"A Unique Person" a Satan-Worshipping Cannibal?

[Skeptic]

OK, as you can imagine from the thread's rather absurd title, I don't really think AUP is either, so don't write in.

Why pick on AUP, thought? The serious point is that ALL of AUP's latest threads blame America for something (shooting civilians, shooting allied troops)--but they ALL are phrased in terms of a question, as if he is "just asking" an innocent question, like the title of this thread is. Examples:

"Soldier More Important than Civilians?"

"Is this the Real Reason the Canadians did not Join the Coalition?"

etc., etc.

Now, AUP, if you're going to accuse someone for doing something wrong, at least have the balls to actually SAY OUTRIGHT who you are accusing of doing what.

Don't hide behing half-assed loaded questions. That is incredibly annoying, and makes you look like a coward, who wants to say something but is afraid to take the heat if it proves unpopular.

[corplinx]

Half-assed loaded accusatory questions? Sounds like AUP is really Helen Thomas. :)

[Wolverine]

While I would tend to agree with the overall sentiment in this thread, I contend that the best means of addressing a_u_p or any other poster on this forum who employs similar methodology would be via objective debate.

There are a number of posters on this board whose ideologies I most definitely take issue with. The logical recourse, in my opinion, would be to rebut the inconsistencies objectively as they surface, rather than devote entire, separate threads to the issue.

[a_unique_person]

I think you will find a lot of the 'Anti American' news I put up here comes directly from ...... Americans.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3912/i_should_not_be.html



As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a time to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now.

It's one thing to question our leaders in the days leading up to a war. But it is another thing entirely to do it during a war. Once the blood of young men starts to spill, it is our duty as citizens not to challenge those responsible for spilling that blood. We must remove the boxing gloves and put on the kid gloves. That is why, in this moment of crisis, I should not be allowed to say the following things about America:

Why do we purport to be fighting in the name of liberating the Iraqi people when we have no interest in violations of human rights—as evidenced by our habit of looking the other way when they occur in China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Burma, Libya, and countless other countries? Why, of all the brutal regimes that regularly violate human rights, do we only intervene militarily in Iraq? Because the violation of human rights is not our true interest here. We just say it is as a convenient means of manipulating world opinion and making our cause seem more just.

That is exactly the sort of thing I should not say right now.



By being critical of american foreign policy, I not attacking all americans. I am in fact agreeing with many americans.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think you will find a lot of the 'Anti American' news I put up here comes directly from ...... Americans.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3912/i_should_not_be.html



By being critical of american foreign policy, I not attacking all americans. I am in fact agreeing with many americans.

AUP, you are truly hopeless. When you first got on this board, you were all about "Straw man this" and "Non-sequitor" that. But you, like everyone else in this world, are simply pushing an agenda. An illogical blame-America-first agenda, but an agenda nonetheless. Eventually you just got to posting some of the most extremist leftist junk I've seen, purely without any proof, just one sided blame throwing.

Sure, Iraqis are sufferring. But we can only help them by removing Saddam. Sure, America could help Israel less. But those good people are our friends, and a friend in need is a friend indeed. Sure, America could bomb less civilians. But if we weren't bombing our dozens, Saddam would probably be gassing his thousands. And sure, maybe some of the threats of Saddam building nukes are unsubstantiated. But we can't really know that with the games he's been playing with inspectors, can we?

Is logic going to work with you? No. It's talking to a wall. So I try to make my points to the group when addressing you, just like you do when addressing me. You know I'm confident in my views, and I feel I have a methodical logic. So, that's the way it goes, I guess.

-Ben

[iain]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


AUP, you are truly hopeless. When you first got on this board, you were all about "Straw man this" and "Non-sequitor" that. But you, like everyone else in this world, are simply pushing an agenda. An illogical blame-America-first agenda, but an agenda nonetheless. Eventually you just got to posting some of the most extremist leftist junk I've seen, purely without any proof, just one sided blame throwing.

....

Is logic going to work with you? No. It's talking to a wall. So I try to make my points to the group when addressing you, just like you do when addressing me. You know I'm confident in my views, and I feel I have a methodical logic. So, that's the way it goes, I guess.

