Americunts are now desperate and torturing Iraqis because Iraqis have refused to
submit and be enslaved by these foreign thugs who thought they were going to
rule Iraq and control Iraqi oil. Some of these idiots now claim they are in Iraq
to "help" and "liberate" Iraq by killing and torturing them.
Who asked the US to help Iraq? Not the Iraqis. They invaded Iraq after claiming
that Sadam has WMDs (a lie). Now these idiots forgot about WMDs and instead are
claiming that they are there to "help" and "liberate" Iraq. Go figure! The lie
about WMD has been changed to "liberating" and "helping" Iraqis by invading,
killing and torturing them. What kind of idiots are these people?
Long live Iraqi insurgents! Never submit to foreign invaders. Fight till you are
liberated. The whole world supports your fight for freedom from these stupid
Americunts.
.
|
|
| User: "Dan J.S." |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Americunts!!! |
05 May 2004 08:01:35 AM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:3dd39c644cdfdbe4e5e887a3f9259509@news.teranews.com...
Americunts are now desperate and torturing Iraqis because Iraqis have
refused to
submit and be enslaved by these foreign thugs who thought they were going
to
rule Iraq and control Iraqi oil. Some of these idiots now claim they are
in Iraq
to "help" and "liberate" Iraq by killing and torturing them.
Who asked the US to help Iraq? Not the Iraqis. They invaded Iraq after
claiming
that Sadam has WMDs (a lie). Now these idiots forgot about WMDs and
instead are
claiming that they are there to "help" and "liberate" Iraq. Go figure!
The lie
about WMD has been changed to "liberating" and "helping" Iraqis by
invading,
killing and torturing them. What kind of idiots are these people?
Long live Iraqi insurgents! Never submit to foreign invaders. Fight till
you are
liberated. The whole world supports your fight for freedom from these
stupid
Americunts.
Let the Iraqis get what they deserve. Ungrateful Iraqi ***** suckers!! *****
em all... Let's see the real abuse pictures so we can have another laugh!!
Iraqis are all powerful, yet they can have a woman strip them down and make
a naked pyramid! Ha ha!
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Americunts!!! |
05 May 2004 08:50:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 May 2004 08:01:35 -0500, "Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote:
Let the Iraqis get what they deserve. Ungrateful Iraqi ***** suckers!! *****
em all... Let's see the real abuse pictures so we can have another laugh!!
Here we go. Another stupid Americunt who thinks Iraqis are "ungrateful." HA!
Told you these people are stupid. As I said so many times, these stupid
Americunts think Iraqis should be "grateful" for being invaded and bombed.
Why do they think that? They invaded Iraq by justifying that Sadam had WMDs.
Bush was very clear about that: "Disarm or we will disarm you." (implying if
you do disarm we won't invade and "liberate" Iraq). But as soon as the war
began, they forgot why they are invading Iraq and started bragging they are
"liberating" Iraq. So they want Iraqis to be "grateful" for this forced
"liberation."
You invaded Iraq because you claimed Sadam's WMDs were a THREAT to YOU (TO YOU!
TO YOU! TO YOU!) You didn't do it because you love Iraqis. So why should the
Iraqis be grateful? Grateful for being invaded, bombed, occupied, killed and
tortured in a war that you said you must fight because WMDs in Iraq are a threat
TO YOU?
These people are stupid and easily ***** slapped!
AK <--- the king of ***** slapping idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan J.S." |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Americunts!!! |
05 May 2004 11:48:59 AM |
|
|
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:c369851940df877f4b204afa84751557@news.teranews.com...
On Wed, 5 May 2004 08:01:35 -0500, "Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote:
Let the Iraqis get what they deserve. Ungrateful Iraqi ***** suckers!!
*****
em all... Let's see the real abuse pictures so we can have another
laugh!!
Here we go. Another stupid Americunt who thinks Iraqis are "ungrateful."
HA!
Told you these people are stupid. As I said so many times, these stupid
Americunts think Iraqis should be "grateful" for being invaded and bombed.
Why do they think that? They invaded Iraq by justifying that Sadam had
WMDs.
Bush was very clear about that: "Disarm or we will disarm you." (implying
if
you do disarm we won't invade and "liberate" Iraq). But as soon as the war
began, they forgot why they are invading Iraq and started bragging they
are
"liberating" Iraq. So they want Iraqis to be "grateful" for this forced
"liberation."
