80 AL Qaeda Captured Inside Iraq

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Was this mentioned and discussed on this forum ?

Looks as though there may be a better explanation for the chaos in Iraq besides the Howard Dean fans saying "It's Bush's fault because he's dumb".



http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/5642.htm

September 12, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. military forces in northern Iraq captured 80 foreign fighters from several Arab countries on suspicion that they are part of a new al Qaeda offensive against American troops, officials said yesterday.
Pentagon officials said the suspected terrorists were nabbed by the Army's 101st Airborne Division and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment between Mosul and the Syrian border.

Military officials said the foreign fighters came from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Sudan and Syria, and were carrying machine guns and rifles, as well as $75,000 in Iraqi dinars.

[arcticpenguin]

A source and a link, please.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Looks as though there may be a better explanation for the chaos in Iraq besides the Howard Dean fans saying "It's Bush's fault because he's dumb".Right. "It's Bush's fault because he stirred up even more trouble for the US that we'll be dealing with for the next few decades, probably." (i.e. a new al Qaeda offensive against American troops) :rolleyes:

Now they have a whole bunch of new recruits and a local target. Most of the support or sympathy in the middle east had in the middle east is long gone now, wouldn't you say?

Whatever...

[Tmy]

Kind of ironic that there are now more AlQueda in Iraq after Saddam was tossed out of power.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
A source and a link, please.

woops. http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/5642.htm

Kind of ironic that there are now more AlQueda in Iraq after Saddam was tossed out of power.

I'm quite sure there wouldn't have been an accurate AlQueda headcount while Saddam was still in power.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Was this mentioned and discussed on this forum ?

Looks as though there may be a better explanation for the chaos in Iraq besides the Howard Dean fans saying "It's Bush's fault because he's dumb".


He pokes hole in boat
Water rushes in quickly
Then blame the water?

[American]

Oh they don't count.

Gas centrifuge buried in a scientist's back yard? That doesn't count either.


How would a democrat do things differently than Bush? By doing it all the same, but BETTER! And the UN woulda come with us. Wouldn't have been this rush to war that we had, but we'd have been in and out sooner. Congress didn't vote to allow force-- they voted to allow the THREAT of force. See there's a difference. The President tricked John Kerry. We'd definitly have more troops there, because our military is so incapable.


Anyway...... more US troops = more targets = more US casualties = bad for Bush = good for democrats.

Worst case scenerio- 50,000,000 Iraqis are now free, a new mid-east front is open on terrorists, and our military has gained invaluable intelligence and experience for future operations.

All of this makes democrats VERY angry. Pre-mature heart attacks are up 50% inside the Washington beltway- all liberals!

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Right. "It's Bush's fault because he stirred up even more trouble for the US that we'll be dealing with for the next few decades, probably." (i.e. a new al Qaeda offensive against American troops) :rolleyes:


yeah. Bush is such a barstard for stirring up trouble and ruining the planet. It has nothing to do with Islamic extremists blowing up skyscrapers and crowds of people under the financial blanket of Saddam's dictatorship, becauase after all they're just defending themselves against the great Satan (so that easily excuses it).


Now they have a whole bunch of new recruits and a local target. Most of the support or sympathy in the middle east had in the middle east is long gone now, wouldn't you say?

Whatever... [/B]


I'd say that people like you will constantly repeat what you're programmed to say about support for us in the Middle East is gone, because it helps you get your goons elected and helps cover up the holes in your arguments against the war and anything related to Bush.

Political pandering is more important to you than solving any real problem. I've figured that out about you Upchurch (notice I didnt call you Booger).

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Suddenly


He pokes hole in boat
Water rushes in quickly
Then blame the water?


yeah. We should have left Saddam in power. That way there wouldnt be any Al Queda in Iraq. :rolleyes:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


yeah. Bush is such a barstard for stirring up trouble and ruining the planet. It has nothing to do with Islamic extremists blowing up skyscrapers and crowds of people under the financial blanket of Saddam's dictatorship, becauase after all they're just defending themselves against the great Satan (so that easily excuses it).What's your source that Saddam and/or Iraq was involved with the Islamic extremists before we invaded, and especially before 9/11?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


woops. http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/5642.htm



I'm quite sure there wouldn't have been an accurate AlQueda headcount while Saddam was still in power.

Hmm. The article didn't really give any explanation of why these people were thought to be related to al Quaeda rather than any other mujahideen group.