-Ben Ben,
You start off blaming AUP for pushing an agenda (as you say, everyone is); but then you launch into your own agenda and imply that those who don't agree with you are illogical and incapable of rational debate, just because they are not convinced by your arguments. There is another possibility of course : that your arguments are simply not convincing to everyone.

It seems to me that anyone who thinks that because they find their own arguments logically irrefutable, all other rational people must do so to (and therefore anyone who disagrees is not rational) may not understand as much as they think they do.

[iain]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Now, AUP, if you're going to accuse someone for doing something wrong, at least have the balls to actually SAY OUTRIGHT who you are accusing of doing what.

Don't hide behing half-assed loaded questions. That is incredibly annoying, and makes you look like a coward, who wants to say something but is afraid to take the heat if it proves unpopular. I find it difficult to believe that AUP is hiding behind anything. Anyone who reads AUPs posts cannot fail to see where he is coming from and what his opinions are, so in what way is he hiding?

Different people have different styles of posting, that they feel comfortable with. As long as the message comes across I don't have a problem with that.

[subgenius]

I love questions. They, and the reason they're asked are more important than the answers.
Especially if you can't answer them intelligently.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by subgenius
I love questions. They, and the reason they're asked are more important than the answers.
Especially if you can't answer them intelligently.

I agree.
And, since this is somewhat of a Kodak moment, smile. :)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by subgenius
I love questions. They, and the reason they're asked are more important than the answers.
Especially if you can't answer them intelligently.

But what does THAT mean?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think you will find a lot of the 'Anti American' news I put up here comes directly from ...... Americans.


Posting an Onion story won't save you. :)

[Supercharts]

Some people have buttons that, when pushed, get a reaction.
Some people like pushing buttons. It's a weird sadistic practice but it passes the time.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think you will find a lot of the 'Anti American' news I put up here comes directly from ...... Americans.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3912/i_should_not_be.html



By being critical of american foreign policy, I not attacking all americans. I am in fact agreeing with many americans.

Well said, I like it.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Wolverine
While I would tend to agree with the overall sentiment in this thread, I contend that the best means of addressing a_u_p or any other poster on this forum who employs similar methodology would be via objective debate.

There are a number of posters on this board whose ideologies I most definitely take issue with. The logical recourse, in my opinion, would be to rebut the inconsistencies objectively as they surface, rather than devote entire, separate threads to the issue.

I agree we should rebut the inconsistencies objectively but the many guest would get on the forum daily will suddenly see all of AUP’s threads and come to the conclusion that where all just bunch of US bashers.
In addition, he floods the forum with these threads daily very few people have the time or day to ever respond to all of them.

[bangdazap]

YES HE IS..










..IN A GOOD WAY

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Baker

...the many guest would get on the forum daily will suddenly see all of AUP’s threads and come to the conclusion that where all just bunch of US bashers.


Yeah. Didn't you guys read that Onion article?

[shemp]

I really hate it when people drag you into a thread by posting lies in the thread title! I came here hoping to find fellow Satan-worshipping cannibals, and this is all I find! Bah!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shemp
I really hate it when people drag you into a thread by posting lies in the thread title! I came here hoping to find fellow Satan-worshipping cannibals, and this is all I find! Bah!

well, durrr, you have to read it backwards. You'll find a nice recipe for Deep Fried Shemp a few posts back.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Yeah. Didn't you guys read that Onion article?

Gee how could I argue with the Onion news?:rolleyes:


Funny how being a skeptic go’s out the window when it comes too political views especially anti- America and anti-war views.

Can we at least get some proof violations of human rights first before making assumptions?

[DavidJames]

"Funny how being a skeptic go’s out the window when it comes too political views especially anti- America and anti-war views."

Of course, and the pro-war, pro-American posts have been nothing but sound skeptical analysis, devoid of hyperbole and bias :rolleyes:

[EvilYeti]

You are reading to much into AUP's motivations.

More likely the guy is just retarded.