You invaded Iraq because you claimed Sadam's WMDs were a THREAT to YOU (TO
YOU!
TO YOU! TO YOU!) You didn't do it because you love Iraqis. So why should
the
Iraqis be grateful? Grateful for being invaded, bombed, occupied, killed
and
tortured in a war that you said you must fight because WMDs in Iraq are a
threat
TO YOU?
These people are stupid and easily ***** slapped!
AK <--- the king of ***** slapping idiots.
We invaded them for fun, you stupid ***** sucker. Get that through your head.
We do not need to justify anything. Just accept the facts. I am glad this
issue burns you so much! Hope more news come out, and soon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Americunts!!! |
05 May 2004 05:51:26 PM |
|
|
"Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote in message
news:109i6ns8o138icc@news.supernews.com...
"AK" <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:c369851940df877f4b204afa84751557@news.teranews.com...
On Wed, 5 May 2004 08:01:35 -0500, "Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote:
Let the Iraqis get what they deserve. Ungrateful Iraqi ***** suckers!!
*****
em all... Let's see the real abuse pictures so we can have another
laugh!!
Here we go. Another stupid Americunt who thinks Iraqis are "ungrateful."
HA!
Told you these people are stupid. As I said so many times, these stupid
Americunts think Iraqis should be "grateful" for being invaded and
bombed.
Why do they think that? They invaded Iraq by justifying that Sadam had
WMDs.
Bush was very clear about that: "Disarm or we will disarm you."
(implying
if
you do disarm we won't invade and "liberate" Iraq). But as soon as the
war
began, they forgot why they are invading Iraq and started bragging they
are
"liberating" Iraq. So they want Iraqis to be "grateful" for this forced
"liberation."
You invaded Iraq because you claimed Sadam's WMDs were a THREAT to YOU
(TO
YOU!
TO YOU! TO YOU!) You didn't do it because you love Iraqis. So why should
the
Iraqis be grateful? Grateful for being invaded, bombed, occupied, killed
and
tortured in a war that you said you must fight because WMDs in Iraq are
a
threat
TO YOU?
These people are stupid and easily ***** slapped!
AK <--- the king of ***** slapping idiots.
We invaded them for fun, you stupid ***** sucker. Get that through your
head.
We do not need to justify anything. Just accept the facts. I am glad this
issue burns you so much! Hope more news come out, and soon.
Heil hitler, mein fuhrer
eric.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan J. S." |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Americunts!!! |
05 May 2004 05:46:19 PM |
|
|
We invaded them for fun, you stupid ***** sucker. Get that through
your head. We do not need to justify anything. Just accept the
facts. I am glad this issue burns you so much! Hope more news come
out, and soon.
Heil hitler, mein fuhrer
eric.
i was replying to that 12 year old kid called 'AK'. In a way his little mind
understands it!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Americunts!!! |
05 May 2004 03:01:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 May 2004 11:48:59 -0500, "Dan J.S." <me@hyperx.com> wrote:
We do not need to justify anything. Just accept the facts. I am glad this
issue burns you so much! Hope more news come out, and soon.
Nope, no issue burns me, especially not this one. I love it because it shows
what kind of criminals, hypocrites, nazis, barbarians are Americunts soldiers in
Iraq. Why would that burn me? It doesn't at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: WAR OVER!!!!!!!!! |
10 May 2004 04:32:53 AM |
|
|
The War is Lost
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 10 May 2004
We have traveled a long, dark, strange road since the attacks of
September 11. We have all suffered, we have all known fear and anger,
and sometimes hatred. Many of us have felt probably more than we are
willing to admit it at one time or another a desire for revenge, so
deep was the wound inflicted upon us during that wretched,
unforgettable Tuesday morning in September of 2001.
But we have come now to the end of a week so awful, so terrible, so
wrenching that the most basic moral fabric of that which we believe is
good and great the basic moral fabric of the United States of
America has been torn bitterly asunder.
We are awash in photographs of Iraqi men not terrorists, just
people lying in heaps on cold floors with leashes around their
necks. We are awash in photographs of men chained so remorselessly that
their backs are arched in agony, men forced to masturbate for cameras,
men forced to pretend to have sex with one another for cameras, men
forced to endure attacks from dogs, men with electrodes attached to
them as they stand, hooded, in fear of their lives.
