Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bush Ad References the Olympics

Bush Politics Campaign Ads Olympics Soccer Team

  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#21 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:38 PM

Hambil, how many books do you need to see Saddam Hussein supported a multitude of Islamic terrorist groups for decades?

You are asking us to believe that in a sea of Islamic terrorism, all supported by Egypt, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was sitting there minding its own business and not having anything to do with that.

In order to demonize Bush, the left has to put a halo on Saddam. There's no way around it, Hambil. And it makes your side look ridiculous in their arguments.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 25 August 2004 - 12:39 PM.


#22 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:40 PM

Hambil, what you are saying is patently absurd, if for no other reason than there is demonstrable proof that Saddam was involved to one degree or another with terrorists and terror activities. Enough so that "terrorist state" is a valid description of Iraq under Saddam Hussein!

#23 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:43 PM

Handmaiden07, on Aug 25 2004, 10:36 AM, said:

there is no other way to have run that ad.
Sure there is. Just say "there are two more democracies in the middle east". The phrase 'terrorist regimes' exists for one purpose, and only one purpose, to remind us about terrorism. Which, in this country means 9/11.

#24 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:46 PM

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 07:20 PM, said:

The thing that bothers me most about this ad, is calling Iraq, under Saddam, a terrorist regime. It was a horrible place, and Saddam is a horrible man, but, no ties to terrorist have been proven.
You don't actually believe that, do you?  :lol:

Anyway, good for the Iraqi soccer players! They can finally enjoy freedom of speech without fear of Uday torturing them.  :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#25 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:46 PM

Ogami, on Aug 25 2004, 10:36 AM, said:

In order to demonize Bush, the left has to put a halo on Saddam.

Hambil said:

It was a horrible place, and Saddam is a horrible man
Nice halo I put on him. Once again, your statement is RIDDIKULUS!

#26 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:47 PM

I would think that terrorism has a broader definition than THAT here in the US!

Are we to believe that the citizens of this country had no concept of terrorism proir to 9/11? Get real!

Edit: As a matter of fact, I believe this qualifies for your new invention:

RIDDIKULUS

Edited by HubcapDave, 25 August 2004 - 12:49 PM.


#27 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:47 PM

Drew, on Aug 25 2004, 10:44 AM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 24 2004, 07:20 PM, said:

The thing that bothers me most about this ad, is calling Iraq, under Saddam, a terrorist regime. It was a horrible place, and Saddam is a horrible man, but, no ties to terrorist have been proven.
You don't actually believe that, do you?  :lol:
No, I said it just to make you laugh.  :rolleyes:

Edited by Hambil, 25 August 2004 - 12:47 PM.


#28 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:48 PM

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 10:45 AM, said:

I would think that terrorism has a broader definition than THAT here in the US!

Are we to believe that the citizens of this country had no concept of terrorism proir to 9/11? Get real!
This dodges the issue. Right now, in this country terrorism means 9/11 and Osama. You can nitpick that all you want, but it won't make it any less true.

#29 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:50 PM

Hambil, with all due respect, the only person here doing the dodging is you. And I suspect you know you are doing it.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#30 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:53 PM

Drew, on Aug 25 2004, 10:48 AM, said:

Hambil, with all due respect, the only person here doing the dodging is you. And I suspect you know you are doing it.
What exactly am I dodging? I made a statement. I clarified my statement. I provided a link to an entire book that explains my statement.

#31 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:54 PM

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 10:46 AM, said:

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 10:45 AM, said:

I would think that terrorism has a broader definition than THAT here in the US!

Are we to believe that the citizens of this country had no concept of terrorism proir to 9/11? Get real!
This dodges the issue. Right now, in this country terrorism means 9/11 and Osama. You can nitpick that all you want, but it won't make it any less true.
Oh, really? And what is your source for that?

What poll backs this point up?

I don't dodge the issue; you make an absurd and indefensible point.

#32 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 12:58 PM

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 10:52 AM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 10:46 AM, said:

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 10:45 AM, said:

I would think that terrorism has a broader definition than THAT here in the US!

Are we to believe that the citizens of this country had no concept of terrorism proir to 9/11? Get real!
This dodges the issue. Right now, in this country terrorism means 9/11 and Osama. You can nitpick that all you want, but it won't make it any less true.
Oh, really? And what is your source for that?

What poll backs this point up?

I don't dodge the issue; you make an absurd and indefensible point.
Are you honestly going to tell me that the first thing that pops into your mind at the word terrorism is NOT 9/11 and Osama? And that most American's think of something else first when the word terrorism is used? I would consider that a far more absurd and indefensible point than mine.

#33 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 01:06 PM

Hambil, they awarded the Nobel Peace prize to Jimmy Carter because he wasn't Bush.

Maybe they can arrange one for Saddam as well. After all, terrorist groups are only in every other country in the world, never in Iraq!