Originally posted by Skeptic

Don't hide behing half-assed loaded questions. That is incredibly annoying, and makes you look like a coward, who wants to say something but is afraid to take the heat if it proves unpopular.

[iain]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
You are reading to much into AUP's motivations.

More likely the guy is just retarded.

Is it really too much to ask for people to respect the concept that others have different opinions and beliefs.

Maybe you can show differently, but I haven't seen any evidence of AUP being "retarded" in any of his posts.

Apart from anything, I think that most neutrals observing a debate see it as a weakness when someone has to resort to ad hominem attacks so you're not doing your own reputation on the forum any favours.

[Giz]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


well, durrr, you have to read it backwards. You'll find a nice recipe for Deep Fried Shemp a few posts back.

Hmmm, I never expected to see the words "deep" and "Shemp" in the same sentence;)


ps Friggin Left-Wing Cannibals! Can't you understand that a modern Consumer Society is a DOG eat DOG world!

[Cleopatra]

I hope that all these against Mr. Unique were posted for fun...

Chacun son tour...

[Baker]

I can respect any opinion if it has at least something to back it up with AUP’s posts are misleading and very little evidence to back them up.

Does believing JE talks to the dead or that planet X will destroy the world belief’s that we should just respect the concept that they have different opinions and beliefs?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker
I can respect any opinion if it has at least something to back it up with AUP’s posts are misleading and very little evidence to back them up.

Does believing JE talks to the dead or that planet X will destroy the world belief’s that we should just respect the concept that they have different opinions and beliefs?

i try to supply links for everything i have said. some things i am repeating from previous posts. if you want more links, please ask.

[EvilYeti]

The problem is you provide links to agenda-driven sources of questionable integrity (for example socalist newsletters, Palestinian propaganda, etc). The source doesnt seem to matter to you as long as it supports your position. I always take the time to find a cite from an objective source before providing a link. Sometimes it takes some hunting to find one, but I always make the effort.

To top it off, you often do not read/comprehend the links you provide fully, as evidenced by posting links to the Tailwind scandal in the Peter Arnett thread that actually refuted your point!

Originally posted by a_unique_person


i try to supply links for everything i have said. some things i am repeating from previous posts. if you want more links, please ask.

[EvilYeti]

This discussion has nothing to do with AUP's opinions or beliefs, merely the method he goes about presenting them.

Skeptic thinks AUP is a coward. I don't think he's a coward, my opinion is he lacks certain basic cognitive skills that would allow him to present rational arguments. I.e., a retard. Personally I think being a retard is preferable to being a coward.

For example, he usually starts threads with a loaded question (not very creative) and supports his position by cutting and pasting links from google that he thinks support it. Sometimes the links do NOT support his position, which points to a lack of reading comprehension. Or he links to the "Onion", which makes about much sense at citing Mad Magazine.

Regarding the opinions of neutral parties, I could care f*ck all what they think, if they don't feel strongly enough to speak up and take a side what value do they have?

Originally posted by iain
Is it really too much to ask for people to respect the concept that others have different opinions and beliefs.

Maybe you can show differently, but I haven't seen any evidence of AUP being "retarded" in any of his posts.

[corplinx]

I just want to know who is the person in AUP's avatar. If I had to guess, I would say the guy's nickname is "booger" by his looks.

[EvilYeti]

He looks like an older "Corky" from "Life goes on" to me, which lends further support to the retard hypothesis.

Originally posted by corplinx
I just want to know who is the person in AUP's avatar. If I had to guess, I would say the guy's nickname is "booger" by his looks.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
I just want to know who is the person in AUP's avatar. If I had to guess, I would say the guy's nickname is "booger" by his looks.

http://www.world-productions.com/wp/content/shows/cops/fans/cast.htm

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The problem is you provide links to agenda-driven sources of questionable integrity (for example socalist newsletters, Palestinian propaganda, etc). The source doesnt seem to matter to you as long as it supports your position. I always take the time to find a cite from an objective source before providing a link. Sometimes it takes some hunting to find one, but I always make the effort.

