes them feel safe. It makes them feel that finally a world to complicated to be fully understood and controlled can be understood and controlled.

That's it.

Most Germans followed Hitler because he promised them work and renewed national greatness. He made everything simple and understandable. Whether what he said was true did not matter. Success mattered, which in the beginning he had. No excuse what Germany did to the nations around, but that's the simple reason. The Germans looking away when the Nazis started their atrocities in Germany is another story, and I have an explanation for that too, but I guess in a place like this everything I say here would inevitably be turned into mud throwing against me and Germany. Sigh.

bash wrote:Diedel, I don't think you fully appreciate who poorly educated you appear to the rest of us. But, hey, feel free to let insults fill in the gaps of your education. Dogs bark. You're in typical Euro leftist denial. It pains you that your neighbor's house is bigger or stronger or better built than yours so you complain about the weeds.

Negative, but slightly funny. You truly have no clue who I am, what I believe, and what my education is. You feel hit, and have to strike back. So easy, and a little sad.

Let me repeat that I did not start to offend people here. Many of you don't seem to capable to conduct a heated discussion though, and will start throwing around insults pretty soon. Broad insults, derisive against entire nations and meant to completely put people down. Top Wop's post is typical for that, and it's not the only one.

What I say basically is "what you are currently doing is wrong and arrogant, and you are violating the standards you pretend to defend." What comes back is "you are inferior wimps" etc. etc. So what I say refers to America's actions. What you say strikes back at Europe's very being. Well I doubt you will understand, even more accept this, but I will say it anyway.

That's not my style. I always try to make a point, even when I am harsh or offensive. My insults here always referred directly to something said here. Yours don't. Maybe I could act maturer (though I have a rather hot-blooded temper - especially when hungry), but you don't see how immature many of you act here.

What I have definitely observed is that even when the case is absolutely clear, you deny it. There's not much use talking to somebody who simply doesn't want to hear and understand.

Basically, you guys say that the reports speaking against American actions during the last two years are either not true, or it's your darn right to do those things, no matter what.

Ok then. What could be said has been said. There's obviously nothing further arguing could change.

Diedel wrote:...As far as insulting other people goes: I did not start with it, and I certainly based my offenses more on reality (and on what was said here) than those who offended me here....

Diedel, your very first appearance in this forum was to come in slinging multiple posts each full of insults. Your introduction to us resulted in the closing of the thread! Quite a first impression...

Your subsequent contributions continued the pattern so now you reap what you sow.
Get over it, and get over yourself.

I think there is a difference between a harsh reply and an insult. I also guess you are not referring to this thread. My first appearance in this forum lies years and years back, btw., and I have been mostly active in the coder's corner during the past few months, when I made a reappearance here.

I believe if we dig deep enough into the past we will find something speaking against everybody here. Finally, that does not excuse your transgressions.

You obviously refuse to put such things in proper context and evaluation. That is what I call twisting the truth, and for me is not an indicator of intelligence. Like it or not.

Typical. Aww, now you're the poor little victim. I'm sure your measure of intelligence is how closely one agrees with you. Well, you were incorrect (or at least couldn't present much beyond a misinformed Eurocentric opinion) but don't go away mad, just go away.

Pffff. LOL. I stand ... amused.

My measure of intelligence is how honestly and diligently somebody puts together his informations to make a point. Diligence includes drawing the proper conclusions, taking into account all that has been said, and how it's been meant. To a great extent, that's not what I've found here.

dp

Diedel wrote:Waha! If the media hadn't uncovered it, you would have covered it up once and for all, and continued your evil practise of running secret prisons in countries less scrupulous to torture prisoners and let them do the dirty work for your investigators. So where are the Nazis? Looks like they (or their spirit) found a new home ...

Its official, you are an idiot.

If you are so smart, why dont you back that up? Why dont YOU prove it?
[spoiler]smartass[/spoiler]

If the media hadn't uncovered it, you would have covered it up once and for all, and continued your evil practise of running secret prisons in countries less scrupulous to torture prisoners and let them do the dirty work for your investigators.

More unsubstantiated assertions drawn from thin air. Are you going to back up these claims, or are we going to get a third example of how "honorable" you are?

Not to mention that the media uncovered nothing. The prison problems were discovered by the government almost half a year prior, investigations started and the press was notified. However, it's an interesting pathology that enables Diedel to equate what mostly amounts to prison hazing (there was one death from a contractor AFAIK) with the mass murder of 6 million persons.

Diedel wrote:This is kind of "cover my butt" strategy. In other words: Never make a real statement, and you never will get into trouble. Or in other words again: Act spineless, and you will be able to bend everyway you'll have to whenever required.