Al Queda itself had bases in over an estimated 80 countries, and yet Iraq isn't supposed to be one of them, according to your side.

Why?

-Ogami

#34 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 01:08 PM

Ogami, on Aug 25 2004, 11:04 AM, said:

Hambil, they awarded the Nobel Peace prize to Jimmy Carter because he wasn't Bush.

Maybe they can arrange one for Saddam as well. After all, terrorist groups are only in every other country in the world, never in Iraq!

Al Queda itself had bases in over an estimated 80 countries, and yet Iraq isn't supposed to be one of them, according to your side.

Why?

-Ogami
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.  :rolleyes:

Just more RIDDIKULUS!

#35 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 01:13 PM

For that matter, there are homegrown terrorists and arguably terrorist groups in the US.

That doesn't make Bush/Cheney a terrorist regime. (Actually, FTR, I do believe Saddam supported terrorism against Israeli's. He offered rewards to the families of suicide bombers, for example, but I don't recall a good case for him being a threat to the US.)

Ro

#36 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 01:15 PM

Ogami, on Aug 25 2004, 06:36 PM, said:

You are asking us to believe that in a sea of Islamic terrorism, all supported by Egypt, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was sitting there minding its own business and not having anything to do with that.
Bu don't forget, it isn't just middle eastern countries that have supported terrorism

Many people in England have not forgotten that the US allowed IRA funds to be funneled through America which were used for terrorist attacks in Ireland and the UK.

very few countries are innocent in that regard.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#37 HubcapDave

HubcapDave

    Bald is Beautiful!

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 01:29 PM

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 10:56 AM, said:

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 10:52 AM, said:

Hambil, on Aug 25 2004, 10:46 AM, said:

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 10:45 AM, said:

I would think that terrorism has a broader definition than THAT here in the US!

Are we to believe that the citizens of this country had no concept of terrorism proir to 9/11? Get real!
This dodges the issue. Right now, in this country terrorism means 9/11 and Osama. You can nitpick that all you want, but it won't make it any less true.
Oh, really? And what is your source for that?

What poll backs this point up?

I don't dodge the issue; you make an absurd and indefensible point.
Are you honestly going to tell me that the first thing that pops into your mind at the word terrorism is NOT 9/11 and Osama? And that most American's think of something else first when the word terrorism is used? I would consider that a far more absurd and indefensible point than mine.
I'll grant that 9/11 would be foremost on many people's minds. But at the same time, to say that they are aware of ONLY Al Qaida and 9/11 in association with terrorism is silly. Islamic terrorism has been going on for many decades prior to the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, Americans have been killed in said attacks. What 9/11 did is show that the terrorist's tactics have changed and that our previous methods of dealing with them need to change as well.

The problem with your statement is you have to assume the vast majority of American people to be simple-minded idiots who have no knowledge recent history.

Furthermore, the arguement is irrelevant because no matter what a person's perception is, the label "terrorist state" is one that can and does apply to Iraq under Saddam.

#38 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 01:37 PM

HubcapDave, on Aug 25 2004, 11:27 AM, said:

The problem with your statement is you have to assume the vast majority of American people to be simple-minded idiots who have no knowledge recent history.
http://www.usatoday....poll-iraq_x.htm

Quote

Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

HubcapDave said:

Furthermore, the arguement is irrelevant because no matter what a person's perception is, the label "terrorist state" is one that can and does apply to Iraq under Saddam.
Perception is all that matters in a campaign commericial. It is the exact opposite of irrelevant.

#39 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 01:46 PM

Speaking of misdirection, let's get back to the original claim that people here are responding to:

Quote

Hambil: The thing that bothers me most about this ad, is calling Iraq, under Saddam, a terrorist regime. It was a horrible place, and Saddam is a horrible man, but, no ties to terrorist have been proven.

Why does this bother me? Because it is an example of the near-lies and misdirection that Bush & Rove has been doing from day one. And, because people buy into it like sheep.

Do you still stand by your statement that "no ties to terrorist[s] have been proven"?

If not, will you agree that it is therefore not an example of "the near-lies and misdirection" of Bush & Rove?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#40 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 25 August 2004 - 01:50 PM

Drew, on Aug 25 2004, 11:44 AM, said:

Do you still stand by your statement that "no ties to terrorist[s] have been proven"?

If not, will you agree that it is therefore not an example of "the near-lies and misdirection" of Bush & Rove?
I stand by the statement as I clarified it, which is terrorism - Osama 9/11. Which I've now re-stated for the third time at least. The original statement was admittedly too vague, though, I think it is being nitpicked.

It most certainly is an example of 'near lies' and 'misdirection'. Again, I refer you to a book you won't read, called All The President's Spin.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Bush, Politics, Campaign Ads, Olympics, Soccer Team

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users