To top it off, you often do not read/comprehend the links you provide fully, as evidenced by posting links to the Tailwind scandal in the Peter Arnett thread that actually refuted your point!



i read that tailwind, and I saw that, despite the fact that there was a lot of evidence for the position of the report, that a lot of work went into it, but that that wasn't enough to stop the whole thing getting totally trashed. I have seen plenty of reports, like that, that are pushing an investigative point of view, from both sides of the spectrum. You look, and you think, and you make your own conclusions. The mistake these guys made was to take on the pentagon. If you want, you can see much worse reporting every night of the week on the teev, and these guys get paid and a pat on the back for a job well done.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
This discussion has nothing to do with AUP's opinions or beliefs, merely the method he goes about presenting them.

Skeptic thinks AUP is a coward. I don't think he's a coward, my opinion is he lacks certain basic cognitive skills that would allow him to present rational arguments. I.e., a retard. Personally I think being a retard is preferable to being a coward.

For example, he usually starts threads with a loaded question (not very creative) and supports his position by cutting and pasting links from google that he thinks support it. Sometimes the links do NOT support his position, which points to a lack of reading comprehension. Or he links to the "Onion", which makes about much sense at citing Mad Magazine.

Regarding the opinions of neutral parties, I could care f*ck all what they think, if they don't feel strongly enough to speak up and take a side what value do they have?



maybe you should be doing a bit more research.

Number of times I have linked to the onion? once, i believe, in this thread.
As for links that may or may not support my point of view, often facts are shown in sites that do not generally support my point of view, that nevertheless do, by themselves, support my point of view.

That tailwind link, for example, went to a lot of length to show both sides of why it was right or wrong. Now, how much investigation is put into every story that goes up on CNN? not many. This one got the works for political reasons. It still had a lot of information on it to show the basic nature of the issue, a story the pentagon didn't like is not allowed to be shown.

I'm still waiting for them to get to work on all the beauty, hair restoration and fat loss stories that are shown every night.

[Supercharts]

Why do use Mark Chatterton as an avatar?
Are you over 18?
Are you married?
Have you ever been in the military?
What is your educational background?
Do you hold a professional job or ar you unemployed?
Are you the oldest or youngest in your family?
Why hide behind an actor? Are you an actor?
Have you ever been to the States?
What do you think about McArthur?
You can run but you cannot hide. Does that upset you?
Did Mom like your siblings more than you?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Why do use Mark Chatterton as an avatar?
Are you over 18?
Are you married?
Have you ever been in the military?
What is your educational background?
Do you hold a professional job or ar you unemployed?
Are you the oldest or youngest in your family?
Why hide behind an actor? Are you an actor?
Have you ever been to the States?
What do you think about McArthur?
You can run but you cannot hide. Does that upset you?
Did Mom like your siblings more than you?


Supercharts gazing fondly at his dog: "He's so funny when he licks his balls. Wish I could do that."

A Unique Person frowns: "Well, don't you think you ought to pet him first?"

[EvilYeti]

If you actually read the report, you would know that there was NO evidence that US special forces used sarin gas during operation tailwind. The entire report was based on the testimony of one veteran who claimed to recover a "repressed" memory of being gassed with sarin many years after the fact. Other than the testimony of this ONE person, whom has a history of personal problems, there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. No other testimony, no physical evidence, no paper trail, NOTHING.

The only mistake the reporters made was to report a work of fiction as fact. The pentagon and various veterans groups had every right to be pissed off.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

i read that tailwind, and I saw that, despite the fact that there was a lot of evidence for the position of the report, that a lot of work went into it, but that that wasn't enough to stop the whole thing getting totally trashed.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
OK, as you can imagine from the thread's rather absurd title, I don't really think AUP is either, so don't write in.

Why pick on AUP, thought? The serious point is that ALL of AUP's latest threads blame America for something (shooting civilians, shooting allied troops)--but they ALL are phrased in terms of a question, as if he is "just asking" an innocent question, like the title of this thread is. Examples:

"Soldier More Important than Civilians?"

"Is this the Real Reason the Canadians did not Join the Coalition?"

etc., etc.

