Setting the record straight

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
In a rare joint statement, Al-Qaida in Iraq and four other Islamic extremist groups denounced the election as a "satanic project" and said that "to engage in the so-called political process" violates "the legitimate policy approved by God."

The groups vowed to "continue our jihad (holy war) ... to establish an Islamic state ruled by the book (the Quran) and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad."

AP

You may now resume your normally scheduled ignorance.
 

flavio

Banned
More than two-thirds of those surveyed oppose the presence of troops from the United States and its coalition partners and less than half, 44 percent, say their country is better off now than it was before the war, according to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners.
Interesting
 

unclehobart

New Member
At least they have the freedom to say they are bitter about how things stand instead of the good old days of Saddam when anyone who wasn't 100% in line got a midnight car ride to a dungeon.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
How odd, Flav. Yet again, you've forgotten to post your linkage. Odder still is that, while your quote mentions that 44% say their country is better off, it doesn't mention what the other 56% think. Those other options could include being worse off, no difference, or no opinion.

If you're trying to make a point, try actually making it, instead of slipping it in with assumption. We've got enough politicians trying that crap already, and they're better at it.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Professur said:
How odd, Flav. Yet again, you've forgotten to post your linkage. Odder still is that, while your quote mentions that 44% say their country is better off, it doesn't mention what the other 56% think. Those other options could include being worse off, no difference, or no opinion.

If you're trying to make a point, try actually making it, instead of slipping it in with assumption. We've got enough politicians trying that crap already, and they're better at it.

I caught that, too. He's really good at doing that, and coming by later with his links, but by that time, he has lost valuable credibility.

It's also strange that the mainstream press has avoided this issue for so damned long.
 

flavio

Banned
Professur said:
How odd, Flav. Yet again, you've forgotten to post your linkage.
How odd, all you have to do is read the article Gonz posted since that's the one I'm quoting. :lol2:


Yet again? Go ahead and show me any other examples...or would they just be examples where you didn't read the original article yet again?



If you're trying to make a point, try actually making it, instead of slipping it in with assumption. We've got enough politicians trying that crap already, and they're better at it.
My point was...
Interesting
...show me the assumption there.

Gato said:
I caught that, too. He's really good at doing that, and coming by later with his links, but by that time, he has lost valuable credibility.
You mean coming back and pointing out that you didn't read the original article once again don't you? At which point you lose credibility.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Flav, I make a habit of reading what's posted. Not of going looking through articles to see wether you're full of shit or not. If I'm quoting something from an article I'll either mention that it's already been linked or link it myself. If I quoting something someone else already quoted, I won't bother with a link.

With the volume of garbage all of you link to, I simply don't have time to dig through it all. If you're trying to make a point, I expect you to provide the relevant information. All of the relevant information. When you don't, expect to called on it. Don't expect me to go digging for your proof.
 

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
Professur said:
Flav, I make a habit of reading what's posted. Not of going looking through articles to see wether you're full of shit or not.

*waves hands in air, squirms in seat* ooh ooh teacher, mememememe lemme answer that one!
 

flavio

Banned
Professur said:
Flav, I make a habit of reading what's posted. Not of going looking through articles to see wether you're full of shit or not. If I'm quoting something from an article I'll either mention that it's already been linked or link it myself. If I quoting something someone else already quoted, I won't bother with a link.
If I'm quoting from the article in the 1st post and nothing else has been linked it should be obvious. If you can't be bothered to read the article in the first post then you have no reason to assume that it came from another source.

If you're trying to make a point, I expect you to provide the relevant information. All of the relevant information. When you don't, expect to called on it.
I'm calling you on the point you were trying to make with your "Yet again" comment. Why don't you provide all the relevant information so we can see whether you're full of shit or not.
 

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
just heard a blurb i found interesting. did not catch the source, it was a radio news report overheard from a cubicle i walked past.


death rate for u.s. soldiers thus far in iraq = 62.5 in 100,000
death rate in washington d.c. from violent crime = 87 in 100,000



a soldier walking the streets of baghdad is safer than you or i in our nation's capitol.
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
SouthernN'Proud said:
just heard a blurb i found interesting. did not catch the source, it was a radio news report overheard from a cubicle i walked past.


death rate for u.s. soldiers thus far in iraq = 62.5 in 100,000
death rate in washington d.c. from violent crime = 87 in 100,000



a soldier walking the streets of baghdad is safer than you or i in our nation's capitol.

I've been saying that for quite some time. There's a greater chance for me to get killed by some cell-phone-yakking, big-mac-chawing, radio-fiddling driver on the way home from work than taking a bullet in Baghdad. The reason why is because I know somebody there is going to try to kill me.
 

flavio

Banned
SouthernN'Proud said:
a soldier walking the streets of baghdad is safer than you or i in our nation's capitol.
So we should redeploy the soldiers to capitol where the real threat is?
 
The groups vowed to "continue our jihad (holy war) ... to establish an Islamic state ruled by the book (the Quran) and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad."


You have got to be shittin' me---Jihad really DOES mean holy war???? And straight from the camel's mouth, too. Wow. And they want to establish an Islamic state ruled by the Kuran???? No fucking way! I knew they are just a peaceful people who want to be left alone on their own little piece of sand and not bother anyone else. B-b-but Jihad conflicts with "peaceful religion." What's up with that?
 
Top