The worst, amazingly, is yet to come. A new battery of photographs
and videotapes, as yet unreleased, awaits over the horizon of our
abused understanding. These photos and videos, also from the Abu Ghraib
prison, are reported to show U.S. soldiers gang raping an Iraqi woman,
U.S. soldiers beating an Iraqi man nearly to death, U.S. troops posing,
smirks affixed, with decomposing Iraqi bodies, and Iraqi troops under
U.S. command raping young boys.
George W. Bush would have us believe these horrors were restricted to
a sadistic few, and would have us believe these horrors happened only
in Abu Ghraib. Yet reports are surfacing now of similar treatment at
another U.S. detention center in Iraq called Camp Bucca. According to
these reports, Iraqi prisoners in Camp Bucca were beaten, humiliated,
hogtied, and had scorpions placed on their naked bodies.
In the eyes of the world, this is America today. It cannot be
dismissed as an anomaly because it went on and on and on in the Abu
Ghraib prison, and because now we hear of Camp Bucca. According to the
British press, there are some 30 other cases of torture and humiliation
under investigation. The Bush administration went out of its way to
cover up this disgrace, declaring secret the Army report on these
atrocities. That, pointedly, is against the rules and against the law.
You can¹t call something classified just because it is embarrassing and
disgusting. It was secret, but now it is out, and the whole world has
been shown the dark, scabrous underbelly of our definition of freedom.
The beginnings of actual political fallout began to find its way into
the White House last week. Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania,
the House Democrats¹ most vocal defense hawk, joined Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi to declare that the conflict is ³unwinnable.² Murtha, a
Vietnam veteran, rocked the Democratic caucus when he said at a
leader¹s luncheon Tuesday that the United States cannot win the war in
Iraq.
³Unwinnable.² Well, it only took about 14 months.
Also last week, calls for the resignation of Defense Secretary Don
Rumsfeld became strident. Pelosi accused Rumsfeld of being "in denial
about Iraq," and said U.S. soldiers "are suffering great casualties and
injuries, and American taxpayers are paying an enormous price" because
Rumsfeld "has done a poor job as secretary of defense." Representative
Charlie Rangel, a leading critic of the Iraq invasion, has filed
articles of impeachment against Rumsfeld.
So there¹s the heat. But let us consider the broader picture here in
the context of that one huge word: "Unwinnable." Why did we do this in
the first place? There have been several reasons offered over the last
16 months for why we needed to do this thing.
It started, for real, in January 2003 when George W. Bush said in his
State of the Union speech that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters
of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin,
mustard and VX, 30,000 munitions to deliver this stuff, and that Iraq
was seeking uranium from Niger to build nuclear bombs.
That reason has been scratched off the list because, as has been made
painfully clear now, there are no such weapons in Iraq. The Niger
claim, in particular, has caused massive embarrassment for America
because it was so farcical, and has led to a federal investigation of
this White House because two administration officials took revenge upon
Joseph Wilson¹s wife for Wilson¹¹s exposure of the lie.
Next on the list was September 11, and the oft-repeated accusation
that Saddam Hussein must have been at least partially responsible. That
one collapsed as well Bush himself had to come out and say Saddam
had nothing to do with it.
Two reasons down, so the third must be freedom and liberty for the
Iraqi people. Once again, however, facts interfere. America does not
want a democratic Iraq, because a democratic Iraq would quickly become
a Shi¹ite fundamentalist Iraq allied with the Shi¹ite fundamentalist
nation of Iran, a strategic situation nobody with a brain wants to see
come to pass. It has been made clear by Paul Bremer, the American
administrator of Iraq, that whatever the new Iraqi government comes to
look like, it will have no power to make any laws of any kind, it will
have no control over the security of Iraq, and it will have no power
over the foreign troops which occupy its soil. This is, perhaps, some
bizarre new definition of democracy not yet in the dictionary, but it
is not democracy by any currently accepted definition I have ever heard
of.
So...the reason to go to war because of weapons of mass destruction
is destroyed. The reason to go to war because of connections to
September 11 is destroyed. The reason to go to war in order to bring
freedom and democracy to Iraq is destroyed.
What is left? The one reason left has been unfailingly flapped around
by defenders of this administration and supporters of this war: Saddam
Hussein was a terrible, terrible man. He killed his own people. He
tortured his own people. The Iraqis are better off without him, and so
the war is justified.