Now, AUP, if you're going to accuse someone for doing something wrong, at least have the balls to actually SAY OUTRIGHT who you are accusing of doing what.

Don't hide behing half-assed loaded questions. That is incredibly annoying, and makes you look like a coward, who wants to say something but is afraid to take the heat if it proves unpopular.

I would deny I start most of my threads as questions anyway. Where are the facts?

For those ones that I do, Sometimes I do it on purpose, because I know a topic is controversial, and hence it will never be possible to prove one way of the other. Sometimes I do it because I get a feeling that what I feel is true, but I cannot back it up conclusively, and wonder what others think. That is, I really am actually asking a question, to see if there is a good argument out there to convince me otherwise.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide. Also, as i have said in other threads, how can anyone put together a fully researched thesis here. It is just a message board, with some part time, interested contributors. Most topics eventually degenerate into a statement of beliefs, anyway. And while, on issues like Penta Water, it really doesn't matter one way or the other if it really does work or not, in the world of policitics we are talking about things that most definitely do matter, but there is no way to prove them to peoples satisfaction one way or the other.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
If you actually read the report, you would know that there was NO evidence that US special forces used sarin gas during operation tailwind. The entire report was based on the testimony of one veteran who claimed to recover a "repressed" memory of being gassed with sarin many years after the fact. Other than the testimony of this ONE person, whom has a history of personal problems, there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. No other testimony, no physical evidence, no paper trail, NOTHING.

The only mistake the reporters made was to report a work of fiction as fact. The pentagon and various veterans groups had every right to be pissed off.



The sarin gas was only a part of the whole report, and there was more evidence than the word of just one veteran. None of it conclusive. They may well have every right to be p***d off, and they let everyone know it. So why did they then have the right to get these people fired?

The military stuffs up every day, yet I don't see them getting fired. They will cover up Mai Lai, and get a patsy to take the rap till it all blows over, and then let him go.

Much of what they feed us is a work of total fiction. Much of what did happen, for example, in Vietnam, is hidden. I have personnally met a 'baby killer', before he went off to war. I later heard he wasn't very happy about what it did to his life after being ordered to drive an APC through a thatch hut. He ended up on drugs and closed off contact with his family.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Much of what they feed us is a work of total fiction. Much of what did happen, for example, in Vietnam, is hidden. I have personnally met a 'baby killer', before he went off to war. I later heard he wasn't very happy about what it did to his life after being ordered to drive an APC through a thatch hut. He ended up on drugs and closed off contact with his family.

Does this justify what the Vietnamese did? We weren't the ones killing millions of innocent villagers - they were doing that themselves. Are the people we didn't kill less important? Or do you think you have a point, trying to show that America is responsible for all the evil in the world?

-Ben

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Does this justify what the Vietnamese did? We weren't the ones killing millions of innocent villagers - they were doing that themselves. Are the people we didn't kill less important? Or do you think you have a point, trying to show that America is responsible for all the evil in the world?

-Ben

I was trying to make a point. If you want to talk about the vietnam war, that should be another topic. Don't hijack my thread.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Baker
I can respect any opinion if it has at least something to back it up with AUP’s posts are misleading and very little evidence to back them up.


Sometimes he crosses the dark borders of trolling, indeed but I guess that he has the right to express his opinion the way he thinks appropriate.I am not negotiating this!

Did you use insequitur in your replies Mr. Unique?

Well... I used to use this "term" as well until the moment I met somebody, on line,who uses it with such a style and attitude as if the word was invented for his sake...

I didn't use it again...

I am glad you stopped using it yourself... It would be a sacrilage

[Baker]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Sometimes he crosses the dark borders of trolling, indeed but I guess that he has the right to express his opinion the way he thinks appropriate.I am not negotiating this!

Opinion or agenda would be a more appropriate question.
He is constantly proven wrong then will wait a few days then try the same argument in another thread.


Did you use insequitur in your replies Mr. Unique?
Look you stupid bitch…. oops pardon me I mean my friend Cleopatra.
Insequitur?
I believe inquisitor is the word you're looking for.
It isn't my intention to be harsh or hostile in making an inquiry.
But I don't deny they turn out that way I'm usually trying to point out the flaw in there argument more then not it comes across as a bit harsh.
However, it's aimed at the argument and not the person.