The blanket description of Ansar al-Islam as "al Quaeda's Iraq wing" is also rather questionable - whatever link there is between al Quaeda and Ansar al-Islam has not really been established as far as I know. The statement that Ansal al-Islam was "providing safe havens for the al Qaeda fighters on the ground" seems strange in this context, as the Ansar al-Islam is not located where the foreign fighters were arrested.

[shemp]

I see words like "suspicion" and "suspect" in this story, but no firm proof that they are al-Qaeda. Please provide proof if and when it becomes available.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What's your source that Saddam and/or Iraq was involved with the Islamic extremists before we invaded, and especially before 9/11?

here is what I said :


It has nothing to do with Islamic extremists blowing up skyscrapers and crowds of people under the financial blanket of Saddam's dictatorship, becauase after all they're just defending themselves against the great Satan (so that easily excuses it).




here are only 3 sources :

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_560030.html?menu=

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html


after gaining knowledge such as this about Saddam's funding, one would truly have to fight hard to convince themselves that Saddam took no part in funding professional terror groups, ESPECIALLY as they are now pouring in to ruin chances for peace in the area.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by shemp
I see words like "suspicion" and "suspect" in this story, but no firm proof that they are al-Qaeda. Please provide proof if and when it becomes available.


for now, let's see this group as a terror group.

fudging yourselves over whether or not it is technically al-qaeda seems a typical way to confuse what is happening.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



for now, let's see this group as a terror group.

fudging yourselves over whether or not it is technically al-qaeda seems a typical way to confuse what is happening.

You make a claim, I ask for proof, you obfuscate. A typical day around here.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by shemp


You make a claim, I ask for proof, you obfuscate. A typical day around here.

I posted a news story, you dolt.

notice the headline ? notice the source ?

you have no interest in discussion otherwise you wouldnt perform in such a typical jackass fashion. That's a good moniker for you actually :

Shimp - jackass fashion


use it !

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



for now, let's see this group as a terror group.

What definition of "terror group" do you use here? I would assume that the goal of these men would be to fight as guerilla-fighters against the US and British forces in Iraq, but I don't consider that by itself to be "terrorism."

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



yeah. We should have left Saddam in power. That way there wouldnt be any Al Queda in Iraq. :rolleyes:

Bush appeal to fear
Goal of war: Stop Al Queda
But they are growing

That Saddam was bad
Known for years, still gave him guns
Odd now act to oust

Perhaps Saddam evil
Convienient distraction part
of planned deception

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

here are only 3 sources :

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_560030.html?menu=

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html Okay. All the connections were in reference to Saddam supporting the Palastinians, which I will grant you are Islamic Extremists. No where in any of that does it mention any connection to either Al Queda or, the 9/11 attacks or "blowing up skyscrapers". So, yes, it has nothing to do with Islamic extremists blowing up skyscrapers. Unless you want to pull up more articles that don't connect Saddam to Al Queda?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Bush appeal to fear
Goal of war: Stop Al Queda
But they are growing

That Saddam was bad
Known for years, still gave him guns
Odd now act to oust

Perhaps Saddam evil
Convienient distraction part
of planned deception


Instead of playing the fear-paranoia-as-propaganda game maybe it would be wise to NOT fear al qaeda, but have the intelligence to recognize them as murderers regardless of what group name they are operating under.

America isn't to blame for Saddam's evil. Spoon companies didnt make Rosie fat and America didn't make Saddam murder his own civilians by trying to get him to help the international community fight a known enemy of peace.

fine....have it your way. Lets all just sit back, not fear or suspect any terrorists, let them destroy and take what they want and maybe if we are nice enough to them they'll let us live comfortably.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay. All the connections were in reference to Saddam supporting the Palastinians, which I will grant you are Islamic Extremists. No where in any of that does it mention any connection to either Al Queda or, the 9/11 attacks or "blowing up skyscrapers". So, yes, it has nothing to do with Islamic extremists blowing up skyscrapers. Unless you want to pull up more articles that don't connect Saddam to Al Queda?


Saddam is connected to murderous Islamic extremists and terror groups. Whether or not these groups operate under the name Al Queda is up for you and your buddies to filibuster over for as long as you want. Point is that Saddam funded and funds terror in the name of some god and it's a reality, not a theory.

the same terror goups that blew up the skyscrapers are the same buddies who cause havoc in the name of Allah to me. The group name is only useful for PR, but the soldiers and funding are tied together because they are an army fighting for the same cause.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
Was this mentioned and discussed on this forum ?