And here, now, is the final excuse destroyed. We have killed more
than 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians in this invasion, and maimed
countless others. The photos from Abu Ghraib prison show that we, like
Saddam Hussein, torture and humiliate the Iraqi people. Worst of all,
we do this in the same prison Hussein used to do his torturing. The
"rape rooms," often touted by Bush as justification for the invasion,
are back. We are the killers now. We are the torturers now. We have
achieved a moral equivalence with the Butcher of Baghdad.
This war is lost. I mean not just the Iraq war, but George W. Bush's
ridiculous ³War on Terror² as a whole.
I say ridiculous because this ³War on Terror² was never, ever
something we were going to win. What began on September 11 with the
world wrapping us in its loving embrace has collapsed today in a
literal orgy of shame and disgrace. This happened, simply, because of
the complete failure of moral leadership at the highest levels.
We saw a prime example of this during Friday¹s farce of a Senate
hearing into the Abu Ghraib disaster which starred Don Rumsfeld. From
his bully pulpit spoke Senator Joe Lieberman, who parrots the worst of
Bush¹s war propaganda with unfailingly dreary regularity. Responding to
the issue of whether or not Bush and Rumsfeld should apologize for Abu
Ghraib, Lieberman stated that none of the terrorists had apologized for
September 11.
There it was, in a nutshell. There was the idea, oft promulgated by
the administration, that September 11 made any barbarism, any extreme,
any horror brought forth by the United States acceptable, and even
desirable. There was the institutionalization of revenge as a basis for
policy. Sure, Abu Ghraib was bad, Mr. Lieberman put forth. But
September 11 happened, so all bets are off.
Thus fails the ³War on Terror.² September 11 did not demand of us the
lowest common denominator, did not demand of us that we become that
which we despise and denounce. September 11 demanded that we be better,
greater, more righteous than those who brought death to us. September
11 demanded that we be better, and in doing so, we would show the world
that those who attacked us are far, far less than us. That would have
been victory, with nary a shot being fired.
Our leaders, however, took us in exactly the opposite direction.
Every reason to go to Iraq has failed to retain even a semblance of
credibility. Every bit of propaganda Osama bin Laden served up to the
Muslim world for why America should be attacked and destroyed has been
given credibility by what has taken place in Iraq. Victory in this ³War
on Terror,² a propaganda war from the beginning, has been given to the
September 11 attackers by the hand of George W. Bush, and by the hand
of those who enabled his incomprehensible blundering.
The war is lost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is the senior editor and lead writer for t r u t
h o u t. He is a New York Times and international bestselling author of
two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and
'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Americunts!!! |
05 May 2004 10:21:06 AM |
|
|
AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message news:<3dd39c644cdfdbe4e5e887a3f9259509@news.teranews.com>...
Americunts are now desperate and torturing Iraqis because Iraqis have refused to
submit and be enslaved by these foreign thugs who thought they were going to
rule Iraq and control Iraqi oil. Some of these idiots now claim they are in Iraq
to "help" and "liberate" Iraq by killing and torturing them.
Who asked the US to help Iraq? Not the Iraqis. They invaded Iraq after claiming
that Sadam has WMDs (a lie). Now these idiots forgot about WMDs and instead are
claiming that they are there to "help" and "liberate" Iraq. Go figure! The lie
about WMD has been changed to "liberating" and "helping" Iraqis by invading,
killing and torturing them. What kind of idiots are these people?
Long live Iraqi insurgents! Never submit to foreign invaders. Fight till you are
liberated. The whole world supports your fight for freedom from these stupid
Americunts.
They aren't really anti-war, you see. They are just on the other side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AK" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Americunts!!! |
05 May 2004 03:11:57 PM |
|
|
On 5 May 2004 08:21:06 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
They aren't really anti-war, you see. They are just on the other side.
Of course, *****! Who told you I am not on the side of justice and freedom but
on Americunt side instead? I openly admit I am on the side of Iraqis defending
their land from foreign invaders/looters and fighting from liberation from thugs
who thought they were going to rule Iraq and control their oil. An Iraqi
insurgent/soldier life is a thousands times more valuable than an Amerccunt
soldier who is fighting an illegal war justified by a lie (WMDs).
.
