oh DAYUM!!! Bush almost got clocked by a SHOE

[KSig RC]

Seid, dude, why do you pull out "proof points" that are demonstrably false? You clearly have the Internet, you could check the facts yourself, man, and it would ease board frustration like angry sex or yoga or something.

For example, even if we say it's cool to go with "lynched" with regard to Saddam Hussein (terrible choice of words, by the way), and you want to dispute the stated WMD rationale for entering Iraq, his death was purely a result of his own actions, as he is the most recent person on Earth to use chemical and biological weapons on humans (unarmed ones at that).

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Seid, dude, why do you pull out "proof points" that are demonstrably false? You clearly have the Internet, you could check the facts yourself, man, and it would ease board frustration like angry sex or yoga or something.

For example, even if we say it's cool to go with "lynched" with regard to Saddam Hussein (terrible choice of words, by the way), and you want to dispute the stated WMD rationale for entering Iraq, his death was purely a result of his own actions, as he is the most recent person on Earth to use chemical and biological weapons on humans (unarmed ones at that).

I went with the lynched term for a reason...trust, I knew what I was saying.

Regardless if we have the net or not, it doesn't make whatever point we are trying to prove 'true" am I correct?

I can post just as many links to support my argument just as easily as you can post the same amount to dispute it.

I really didn't bother because I didn't want to go down that road and be sidetracked on that topic (which could be and already has been clearly another thread) the main point we were supposed to be discussing before my 'deeper darker and even more obnoxious mirror image' derailed it was trying to get a grasp on the whole shoe throwing incident.

If we want to talk about the rationale behind the war, then let's dig that thread up and go there.

I don't want to discuss that here.

Thank you sir for bringing that up tho.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Regardless if we have the net or not, it doesn't make whatever point we are trying to prove 'true" am I correct?

It doesn't matter if the points you make are true? I mean . . . it does.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I can post just as many links to support my argument just as easily as you can post the same amount to dispute it.

No, you can't - you can't dispute a historical fact, only its interpretation, and I'll eat human poop if you can find anyone other than Chemical Ali himself who disputes that chemical weapons were used against Kurds under Hussein's rule.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I don't want to discuss that here.

You don't want to discuss facts here? OK, I mean, fine?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It doesn't matter if the points you make are true? I mean . . . it does.



No, you can't - you can't dispute a historical fact, only its interpretation, and I'll eat human poop if you can find anyone other than Chemical Ali himself who disputes that chemical weapons were used against Kurds under Hussein's rule.



You don't want to discuss facts here? OK, I mean, fine?

To clarify, I don't want to sidetrack and discuss (facts, opinions and conjecture) the Iraq war in this thread.

If that is ok with you.

And trust me we can agree on the whole chemical war thing but...just, not here.