blzrul Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 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? 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts