I'm going to bring your ad hominems up to the moderators here if it doesn't stop.
You are allowed to address my points, not me as a person.
Clear?
I promise this is the very last post to you.
As far as I'm concerned, I did respond to your points. They were nuts, insane, illogical, and based on unsupportable hearsay and presuppositions. Really, you didn't actually make a point. A point is something logical based on facts. Not a farcical imaginative theory, that anyone with a drug addictions could come up with.
When you boil down the theory to it's roots, you end up with "Why did the terrorists bomb places, when we are pulling out?". BigRob already answered this, yet you ignore it, and continue with the illogical theory. The answer is because terrorist groups always step up attacks when a foreign power is pulling out, in order to make it look as though they are causing it to happen. Now given this is widely known and very obvious, to ignore it and continue on the conspiracy insanity path, makes me question the person making the 'points', as it were.
It seems as though we are expected to give insanity due respect. But insanity is never to be respected. I tried to illustrate this by inventing my own fantasy theory.
Clearly China wanted the oil contracts in Iraq. Moreover, it's clear the Democrats wanted to use the war to beat up on Bush, thus it was in their best interest for the war to go badly. It's also pretty clear the terrorist elements in Iraq were getting support from somewhere, but who?
Hmmmm... I know, perhaps the Chinese supported the terrorist. This would makes sense given the Chinese wanted the oil contracts, and Democrats wanted the war. So Chinese supported the terrorists, whose actions supported the democrats, who pressured the Iraqi government to cancel US oil contracts, and ended up signing Chinese contracts instead. Of course setting this up wouldn't be hard given the connections the Clinton's had to the Chinese military from the Chinagate scandal. And we already know China has connections to terrorist groups, since we routinely find Chinese AK-47s.
Of course this is insane hearsay, but it's based on the same logic as the other theory.
No, no I'm not. I'm paying attention to this line from Reuter's:
Apparently the day before he touched down in Baghdad, a string of "seemingly coordinated bombings" happened.
Coordinated attacks, implies that the attacks were coordinated. Nothing more. It doesn't mean it was tied to Obama. Terrorist attacks are nearly always coordinated. 9/11 was a coordinated attack. That doesn't mean Al Gore was pissed at Bush for winning, and gave secret information to Al Qaeda to coordinate an attack on WTC when NORAD had most of the US air force in Canada doing a training exercise.
Not my words, the words of Reuters... And as I said, I tend to believe them given the command-performance of Osama Bin Laden when Cheneyco wanted sympathy for Israel's assault on Hamas last Christmas.
Bin Laden isn't a drooling moron. He had to know coming out for Hamas would spur public sentiments pro-Israel and therefore make life worse for Palestinian arabs especially in that just before he came out, american public sentiments were becoming critical of Israel..! (a funny coincidence with many "terrorist" strikes) So I conclude that his coming out at that juncture was either:
1. Because he actually supports Israel and/or hates Hamas or
2. Because he is an actor in a play written by others in support of Israel (or rather, what Israel represents strategically..).
(or both 1 and 2)
Do the math. Others have..
Oh, and while you've got the calculator out, don't forget to multiply the sum by the "Bush has financial ties to the Bin Laden's" factor..
So when he supported the 9/11 attacks, he really knew that coming out in favor of what happened would cause us to go to Afghanistan and flatten the Taliban, which he created. So since we know he isn't a drooling moron, then we must conclude that:
1. He actually hated the Taliban which he created, and wanted the US to wipe out the government he helped form.
2. He is actually a puppet who runs around spending his life creating things for the expressed purpose of causing others to destroy them, so he can create more things.
OOOOooooo... or maybe....
He's a terrorist who likes to kill the infidels, and supports any action to that end, and any group with that goal!
Good bye Sih. I had much amusement from this thread, but I'm finished. Who knows... maybe someday I'll take you off ignore again, and we can have another amusing discussion.
You might want to consider for yourself, why your threads end up rather lonely most of the time. Is it possible there is a real reason people don't seriously debate any of your topics? Just a thought.
Be well, and best wishes!