Looks as though there may be a better explanation for the chaos in Iraq besides the Howard Dean fans saying "It's Bush's fault because he's dumb".




Humm, allow me to apply some math skills to solve the riddle of this equation.

Over $100 billion has been spent, so far, in the Second Gulf War and we have 80 captured possible terrorists.

So the Blue Book value works out to be:
$1.25 Billion per terrorist

Gee whiz, with all of the resources we have at our disposal one would think that there would be a far less costly way of finding these folks. Oh well, I guess such accounting practices should not be surpising since we were also told that Iraqi oil revenues could pay for the re-building of Iraq.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Over $100 billion has been spent, so far, in the Second Gulf War and we have 80 captured possible terrorists.




that's a lie. you're officially not interested in honest discussion if you can say something like that.

if you can deny all of the other accomplishments there and pretend to see only what fits your agenda, you're not worth talking to.

[Kodiak]

The article about the capture of 80 non-Iraqi jihadists in northern Iraq was discussed and linked in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26836&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) .

No link to Al Qaeda is known to exist.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The article about the capture of 80 non-Iraqi jihadists in northern Iraq was discussed and linked in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26836&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) .

No link to Al Qaeda is known to exist.


thanks Kodiak

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



Instead of playing the fear-paranoia-as-propaganda game maybe it would be wise to NOT fear al qaeda, but have the intelligence to recognize them as murderers regardless of what group name they are operating under.



Your point is unclear
Fear mongering is shrub's shtick
Iraq has big weapons?



America isn't to blame for Saddam's evil. Spoon companies didnt make Rosie fat and America didn't make Saddam murder his own civilians by trying to get him to help the international community fight a known enemy of peace.



Blame not directed
Evil Saddam convenient
Post hoc lightning rod

Again, it is odd
Why sudden need to ouster
When been there for years

Much evil in this world
Saddam evil, but for war
Need bigger reason

Bush says Saddam has
Bad weapons, and helped terror
No proof for either



fine....have it your way. Lets all just sit back, not fear or suspect any terrorists, let them destroy and take what they want and maybe if we are nice enough to them they'll let us live comfortably.

Silly conclusion
Quite a big strawman you make
Intended as Joke?

I fear lightning too
But metal stick waived at sky
Not going to help

Rational thinking
Will bring better remedy
Then brainless bluster

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Your point is unclear
Fear mongering is shrub's shtick
Iraq has big weapons?

[/B]

Blame not directed
Evil Saddam convenient
Post hoc lightning rod

Again, it is odd
Why sudden need to ouster
When been there for years

Much evil in this world
Saddam evil, but for war
Need bigger reason

Bush says Saddam has
Bad weapons, and helped terror
No proof for either

Silly conclusion
Quite a big strawman you make
Intended as Joke?

I fear lightning too
But metal stick waived at sky
Not going to help

Rational thinking
Will bring better remedy
Then brainless bluster [/B]



Suddenly - one dimensional response bot

thread - over

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Now they have a whole bunch of new recruits and a local target. Most of the support or sympathy in the middle east had in the middle east is long gone now, wouldn't you say?

Whatever...

NTW's a jerk, so I don't want to sound like I'm supporting him, but I think you're completely wrong on this. We never had much sympathy in the middle east, losing it is not our biggest problem. The rest of the middle east had little sympathy before the war for the plight of the Iraqis themselves, so there's more than a drop of hypocracy on their part. Terrorist activity in Iraq has increased, but I see no evidence that there's actually been any significant, or more importantly, long-term increase in terrorist recruitment. And I think long-term that's going to go down, for two reasons: first, I think the arab world may finally start waking up to the fact that terrorism doesn't get them what they want (ie, they can't "defeat" the US by killing a few soldiers or civilians), and second that the US is ultimately not the source of their problems, their own corrupt leadership is. When that becomes the common consensus, it won't matter whether or not they like us, because they'll still start acting rationally. They have spent decades acting irrationally, and that's the environment in which terrorism prospers.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Terrorist activity in Iraq has increased, but I see no evidence that there's actually been any significant, or more importantly, long-term increase in terrorist recruitment.