Well, that's one way to look at it. I'd be more inclined to call it a "know what the f*ck you're talking about before you have the audacity to speak authoritatively on a subject, dumbarse!" strategy.

I find it more honorable to express a firm belief and correct yourself when you find it was wrong.

That's good. Are you ready to show us how honorable you are a SECOND time? Good. Here goes.

I did not say Iraq never had WMDs. I said that after the 2nd Gulf War, none were found by your own people. That's a fact.

It's a fact is it?

What's this then?

Someone has already posted in this thread the reports of the remnants of his non-existant WMDs. Some with UN tags still attached. Do those not count? What say you?

If you properly interpret your own quotes from the 9/11 panel report, you will the following things being actually said:

1) Iraq did not actively support Al Qaida (-> training camps)
2) Iraq sought a "cease fire" so that Al Qaida would stop anti-Saddam Hussein activities in Iraq (to me pretty understandable and no argument at all Iraq would support Al Quaida)
3) The report states (not quoted here) that there was no involvement of Iraq in the 9/11/01 attack on the U.S. of A.

1) Who made that claim? You said "No Link." I provided you with proof of a link.
2) So what?
3) Once again, no one has made that claim.

I find it a said[sic] thing that so few honest arguments can be found here so far. All you are trying all the time is to twist and distort everything that has been said and found to be true since the invasion of Iraq by U.S. troops to support your point. You can't though, and that you simply cannot get a foot on the ground argumentation-wise here for me is a strong hint that you are wrong.

Twisted and distorted? All I've seen in this thread is someone throwing out his unsubstantiated opinion as if it were fact, only to have it thrown back in his face repeatedly.

As far as insulting other people goes: I did not start with it, and I certainly based my offenses more on reality (and on what was said here) than those who offended me here.

No, you didn't start it. You condemned it as you should. You then lowered youself to the same level and you haven't come up for air to this point.

Generally, I am not someone to start a fight, but if you want one with me, you can have it.

I.T.G!!!!

I really don't care about your trying to turn this against me, too. It speaks for itself (and against you) that you only address me, but not those who have insulted me here first.

It wasn't your insults that got me here, it was your "no link" statement. As for the insults, I may have agreed with you, but you began insulting all you responded to, whether they insulted you or not.[/quote]

Pebkac wrote:

Diedel wrote:This is kind of "cover my butt" strategy. In other words: Never make a real statement, and you never will get into trouble. Or in other words again: Act spineless, and you will be able to bend everyway you'll have to whenever required.

Well, that's one way to look at it. I'd be more inclined to call it a "know what the f*ck you're talking about before you have the audacity to speak authoritatively on a subject, dumbarse!" strategy.

Thanks for the kind words.

Pebkac wrote:

I find it more honorable to express a firm belief and correct yourself when you find it was wrong.

That's good. Are you ready to show us how honorable you are a SECOND time? Good. Here goes.

I did not say Iraq never had WMDs. I said that after the 2nd Gulf War, none were found by your own people. That's a fact.

It's a fact is it?

What's this then?

Thanks again. Now read the whole article, not just the headline. Did I hear somebody say "dumbarse" just a minute ago?

Pebkac wrote:Someone has already posted in this thread the reports of the remnants of his non-existant WMDs. Some with UN tags still attached. Do those not count? What say you?

Remnants. How old? How many? What was found was years old scrap material, Mr. "D".

Pebkac wrote:If you properly interpret your own quotes from the 9/11 panel report, you will the following things being actually said:

1) Iraq did not actively support Al Qaida (-> training camps)
2) Iraq sought a "cease fire" so that Al Qaida would stop anti-Saddam Hussein activities in Iraq (to me pretty understandable and no argument at all Iraq would support Al Quaida)
3) The report states (not quoted here) that there was no involvement of Iraq in the 9/11/01 attack on the U.S. of A.

1) Who made that claim? You said "No Link." I provided you with proof of a link.
2) So what?
3) Once again, no one has made that claim.

1)There are statements from Mr. Bush claiming this. Everybody knows this. There are some quotations of his speeches here, and you can google for themself. I will not give a link - think that proves me wrong, big "D"?
2) The Bush administration tried to construct Iraq supporting Al Qaida from this. In fact, Iraq just tried to get them off their butt.
3) See 1).

pebkac wrote:

I find it a said[sic] thing that so few honest arguments can be found here so far. All you are trying all the time is to twist and distort everything that has been said and found to be true since the invasion of Iraq by U.S. troops to support your point. You can't though, and that you simply cannot get a foot on the ground argumentation-wise here for me is a strong hint that you are wrong.

