I'm glad you've made it to your remedial math class... The 3 year remark was an obvious reference to the start of the Iraq War. Remember CF's contention was that AZ was a nobody until the US "occupied" Iraq. IIRC correctly AZ was imprisoned in the previous millenium so I think people who count (not us keyboarders) knew who he was indeed.... or were you talking about the American Idol kind of being "known?"
You repeatedly called AZ creepy's homeboy but you don't have anything to back it up other than rhetorics. What we do know is AZ was at one time CIA's boy, so to speak.
Here's the direct quote from the article: He said he was barely known until three years ago. 2006 minus 3 years = 2003.
creepy man, i wish i didnt see any of your non rocket responses. The jordanians wanted this guy dead, he killed iraqs and called for sunnis to kill shiites. this guy's a murder. hate the war or not, this guy cannot be defended. he's killed people in jordan because of his crazy idiology. if this dude killed someone i know, i'd be first to spit on his grave.
That is merely the author's (and Creepy's) opinion. I'm not sure which he you were referring to (Creepy or the author of the article; I was referring to Creepy. Prior to 2003, the man was imprisoned where he was radicalized, fled Afghanistan to set up terror training camps in Iraq, motivated/sponsored/trained some thugs to kill a US diplomat... Do you still want to insist that he was "barely known" to "those that count" (again not you, not me, not Creepy, not even the author of the AZ bio)?
Brilliant reply. One sentence that doesnt make sense. That is the best you can do. Thank you for posting this though, because now I know your level of maturity on subjects like this and now I dont have to take the time to read or reply to your ignorant messages.
You can't help yourself, can you. Clearly, you are either indifferent to how disgusting and despicable these kinds of slander are on this forum, too immature to realize how slanderous you are being to other members who happen to disagree with your views, incapable of coherent posts without throwing in this crap, or a combination of all three. It looks like a combination of all three. If you simply can't control yourself, maybe you need to give yourself a hiatus to think over your inability to post here without using the worst kind of Joe McCarthy assaults on other members. If you keep this up, your options may become limited by those who control those options, if they happen to notice, and care. All of us would rather they not be bothered with policing D&D regarding this trash. It makes the forum look bad, and goads others into making comments of a similar nature that might otherwise not be made. Are you just not able to help yourself? No one is telling you to be an "angel," but there are boundaries, in my opinion, that shouldn't be crossed. Why do you find it impossible to go back and forth with others without going beyond the pale? All you are doing is showing your inability to defend your positions without resorting to the most sickening rhetoric. You can make your points, even do it with language we wouldn't want to use in normal conversation with people, and do it without saying things that are, in my opinion, far worse than being called the typical insults that people throw around, even with their friends in jest. That's not what you're doing. texxx, this is the same kind of crap. It ain't funny. Get a grip, people. Someone can call me a b*stard, or a son of a b****, and I'll shrug it off, most of the time, or laugh. Calling me a traitor to my face, something people seem to think they can do here without consequences, would earn them a trip to the dentist. This sort of BS is simply not what should be posted here. It is as bad a a racial or religious slur, or something of that nature. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
Illegal occupation? Hello, McFly ! Israel won the war, to the victor goes the spoils. How do you think most borders were established anyway? There is no RIGHT to land, it doesn't exist. What, is it some childish thing where the first one to find the land goes "Dibs !" Israel controls Jerusalum now, but all faiths have important icons in that city....however, no one has a RIGHT to the land, or a RIGHT to the city. If the Palestinians want to peacefully coexist then they can, quit bombing innocent civilians. Funny how the middle east all laments the poor Palestinians but for the most part they are outcasts in other Muslim countries, and can not hold citizenship in a lot of them. Heck, Jordan let a lot of them in, and what did they do? They promptly tried to overthrow the king, and he ended up killing about 50,000 in suppressing their uprising. As for sanctions killing anyone, that is just not true, Saddam chose to ignore the treaty THAT HE SIGNED TO KEEP HIM IN POWER !!!! Was the war in Iraq justified, I would say no, I would have prefered Saddam to have been peacefully removed from power from within, or assasinated by a UN sponsored task force. DD
I'm not sure if you're all there this morning, but the 1967 War was initaited by Israel meaning they attacked first...The acquisition and annexation of land via war is illegal under international law hence the occupation being called an illegal one...Your "problem" isn't with me or what I'm saying, it's with international law
There is no such thing as "International Law" as there is no world wide government. Oh sure, people try to say there is, but in truth each country controls their own borders and the country within. And conquest has settled those borders for as long as Humans have been on earth. Israel won the war, they own the land, it is their right to keep it, or give it back. Not sure what your personal attack about "being all there" but at least I am "there" occasionally. Can't say the same about you. DD
Huh? I am being pragmantic. It is like the Geneva convention - rules for war - nice to have on paper but tossed out the window by all sides during war (some sides adhear more closely than others). Tell me, oh, International Lawyer - What exactly happens when countries break "Interenational law"? Especially when they are acting in their own best interest. Does the UN have the authority to make them return to their borders? Or do they just issue economic sanctions, which are proven to be ineffective. International law is a nice concept, but not a reality.
People who are using this to advance the failed Iraq war policy is the answer to your first question. People who believe we should "universally" celebrate this without putting the death in context... ( If you were asking if I was talking about you, then no. I can't judge that from your posts. I meant the right wing cranks in the media and people in the Bush administration spinning this story...and those who follow their drivel mindlessly and attack others who dont do so as well.) You mention Saddam and Zarqawi in the same sentence as if they "ruled" together. This news is "FANTASTIC" for Iraqis and the soldiers because they no longer have to deal with Zarqawi. But there wouldnt have been a need to deal with him and his newfound strength if we had not invading Iraq in the manner we did. Let me make it clear...Zarqawi and cold blooded terrorists like him should be captured/killed obviously, but taking Zarqawi out didnt have to take the thousands of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers who died in the process. We were not smart about this, and his death should not whitewash over that.
Mc, You are stooping to someone elses level. Clearly killing him does not absolve anything, but if it loosens the hold of terrorists in Iraq and lessons the violence for their people, that is a good thing. Not to mention it gets us closer to getting out of that country and letting those people control their own fates. Sometimes a powerful leader getting taken down makes a huge difference, other times not. I am hopeful that this is one of the times when it emboldens the Iraqis to root out their own terrorists and leads to a stable government and a lasting peace. DD