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Americunts!!! |
06 May 2004 05:27:26 PM |
|
|
AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message news:<1f3c95017a5bd87b25091f7eed7ba181@news.teranews.com>...
On 5 May 2004 08:21:06 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
They aren't really anti-war, you see. They are just on the other side.
Of course, *****! Who told you I am not on the side of justice and freedom but
on Americunt side instead? I openly admit I am on the side of Iraqis defending
their land from foreign invaders/looters and fighting from liberation from thugs
who thought they were going to rule Iraq and control their oil. An Iraqi
insurgent/soldier life is a thousands times more valuable than an Amerccunt
soldier who is fighting an illegal war justified by a lie (WMDs).
Well, now I know you're being insincere. You're really a Bushite out to
make the other side look bad. Well, it won't work, Mr. Republican; we
know now what you are. Another dirty tricks campaign, here, folks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
06 May 2004 09:32:36 PM |
|
|
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441, which
cease fire was conditional to the conditions of 687 to be lifted by the
coalition of the willing (called the allies of Kuwait in the resolution) for
Saddam refusing to abide by it (678 authorized force). The minute he did any of
the following, to give back Kuwaitis' POWs, to give back Kuwaiti's national
archives, to stop threatening Kuwaitis annexation again, and, fourth condition
he broke, article 32 of 687e (International terrorism), to give money for each
homicide bombers, he broke 4 clauses each of which automatically implied the
lifting of the cease fire, and that after he had a last chance to comply and
abide by it lest as 1441 these serious consequences he was threatened with many
times would be implemented. Of course he also lied and conceal WMD programs and
even didn't say a word about the anthrax until one day before the invasion
(after he likely shipped it to Syria, or, less likely, destroyed or hid it), but
Blix being a German, you couldn't expect him to call the council as he was
supposed to do to implement the resolution, they made too much money from
illegal arms and from stealing with eh oil for food program.
Thank heaven he only had a say as far as WMD were concerned according to 1441,
he had nothing to say about other breaches which called for implementation
without any further Security Council resolution, unlike the situation which Blix
would have kept the UN hostage if Saddam had only stuck to lying about his WMD.
The problem is that assholes like you, and like the US pseudo allies who turned
on the coalition keep perpetuating these lies. The UN even put an total
anti-semite in charge to top the sunday with a cherry. The guy perpetuates the
propaganda lies myths that it is the Jews who rule in Iraq. There is no such
thing. And to put such a total; loser in charge make the UN totally irrelevant
in the future. Whatever will happen the UN will always be impotent. Who will
trust any resolution when the Arabs can turn it around, and get assholes from
all over the world to kiss their ***** for lying about Saddam, and about the US.
Not to mention the incredible pack of weasels about Israel who would readily
blame them for killing some head terrorist. But that is another matter. The fact
is that the UN resolution still stands, and whoever destroys the UN wont, have
its way with what was unanimously signed. Maybe the future will be bleaker, but
it won't be the fault of those who did implement perfectly the UN resolutions
about Iraq or who supported those who did. It will be because of the other losers.
They can all kiss my ***** BTW.
J.
ShrikeBack a écrit:
AK <someoneNasty@hotmails.com> wrote in message news:<1f3c95017a5bd87b25091f7eed7ba181@news.teranews.com>...
On 5 May 2004 08:21:06 -0700, (ShrikeBack) wrote:
They aren't really anti-war, you see. They are just on the other side.
Of course, *****! Who told you I am not on the side of justice and freedom but
on Americunt side instead? I openly admit I am on the side of Iraqis defending
their land from foreign invaders/looters and fighting from liberation from thugs
who thought they were going to rule Iraq and control their oil. An Iraqi
insurgent/soldier life is a thousands times more valuable than an Amerccunt
soldier who is fighting an illegal war justified by a lie (WMDs).
