I've already justified that bin Laden did not in general deny involvement, you seemed to have just ignored my point.Rigghttt. Cant they just leave a paper saying "We, Al-Qaeda, are responsible"..?? And if they want to make it obvious that it was them, we did Bin Laden deny involvment?? I mean he can just come out and say "i did it", much easier then going to the trouble of leaving books in 'obvious locations'
But weren't you so critical about what the media portrays? But you are so quick to believe in anything mediawise which would be against the US administration.It was on the news. Its part of the official version.
That didn't suffice. You're arguing about how it is totally ridiculous that the Islamic extremists would do this, when they are so integral to their religion, yet we have other Muslims claiming that they are actually not legitimate followers of Islam, due to their massacre methods.mate whatever faction you wanna label them, extremists/fundamental are literal followers of texts, they go to extremes to follow the religion, they do become extra liberal. Drinking and clubbing and Islamic extrmeists simply dont go together.
A witty remark proves nothing - Voltaire.Ill leave the speculating to you.
Whatever reason for why you said that, it didn't prove your point, or disprove mine. Also known as irrelevance.
If you're going to use the 'prove it or shutup' paradigm, you'd be on the long haul streak, as many parts of this political matter, you cant prove either, or disprove. A loop argument.Does that make it invalid somehow? How about you try answering some of those questions, instead of freeing urslef by labelling anyone who questions offical 'facts' a conspriacy theorist. Forget who wrote it, its in english, read it and try and prove it wrong.
When did I ever generalize that the US administration can't fabricate? I've already clearly expressed my opinion on Bush's WMD fabrications. Please, stick on point.ohhhh, I see, so they can fabricate, but the US admin cant? thats pretty impartial of you.
No. Relevance to quote: nilch.Is it also a fundamental politcal rule to arm ppl up to thier teeth with all soughts of chemical and biological weapons and support them to achieve your ends but when they lose favour with you, you label them 'tyrants' and want them ousted??
Who are you to formulate what's right or wrong for a nation? The last time I checked, you weren't a policy maker in the Saudi government. Whether or not foreign troops have the right to be there or not is regulated by the appropriate laws and policies of that nation, not by you.Its a sovereign country. Foreign troops have no right to be there.
When was I blaming the UN for everything? I agree with many UN legislatives. Just not for Iraq. Secondly, I was emphasizing that the embargoes were approved by a council of many nations, not just the US. So in this situation, it's unfair to blame the US in any hint or form for the sanctions. Thirdly, like I've reiterated before, what else is the UN to do? The economic sanctions are a way to deter the head of states of those nations to correct their policies, which were against international opinion. These economic sanctions in general work, because most humane leaders would co-operate to lift the sanctions. But obviously Hussein and his despotic regime would not. This is about causality. The sanctions were caused by Hussein, hence it is entirely his fault. Hussein invades Iran. UN imposes sanctions. You complain about the sanctions and it's implecations. But whose fault was it? Husseins, obviously.So you put in place sanctions that achieve no ends other then kill off civilians?? And it nice of you to blame the UN for everything, either their 'impotent' coz they wont agree with the US or then when they agree and something coz wrong, its thier fault.
Why is it irrelevant? You were arguing on how barbaric the sanctions were, yet you don't complain about the overall barbaric implecations of his actual regime. Quite relevant, actually.Thats irrelevant, no one denys that.
I'm an Islam hater? Thanks for not justifying your remark. Making up personal attacks isn't going to help your argument.And I had a feeling that youd be a Islam hater. And no I dont think such actions ppl who have been subjected and forced to live in ghettos (after being expelled by an illegal military occupation) their whole lives with no future in anything ahead are worse then the organised state ssponsoered terrorsim that Israel carries out on civilians. Though the target of the suicide bombers is quite simply, wrong.
Illegal military occupation? Reminds me just like the Iran-Iraq war. I wonder who started that again.. hmm.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is a complex issue. For reasons relating to relevance, I don't think it would be a good idea to introduce a full scale Israel Vs Palestine argument in this Hussein vs. Bush argument. If you want to argue about this instead, then I'll do it with you some other time in the News/Politics forum.
It's funny how you just make totally unrelated, unjustified assumptions on my stance. Again, I reiterate, when did I generalize that I thought the UN was at fault for everything?Why doenst your 'freedom loving' US do anything about Israel's blatant refusal to comply with UN resolutions. In the 10 yr period in which the Iraq didnt comply with 16 UN resolutions, Israel did tehe same to 72!...no bias there, huh? Oh no wait, the UN's at fault here.
Of course the US wouldn't care less about the resolutions on Israel, they are in their interests. No, no bias. I'm not biased. If it's true, I admit it. In your case, that appears quite the contrary.
So how are you going to prove that I'm biased then? I'm obviously less biased than yourself. I admit the political facts concerning the US, if they are against the US, such as Bush's lies, Bush's bias for Israel etc. You have so far gone in every possible way to degrade the US credibility, even as to introduce conspiracy theories. If you're going to call myself biased, then please have some courtesy and admit yourself to be so too.whatever mate, agreeing to obvious things like Bush's lying aout the WMD doesnt mean your not biased. Bias becomes apparent when grey ares arise, in which you tend towards the US in every case.
Erm, hello? You even explicitly talked about how I admitted Bush's lying in the same quote, yet you then contradict yourself by saying that I go 'with the US in every case'? Job well done.Bias becomes apparent when grey ares arise, in which you tend towards the US in every case.