Well... I used to use this "term" as well until the moment I met somebody, on line,who uses it with such a style and attitude as if the word was invented for his sake...

I didn't use it again...

I am glad you stopped using it yourself... It would be a sacrilage

I'm not trying to be inquisitor in my reply again but sacrilege is the word you are looking for.
I'm not complaining just letting know we all have typo's.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


AUP, you are truly hopeless. When you first got on this board, you were all about "Straw man this" and "Non-sequitor" that.

I was quoting this, you stupid and illiterate American....ooooopss sorry, I mean my dearest Baker :)

You need another lifetime in order to be in the position to correct my writting style you...st... my dearest Baker, don't take it personally I was debating the argument.

Have you ever heard of Charles Baudelaire? Ask the what's his name, to type it in Google for you... There, you will find what sacrilage is...Tsk tsk tsk...

Oh Charmion*.. Haven't they met a Queen before?

Mmmmmmmmmmmouts :)

* In case you will think that I am reffering to Edgar Allan Poe's heroine... you will be terribly mistaken :p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I was quoting this, you stupid and illiterate American....ooooopss sorry, I mean my dearest Baker :)

You need another lifetime in order to be in the position to correct my writting style you...st... my dearest Baker, don't take it personally I was debating the argument.

Have you ever heard of Charles Baudelaire? Ask the what's his name, to type it in Google for you... There, you will find what sacrilage is...Tsk tsk tsk...

Oh Charmion*.. Haven't they met a Queen before?

Mmmmmmmmmmmouts :)

* In case you will think that I am reffering to Edgar Allan Poe's heroine... you will be terribly mistaken :p

Hmmm, making a point about me based on what Ben said? I could say several things about this, but I won't.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Hmmm, making a point about me based on what Ben said? I could say several things about this, but I won't.

Did you use insequitur in your replies Mr. Unique?

That's why I asked you cheri...

Check above...but you ignored My highness...

[Baker]

Cleopatra I was only kidding when I called you a bitch it seemed amusing becouse you said I was a inquisitor.

And welcome to the forum if I havent already welcomed you!

[Cleopatra]

Insequitur Mr. Baker... Insequitur... Pure Latin!

and I wasn't refering to you and yes! I knew that you were joking , I have humour, I am not American :p :p :p

Thanks for welcoming me.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Insequitur Mr. Baker... Insequitur... Pure Latin!

and I wasn't refering to you and yes! I knew that you were joking , I have humour, I am not American :p :p :p

Thanks for welcoming me.

Well Cleo, perhaps you can clarify something for me.

I've never come across the word insequitur before but according to an online dictionary insequitur is derived from a verb which means, inter alia, to follow/come after, pursue, attack or overtake. Which of course is what one would expect a post to do, i.e. it follows or ( more fun) attacks the other post.

Er, so why do you mention the obvious. Are you confusing it with non sequitur by any chance?

If not what is the issue here?

[Cleopatra]

Who is Cleo?What she/he has to do with my post?

[Baker]

Originally posted by iain
Ben,
You start off blaming AUP for pushing an agenda (as you say, everyone is); but then you launch into your own agenda and imply that those who don't agree with you are illogical and incapable of rational debate, just because they are not convinced by your arguments. There is another possibility of course : that your arguments are simply not convincing to everyone.

It seems to me that anyone who thinks that because they find their own arguments logically irrefutable, all other rational people must do so to (and therefore anyone who disagrees is not rational) may not understand as much as they think they do.

Ben’s views have far more facts and evidence behind them compared to AUP anti- American ant- Israel conspiracy theories.

If you don’t agree start, a new thread and we can go over the facts.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Ben’s views have far more facts and evidence behind them compared to AUP anti- American ant- Israel conspiracy theories.

If you don’t agree start, a new thread and we can go over the facts.

Now that I have to disagree with. I have brought up plenty of points, most of which he ignores.