Well, now I know you're being insincere. You're really a Bushite out to
make the other side look bad. Well, it won't work, Mr. Republican; we
know now what you are. Another dirty tricks campaign, here, folks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
07 May 2004 07:16:52 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
which
cease fire was conditional to the conditions of 687 to be lifted by the
coalition of the willing (called the allies of Kuwait in the resolution)
for
Saddam refusing to abide by it (678 authorized force). The minute he did
any of
the following, to give back Kuwaitis' POWs, to give back Kuwaiti's
national
archives, to stop threatening Kuwaitis annexation again, and, fourth
condition
he broke, article 32 of 687e (International terrorism), to give money for
each
homicide bombers, he broke 4 clauses each of which automatically implied
the
lifting of the cease fire, and that after he had a last chance to comply
and
abide by it lest as 1441 these serious consequences he was threatened with
many
times would be implemented. Of course he also lied and conceal WMD
programs and
even didn't say a word about the anthrax until one day before the invasion
(after he likely shipped it to Syria, or, less likely, destroyed or hid
it), but
Blix being a German,
Blix isn't German, you ignorant, impotent, senile old fool.
you couldn't expect him to call the council as he was
supposed to do to implement the resolution, they made too much money from
illegal arms and from stealing with eh oil for food program.
this hypothesis looks rather weak considering Blix isn't German.. try again,
you flaccid, hairy old loser.
Thank heaven he only had a say as far as WMD were concerned according to
1441,
he had nothing to say about other breaches which called for implementation
without any further Security Council resolution, unlike the situation
which Blix
would have kept the UN hostage if Saddam had only stuck to lying about his
WMD.
The problem is that assholes like you, and like the US pseudo allies who
turned
on the coalition keep perpetuating these lies. The UN even put an total
anti-semite in charge to top the sunday with a cherry. The guy perpetuates
the
propaganda lies myths that it is the Jews who rule in Iraq. There is no
such
thing. And to put such a total; loser in charge make the UN totally
irrelevant
in the future. Whatever will happen the UN will always be impotent. Who
will
trust any resolution when the Arabs can turn it around, and get assholes
from
all over the world to kiss their ***** for lying about Saddam, and about the
US.
Not to mention the incredible pack of weasels about Israel who would
readily
blame them for killing some head terrorist. But that is another matter.
The fact
is that the UN resolution still stands, and whoever destroys the UN wont,
have
its way with what was unanimously signed. Maybe the future will be
bleaker, but
it won't be the fault of those who did implement perfectly the UN
resolutions
about Iraq or who supported those who did. It will be because of the other
losers.
That reads like the ravings of a drugged badger. Are you insane?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
07 May 2004 07:43:16 PM |
|
|
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
But why am I repeating this to you, you have been told that, but as usual you
are like a little doggie who yaps over and over the same *****, it is no use
speaking to you, tw, you are an *****. No one who means anything can ever
speak with you, even when everything is painstakingly demonstrated to you bits
by bits, and you are debunked to the bone, you always keep repeating the same
***** over and over again, but with insults added, so as/until people stop
even reading your useless ***** posts. I am not the only one who ignore your
stupid redundancies, there are many other posters your harass daily on my NG;
you are like a little doggie who humps everyone who contradicts your idiocies
with facts on my NG. We all hope you leave us in peace. Why don't you go drown
yourself, of stick to lurking on alt.idiot.posters or some other NG where you
truly belong.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 08:54:26 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes and which would be acted upon by the UN and not the fuckin'
cowboys in the US. It was a UN resolution and hence was to be acted on
by the UN. Nobody said the seppo's could unilaterally enforce it...or
rather the brits and seppo's. Where's that resolution furball? Where's
the resolution that says that "we the rest of the world body, the UN,
hereby give the seppo's and the brits the right to invade Iraq and
take their oil, kill thousands of their citizens and torture and
humilate their people." On the other hand the UN have passed a
resolution condemning the occupation of Palestine by the Israeli's and
demanding that they pull back to the pre 1967 borders. I don't see
much whinging from you about that non-compliance? What's
wrong...what's good for the goose is not all that good for the gander?
Now get that yankie ***** outa your filthy mouth and look around you
furball.
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 01:49:51 PM |
|
|
bollogs a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes and which would be acted upon by the UN and not the fuckin'
cowboys in the US. It was a UN resolution and hence was to be acted on
BZZZZZZZZT!!! WRONG.
To be acted by the allies of Kuwait.
The cease fire (which force was authorized by the UN res 678) was between the
allies of Kuwait and Iraq. Breaches to the resolutions were serious consequences
many times repeated, which are the implementation of 687e, the lifting of the
cease fire between Iraq and the allies fo Kuwait (the coalition of the willing.
NOT another resolution. Not by the UN.
The lifting of the cease fire between Iraq and the allies fo Kuwait.
This is THE VERY RESOLUTIONS of the UN.