Besides the bombing of the UN headquarter, which incidents in Iraq would you label as "terrorist activity" as opposed to "ordinary guerilla activity"? It seems to me that most of the incidents have been harassment attacks against US and British military forces which really oughtn't be labeled as "terrorism."

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser




Suddenly - one dimensional response bot

thread - over




Better you flee thread
Than confront flaws in your thought
Ignorance is bliss?

I guess beyond you
concept that not like method
but still desire goal?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Besides the bombing of the UN headquarter, which incidents in Iraq would you label as "terrorist activity" as opposed to "ordinary guerilla activity"? It seems to me that most of the incidents have been harassment attacks against US and British military forces which really oughtn't be labeled as "terrorism."

I wouldn't label the attacks against coalition forces in Iraq (mostly by foreign jihadists) as "terrorist attacks", but then I also wouldn't call guerilla activity "ordinary", either...

Remember, from the beginning of the invasion till now, US troops have suffered fewer than 300 deaths, and UK troops have suffered fewer still.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Better you flee thread
Than confront flaws in your thought
Ignorance is bliss?

I guess beyond you
concept that not like method
but still desire goal?

IMO, whatever valid points you might be making is completely overshadowed by the ridiculous phrasing (a-la Capt. Caveman, maybe?) you've chosen.

Please desist.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


NTW's a jerk, so I don't want to sound like I'm supporting him, but I think you're completely wrong on this. We never had much sympathy in the middle east, losing it is not our biggest problem.I think we had some after 9/11, but I'll grant you it wasn't overwelming. I'll also grant you that it wasn't the biggest element of what was happening over there.
Terrorist activity in Iraq has increased, but I see no evidence that there's actually been any significant, or more importantly, long-term increase in terrorist recruitment.That's a good point. While we don't know that it's perminent, we don't know that it isn't either. I heard a report on NPR, which of course I can't site so you can believe it or not, that recruitment was rising at the moment. Whether it lasts remains to be seen.
And I think long-term that's going to go down, for two reasons: first, I think the arab world may finally start waking up to the fact that terrorism doesn't get them what they want (ie, they can't "defeat" the US by killing a few soldiers or civilians), and second that the US is ultimately not the source of their problems, their own corrupt leadership is.I agree with you that these are good reasons for them to stop, but I think you're underestimating religious fanaticism to believe things despite rational reasons. Add in the relatively poor education, living, and working conditions that many of the fundamentalists come from and I'm afraid that many people will believe outright anything an authority figure tells them, especially if it's something they want to hear.
When that becomes the common consensus, it won't matter whether or not they like us, because they'll still start acting rationally.That "When" is a big assumption. "If" is a much better assumption.
They have spent decades acting irrationally, and that's the environment in which terrorism prospers. Right. They've spent decades at irrationality to the point it's almost tradition. I don't know how you rationally bring an entire society down from tradition and religious fanaticism.

I do know that knee-jerk retalliation of the actions of one portion of that society with military invasion of an unrelated portion wouldn't have be my first choice. When a child is upset and lashes out in anger, do you hit the child back or do find another solution? (and, yes, I do consider these fanatics to be child-like) Hitting back only reinforces the behavior as appropriate. Punishment is necessary, yes, but the right kind of punishment.

[chulbert]

September 12, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. military forces in northern Iraq captured 80 foreign fighters from several Arab countries on suspicion that they are part of a new al Qaeda offensive against American troops, officials said yesterday.

We also suspected Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. :rolleyes:

Let's reserve judgement until we fight out they really are what we "suspect."

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



that's a lie. you're officially not interested in honest discussion if you can say something like that.

if you can deny all of the other accomplishments there and pretend to see only what fits your agenda, you're not worth talking to.



If you do not want to talk to me anymore and/or ignore me, then I have no problem with that. That should be a simple matter for a brave e-warrior like yourself since doing so will not require any real effort or the exercise of personal courage whatsoever.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Right. They've spent decades at irrationality to the point it's almost tradition. I don't know how you rationally bring an entire society down from tradition and religious fanaticism.


