Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Tech breaks down some concepts used by the US govt to fool its people Vol. 1
smerlus:
--- Quote from: Soul_On_Ice on February 12, 2004, 12:11:35 AM ---
--- Quote from: smerlus on February 12, 2004, 12:00:18 AM ---
--- Quote from: Soul_On_Ice on February 11, 2004, 11:58:13 PM ---
--- Quote from: smerlus on February 11, 2004, 08:42:29 PM ---well they did find those trucks that could be/were once used for chemical weapons so there goes your place...you don't have to manufacture them if you have enough money....so....
--- End quote ---
Oh yea, those trucks we saw on TV. I mean if a truck is on a road in Iraq, it must contain weapons. There is absolutely no way that anything else could be in there.
And even with your STUPID comment, you show that you still have doubts. "well they did find those trucks that COULD BE..." Yes, and the U.S. COULD BE in Iraq just for the oil. If you have doubts on one side, then logically there is also doubt on the contrary, which correlates to you not having a fuckin clue about anything and just yapping your mouth for no reason.
--- End quote ---
well actually if you want to nit pick everything i say like the little bitch you are....they did say those trucks contained chemical weapons at one point so you can go fuck yourself
--- End quote ---
HOLY SHIT! THEY SAID IT? DAMN, IT MUST BE TRUE THEN. Thanks for clearing that up for me man. You were completely right. If they said the trucks contained chemical weapons, then OF COURSE they did. How could I be so dumb for not believing what they say. ::)
--- End quote ---
HOLY SHIT! THEY SAID IT? DAMN, IT MUST BE TRUE THEN. Thanks for clearing that up for me man. You were completely right. If they have no proof that chemical weapons didn't exist then i guess they never existed in iraq's history. How could I be so dumb for not believing what they say. ::)
works both ways bitch
Soul_On_Ice:
LMAO... the only difference is mine logically makes sense, yours doesn't. Are you implying that if something cannot be found, then it must exist? (Another mastermind on the board said the same thing... LOL... check out that thread for the feedback left for him). You're right I guess. So I could walk into court and tell the judge "Sir, we couldn't find a weapon, therefore it must exist"
LMAO. Stupid people like you make me feel so much smarter than I already know I am.
smerlus:
look at your genious logic.....if we can't see it it doesn't exist.....so we should all live by that
let's not find a cure for cancer, aids or anything because we haven't found it yet....it must not exist
once again, works both ways bitch
ConS:
Wow, you're a bigger idiot than I thought, and that's saying a lot. How can you compare invading a nation with no credible reason to finding a cure for AIDS? Are you that much of a moron? Let me break it down for you.
We invaded Iraq on the reason that there are WMDs. Now we find out there never were any, and if there are we never found them, hence there not being any proof for our reason to invade. The administration told us they know exactly where they are. My point is that we had no PROOF. When it comes down to the law, someone being tried in court, the judge can't send the person to jail, unless there is PROOF he's guilty. He can't just assume it. That's what we did.
Now you're comparing that to us finding a cure for AIDS. There might be one, there might not. So, we should spend our money and try to find one. Nothing wrong with that. But that's completely different from attacking a nation, killing its citizens, spending $85 billion of our tax dollars, and not having any proof. If you can't see the difference, then again, I feel sorry for you.
smerlus:
--- Quote from: ConS on February 13, 2004, 01:50:19 PM ---Wow, you're a bigger idiot than I thought, and that's saying a lot. How can you compare invading a nation with no credible reason to finding a cure for AIDS? Are you that much of a moron? Let me break it down for you.
We invaded Iraq on the reason that there are WMDs. Now we find out there never were any, and if there are we never found them, hence there not being any proof for our reason to invade. The administration told us they know exactly where they are. My point is that we had no PROOF. When it comes down to the law, someone being tried in court, the judge can't send the person to jail, unless there is PROOF he's guilty. He can't just assume it. That's what we did.
Now you're comparing that to us finding a cure for AIDS. There might be one, there might not. So, we should spend our money and try to find one. Nothing wrong with that. But that's completely different from attacking a nation, killing its citizens, spending $85 billion of our tax dollars, and not having any proof. If you can't see the difference, then again, I feel sorry for you.
--- End quote ---
and you're pretty smart saying that invading a nation and going to war is kinda like you taking me to court....yeah i can see how those two fit together.....if i win in court, people die and missles blow up buildings and.....wait, we're talking about regular court right?
declaring war is nothing like regular law, invading a country isn't like any court system.
if this war was like anything it's like suspecting somebody of have guns...asking repeatedly to search thier house and they say no...getting a search warrant and fucking up thier place and then finding 100,000 bodies in thier back yard the ends justified the means but you're still stuck on that WMD horseshit that no one believed in the first place
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version