Twisted and distorted? All I've seen in this thread is someone throwing out his unsubstantiated opinion as if it were fact, only to have it thrown back in his face repeatedly.

You have little grounds for calling them "unsubstantiated" ... big "D".

pebkac wrote:

As far as insulting other people goes: I did not start with it, and I certainly based my offenses more on reality (and on what was said here) than those who offended me here.

No, you didn't start it. You condemned it as you should. You then lowered youself to the same level and you haven't come up for air to this point.

So what? Did condemning it help me, "D"?

pebkac wrote:

Generally, I am not someone to start a fight, but if you want one with me, you can have it.

I.T.G!!!!

Whatever. Or is this so bad you would get banned from this forum for it?

pebkac wrote:

I really don't care about your trying to turn this against me, too. It speaks for itself (and against you) that you only address me, but not those who have insulted me here first.

It wasn't your insults that got me here, it was your "no link" statement. As for the insults, I may have agreed with you, but you began insulting all you responded to, whether they insulted you or not.

. I don't think I insulted everybody here, which is probably what you want to suggest with this statement. Actually I think that the only persons rightfully feeling offended by me could only be bash and index.

I think it's pretty clear now that of the two of you and me not I am the "dumbarse".

Thanks for the nice conversation.

bash wrote:Not to mention that the media uncovered nothing. The prison problems were discovered by the government almost half a year prior, investigations started and the press was notified. However, it's an interesting pathology that enables Diedel to equate what mostly amounts to prison hazing (there was one death from a contractor AFAIK) with the mass murder of 6 million persons.

The military kept the whole thing secret for a long time.

I really wonder where I ever said that what the U.S. does today equates what the Nazis did. I neither said so, nor think so.

bash, you are truly a liar of sorts.

Top Wop wrote:

Diedel wrote:Waha! If the media hadn't uncovered it, you would have covered it up once and for all, and continued your evil practise of running secret prisons in countries less scrupulous to torture prisoners and let them do the dirty work for your investigators. So where are the Nazis? Looks like they (or their spirit) found a new home ...

Its official, you are an idiot.

If you are so smart, why dont you back that up? Why dont YOU prove it?
[spoiler]smartass[/spoiler]

You can have some links to German news media, if that helps you.

There is btw. a bunch of U.S. prisons in Iraq and elsewhere your military tried to keep secret, and keep the red cross out. I am so sorry that I do not find all this stuff in English news media. I am German, you know, so I prefer reading German news mags. At least I can read and understand English ones too. How many languages do you speak/understand? Pff.

I'm sorry, but we do not get European propaganda newsletters in the states nor anywhere else (including Poland!) Yet you still fail to fufill your end of the bargain, which makes you in the end nothing more than a loudmouth troll who no one gives a crap about. You've done nothing but posted blatant lies and attack people left and right. You are arrogant, rude, stubborn, and very stupid at that. By your own defenition you are very dishonerable, I would'nt ever want to meet you in real life. You are proving yourself to be a pissant troll much to the likes of Rican, and we all know what happened to him...

So why dont you go back to eating your sauerkraut and shut up? Unless you are willing to act in a civil manner, no one gives a flying fsk about what you have to say here.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0 ... 34,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0 ... 39,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0 ... 36,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0 ... 98,00.html

This is from one of the biggest and most renowned European news magazines.

Don't blame me if you cannot read German.

The troll are you because of your insults, ignorance of all I posted here, and deliberate overlooking the fact that I did not start flaming others here - you started flaming me for reasons I have explained just a few posts above.

Go away, you hateful troll. Actually you don't want a discussion, you want put somebody down. You would be a nice Nazi.

Diedel wrote:Krom,

I wonder what level of education I have. It looks like it's not sufficient to properly interpret what I said.

It's also pretty amazing, that given all the recent scandals around American actions abroad you still believe that America is superior.

You have a fine way to ignore everything that has been said here about moral issues etc.

Why don't you just say: "I give a flying f* about moral standards - we're the strongest and we will do whatever we like, muahahahaha!"

That would at least have been honest.

Muahahahaha.

I don't care about your moral standards, feeble ravings of one more irrelevant no-man trying to sound far more important then he really is. Given all the BS I hear going on in the rest of the world I am glad I live in America. I'm glad our armed forces are the best on the planet, I am glad our leaders have the guts to act even when everyone else says no. We are watching out for our interests, just like everyone else. There is only one moral standard that really counts: Survival. Whoever is left standing at the end of the day are the ones with the superior moral standard. How far are you willing to go to guarantee your survival?