Religious fanaticism isn't that widespread, but irrationality is, and there is a bit of a difference. But if most people are irrational, then the fanatics go unchallenged, and have a much easier time recruiting. Here's what I mean by irrationality that isn't specifically religious fanaticism: it's quite common in the arab media to get completely contradictory claims flying around at the same time, such as the idea that 1) the 9/11 attacks were just responses to American aggression and 2) it was really a CIA/Mossad plot. These are completely contradictory positions. You cannot believe them both. But there is little argument back and forth about what really happened - since both arguments cater to an anti-US sentiment, they're both accepted. That's the sort of irrationality I'm talking about, which also sees Saddam as someone who stood up for arabs even though he was directly responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of them. We can fight this kind of irrationality by showing them plainly that they are wrong. They were wrong that the Iraqi people would stand up for Saddam against the US, that we would try to destroy Iraq. They were wrong to think that Saddam was actually standing up for the arab world. They were wrong to think that terrorists only threaten the US, and not their own societies.


I do know that knee-jerk retalliation of the actions of one portion of that society with military invasion of an unrelated portion wouldn't have be my first choice.


But I don't think they are unrelated. I'm not talking about Saddam having actually played a role in 9/11. What I mean is that Saddam's regime encouraged the kind of irrationality that grips the arab world. The violence of such regimes, the desperation and fanaticism they breed, are problems that spill over and infect the entire region. I think they're quite related - the terrorists know this, and that's why they're trying hard to keep us from establishing a democracy in Iraq.


When a child is upset and lashes out in anger, do you hit the child back or do find another solution? (and, yes, I do consider these fanatics to be child-like) Hitting back only reinforces the behavior as appropriate. Punishment is necessary, yes, but the right kind of punishment.

Punishment is not even the issue, the invasion of Iraq wasn't meant as a punishment for anyone. Iraq will actually start improving, for the first time in well over a decade, because we removed Saddam and the Baathists from power.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Crossbow


If you do not want to talk to me anymore and/or ignore me, then I have no problem with that. That should be a simple matter for a brave e-warrior like yourself since doing so will not require any real effort or the exercise of personal courage whatsoever.



ole hypocritical crossdress. You're a fool and you do nothing but type masses of nonsense text here on this bbs and yet have the idiocy to call me a coward e-warrior.

you spend more than half your life here. What is it with people like you ? Is there a necessity to project your own failures as a person onto others ? seems like it, bubby.

now please "excercise some personal courage" and type another paragraph worth of useless blab. You liberal savior you.

[jj]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

that's a lie. you're officially not interested in honest discussion if you can say something like that.


N T bellows "lie".
Can he back up accusation?
News at eleven!

Claiming lie then needs
Proof of ethical faux paus.
Or claimant is hoist!

N T belongs to
Group with ethics codified.
Will he follow up?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow


If you do not want to talk to me anymore and/or ignore me, then I have no problem with that. That should be a simple matter for a brave e-warrior like yourself since doing so will not require any real effort or the exercise of personal courage whatsoever.

You are, of course, out there on the front lines, right Crossbow?

How about evaluating your own level of "personal courage", especially in light of your "brave" Ad Hominem above?

[Tricky]

Let us remember that Northern Iraq was the area of the country where Saddam Hussein had the least control. Thats where the Kurds live, and thats where the border with the Iran was the most fuzzy, with Shiites controlling much of the region.

To find armed soldiers here is hardly surprising. Like others, I would want to know (assuming this story is true) who is giving them orders. In all liklihood, they would be semiautonomous, allying themselves with whoever would give them the best chance for local power. That may possibly have be Al Qaeda or some wing of their very loosly bound network.

And how did we manage to "capture" all of them without a fight?

However, the real kicker is that no major news source, including the decidely pro-invasion Fox News, has picked up this item. The use of the word "vermin" in the title reveals a little of the impartiality of the author.

No, this one doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
Let us remember that Northern Iraq was the area of the country where Saddam Hussein had the least control. Thats where the Kurds live, and thats where the border with the Iran was the most fuzzy, with Shiites controlling much of the region.

To find armed soldiers here is hardly surprising. Like others, I would want to know (assuming this story is true) who is giving them orders. In all liklihood, they would be semiautonomous, allying themselves with whoever would give them the best chance for local power. That may possibly have be Al Qaeda or some wing of their very loosly bound network.

And how did we manage to "capture" all of them without a fight?

However, the real kicker is that no major news source, including the decidely pro-invasion Fox News, has picked up this item. The use of the word "vermin" in the title reveals a little of the impartiality of the author.

Five Saddam "Bankrollers" Captured (http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp)

80 Non-Iraqi Jihadists Captured (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97074,00.html)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You are, of course, out there on the front lines, right Crossbow?