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm
Read them and weep.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 04:15:36 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<jZ9nc.14932044$Id.2471470@news.easynews.com>...
bollogs a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes and which would be acted upon by the UN and not the fuckin'
cowboys in the US. It was a UN resolution and hence was to be acted on
BZZZZZZZZT!!! WRONG.
To be acted by the allies of Kuwait.
The cease fire (which force was authorized by the UN res 678) was between the
allies of Kuwait and Iraq. Breaches to the resolutions were serious consequences
many times repeated, which are the implementation of 687e, the lifting of the
cease fire between Iraq and the allies fo Kuwait (the coalition of the willing.
NOT another resolution. Not by the UN.
The lifting of the cease fire between Iraq and the allies fo Kuwait.
This is THE VERY RESOLUTIONS of the UN.
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm
Read them and weep.
J.
The fuckin' UN said no to the yankies and brits furball. All the
resolutions in the fuckin' world are meaningless if the UN itself
doesn't act on them. What kind of a fuckin' idiot are you?
Oh and just because you have something on your ***** website does
not make it right!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
10 May 2004 02:17:43 AM |
|
|
bollogs a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<jZ9nc.14932044$Id.2471470@news.easynews.com>...
bollogs a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes and which would be acted upon by the UN and not the fuckin'
cowboys in the US. It was a UN resolution and hence was to be acted on
BZZZZZZZZT!!! WRONG.
To be acted by the allies of Kuwait.
The cease fire (which force was authorized by the UN res 678) was between the
allies of Kuwait and Iraq. Breaches to the resolutions were serious consequences
many times repeated, which are the implementation of 687e, the lifting of the
cease fire between Iraq and the allies fo Kuwait (the coalition of the willing.
NOT another resolution. Not by the UN.
The lifting of the cease fire between Iraq and the allies fo Kuwait.
This is THE VERY RESOLUTIONS of the UN.
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm
Read them and weep.
J.
The fuckin' UN said no to the yankies and brits furball. All the
resolutions in the fuckin' world are meaningless if the UN itself
doesn't act on them. What kind of a fuckin' idiot are you?
Oh and just because you have something on your ***** website does
not make it right!
WH
The UN are those who abide by the UN resolutions, not those who renege on them
after they have signed them.
Once the last chance resolution (1441) was signed unanimously, AS PER THE
WORDING of 687e and 1441 (and 678) it was a matter between Iraq and the allies
of Kuwait (also called the coalition of the willing) if Iraq breached any of the
clause of resolution 687e, unless he would have stuck to breach it with lies
about WMD. He didn't stick to that. He still stole from Kuwait, their very
national archives, intimidated it, threaten many times to invade them again and
virtually promised he would the minute he could, and violate other obligation to
Kuwait, namely didn't tell them anything about their Prisoners of War (and so
much more, but these are specific).
He also promoted international terrorism by paying homicide bombers, which he
was absolutely forbidden to do, all these crimes were specifically forbidden,
lest there would be the lifting of the cease fire.
Resolution 1441 was the last chance he had to abide by 687e signed by all the
security council. And he did all the above AFTER 1441. He was threatened with
the lifting of the cease fire many times before, as 1441 tells him he will get
this time, but until 1441, instead of acting on it, except with desert fox, the
UN made other resolutions. This was the last chance he had, lest the coalition
take the serious action. There is nothing else.
The only exception was WMD, and Blix had the obligation to call upon the UN to
implement the resolution. He didn't, even if Saddam didn't say a word about some
things, like nothing at all about the anthrax, until the last day before the
invasion. Of course he had programs, etc. But it doesn't matter, because he was
in breach, and there was no inspector to save him, it was outside Blix
jurisdiction. When he breached the resolution after 1441 in 4 other clauses than
WMD he screwed himself. And that The Russian China and France had made a
conjoint statement saying that they would have to go back to the SC if there was
a breach was to assume that Saddam would behave in the other clauses that
didn't, concern the WMD. Unfortunately for them he didn't.
There was only one thing to do, implement it. Or else the UN would behave been
irrelevant. That members didn't want to implement the resolution they signed
because the US led coalition was the allies of Kuwait, is not relevant to the
UN, UN members who supported the implementation of 1441, WERE THE UN, in this
case, not the losers who reneged on their signature.
