Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
No, OUR "terror victims" are THEIR "targets".  That is the entire point of al Siba'i's statements.

 

Jesus Christ, can't you people read?  :D

381194[/snapback]

"Us people" can certainly read but that's MY statement, MY opinion, and I'm not asking you to subscribe to it. If you in fact you could read, you'd realize that I was stating my own belief: that was pretty clear.

 

Can't YOU PEOPLE allow that others might have a point of view which may not jibe with other foldsk?

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
"Us people" can certainly read but that's MY statement, MY opinion, and I'm not asking you to subscribe to it.  If you in fact you could read, you'd realize that I was stating my own belief:  that was pretty clear.

 

Can't YOU PEOPLE allow that others might have a point of view which may not jibe with other foldsk?

381198[/snapback]

 

Your view in this case isn't relevant. It's not your rationalizing that dictates terrorists blow up children, it's theirs.

Posted
1)  Iraq was, at the time we invaded, not a recently war-torn country.  Their latest war ended in 1991.

381182[/snapback]

That statement is proof you really don't know sh-- about Iraq. As if we actually needed more.

Posted
That statement is proof you really don't know sh-- about Iraq.  As if we actually needed more.

381296[/snapback]

 

But she said not "recently" war-torn. That makes all the difference. Don't you know that the statute of limitations on "war-torn" status is eight years, so Iraq was actually two or three years removed from being a war-torn state? :D

×
×
  • Create New...