How about evaluating your own level of "personal courage", especially in light of your "brave" Ad Hominem above?

Three things:

First, I never claimed to be "out there on the front lines", nor did I try to imply such a thing, and I never claimed to have any prior military combat experience. I trust that should be clear now.

Second, as for my level of "personal courage", I would prefer to work out those details with Nie Trink Wasser himself.

Third, as for the ad hominem issue that you believe that I raised, please look at some of the ones he passed on to me in the past ten days:

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser; September 5, 2003



Crossdress, reading your write is a big-painful-moan.

you're always trying harder and harder to confuse things for the purpose of your spin.

for me you're just the annoying sock puppet that pops up from time to time with something to prove with verbiage.


http://aaronn.monoperative.net/crossdress.gif

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser; September 11, 2003



you of all people shouldn't start professing to know very much about logic, Crossdress.

just keep typing.

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser; September 12, 2003


I understand now that it's not news unless it fits your political diaper rash support group's agenda, Crossdress.

now...could you please type a paragraph or so that contains ideas and twists that really werent worth reading in the first place in order to derail my thread, again ?

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser; September 12, 2003



It was simply an imitation of how Crossbow really acts here.

I just want to make it crystal clear that he's a queen.

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser; September 12, 2003



:rolleyes: loser.

http://aaronn.monoperative.net/crossdress.gif

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Crossbow



Third, as for the ad hominem issue that you believe that I raised, please look at some of the ones he passed on to me in the past ten days



!LOL :roll: :roll:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Third, as for the ad hominem issue that you believe that I raised, please look at some of the ones he passed on to me in the past ten days:

Those examples are of course unfortunate, inappropriate, and distract from civilized debate. Had I come across these in the threads where they appeared, I would have taken him to task for these Ad Hominems as well.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser


!LOL :roll: :roll:

:teacher:

Please try to rise above the Ad Hominems.

Once your credibility is tarnished or damaged, it is very hard to restore or repair.

Name-calling and personal attacks implies that you have either run out of substance for your argument or that you are just plain lazy...

:)

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Kodiak


:teacher:

Please try to rise above the Ad Hominems.

Once your credibility is tarnished or damaged, it is very hard to restore or repair.

Name-calling and personal attacks implies that you have either run out of substance for your argument or that you are just plain lazy...

:)


any name calling, personal attacks and Ad Hominems that I have used in my threads are used because it is what I have been given by others here, frequently.

My "sins" of that sort are small compared to the ones directed at me on a daily basis. I really dont care about the insults as much as the hypocrisy from the very same people who are trying to spank me for doing exactly what they do.

for any of these people to come out accusing me of unneccesary insults, personal attacks, and Ad Hominems is comical to me, because Im only doing it after the example they set and by stooping to their level.

I would love to say that I'm better than that, but sometimes I have to throw out the occasional 'Booger' for effect.

[DavidJames]

"for any of these people to come out accusing me of unneccesary insults, personal attacks, and Ad Hominems is comical to me, because Im only doing it after the example they set and by stooping to their level."

Talk about comical statements. When you grow up you will realize that you are responsible for your own actions. Mature adults don't blame others for their own behavior.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Talk about comical statements. When you grow up you will realize that you are responsible for your own actions. Mature adults don't blame others for their own behavior. [/B]


Im well aware of the stupid point your trying to flatter yourself with here. That's why you may have missed this part of my statement which addresses that point :

and by stooping to their level.

I would love to say that I'm better than that, but sometimes I have to throw out the occasional 'Booger' for effect.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



any name calling, personal attacks and Ad Hominems that I have used in my threads are used because it is what I have been given by others here, frequently.

My "sins" of that sort are small compared to the ones directed at me on a daily basis. I really dont care about the insults as much as the hypocrisy from the very same people who are trying to spank me for doing exactly what they do.

for any of these people to come out accusing me of unneccesary insults, personal attacks, and Ad Hominems is comical to me, because Im only doing it after the example they set and by stooping to their level.

I would love to say that I'm better than that, but sometimes I have to throw out the occasional 'Booger' for effect.

I don't doubt it, N T W.

The advice I gave should be applied by everyone, including myself.

Although I cannot remember an example, I'm sure (being human) that even I have succumbed and thrown out a personal attack.

If I have, I'm sure the JREFfers will confirm it. ;)