They (commonly still called the weasels until they do) should make amend, never
those who were the ONLY relevant UN representatives and who took the
responsibility, the cost and the burden of keeping the UN relevant.
Sure if there is no amend, i will be very hard to solve any future problem, the
true pillars of the UN will not trust any of these, and will just let them get
what they deserve, by themselves. But the UN didn't become nothing, but will in
the future with that attitude.
As it is black on white that the only thing that was right on that was to
implement the lifting of the Cease fire. Sure they tried to get another
resolution, to soften the blow by making a regime change resolution instead of a
regime annihilation. But they were certainly not going to let the UN be
emasculated because the signatories were weasels who preferred to steal food for
oil and sell weapons.
The UN has to really make amend to those who did the right thing.
J.
P.S. Bravo, at least, this time you left the URL to the resolutions there,
Anyone can look at them and check this time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Le Mod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 09:57:28 AM |
|
|
bollogs wrote:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes and which would be acted upon by the UN and not the fuckin'
cowboys in the US. It was a UN resolution and hence was to be acted on
by the UN.
NO UN Assembly resolution has *any* force of law. You
are all blathering, but Jean is correct up to a point:-
"The war was totally justified" ...
In fact, it is not a new war, rather it is a
continuation of a war that began 1,382 years ago in Mecca.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 02:25:35 PM |
|
|
Le Mod Pol a e'crit:
bollogs wrote:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes and which would be acted upon by the UN and not the fuckin'
cowboys in the US. It was a UN resolution and hence was to be acted on
by the UN.
NO UN Assembly resolution has *any* force of law. You
P.S. BTW, forgot to address this part, you are here talking about General
Asembly resolutions. You are absolutely right about these. (Especially those
losers who make anti-semite resolutions. INDEED. Because they are totally
toothless, no one bothers fighting against them.)
But here we are speaking about Security Council Resolutions. NOT the same thing.
They are the ones that authorized force to the allies of Kuwait (678) (Operation
Desert Storm) against Iraq . Made a conditional cease-fire (687e) between the
two (Operation Desert Fox is some of the consequecnes), and gave a last chance
(1441) for Iraq to comply with it (Operation Iraqi Freedom resulted).
No General Assembly resolution had any say to stop that even if they tried.
J.
are all blathering, but Jean is correct up to a point:-
"The war was totally justified" ...
In fact, it is not a new war, rather it is a
continuation of a war that began 1,382 years ago in Mecca.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 02:00:48 PM |
|
|
Le Mod Pol a e'crit:
bollogs wrote:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes and which would be acted upon by the UN and not the fuckin'
cowboys in the US. It was a UN resolution and hence was to be acted on
by the UN.
NO UN Assembly resolution has *any* force of law. You
are all blathering, but Jean is correct up to a point:-
"The war was totally justified" ...
In fact, it is not a new war, rather it is a
continuation of a war that began 1,382 years ago in Mecca.
Well, I don't know if, and doubt that, Saddam invaded Kuwait because of a
disagreement about Allah by pretending they were some province just because both
kingdom were part of the ottoman Empire. Kuwait emirates dates back to before
Mohammed... I think he just wanted to steal their money. But if you mean in
their scriptures, yes, he was the aggressor, and Allah doesn't like
aggressors... But I think it started the day he attacked Iran and had to spend
so much it ruined totally his country. Another aggression BTW...
Who knows when it started, although I'd be curious to see why you say that, I
think the minute Saddam and his thugs attacked the previous regime in place to
take over maybe... the fact of the matter is that it was the implementation of
the UN resolution that made the invasion unavoidable (in fact, if the US had had
its ulterior resolution endorsed, they could have had a regime change, and not a
regime annihilation, which would have been easier to begin with, since they have
had to do that nonetheless 1-2 week-s ago, but France had decided to veto any
further resolution - so there was only one choice, to implement 1441, short of
which the UN would have became totally impotent and irrelevant).
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Le Mod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 03:33:17 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon wrote:
Le Mod Pol a e'crit:
bollogs wrote:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes and which would be acted upon by the UN and not the fuckin'
cowboys in the US. It was a UN resolution and hence was to be acted on
by the UN.
NO UN Assembly resolution has *any* force of law. You
are all blathering, but Jean is correct up to a point:-
"The war was totally justified" ...
In fact, it is not a new war, rather it is a
continuation of a war that began 1,382 years ago in Mecca.
Well, I don't know if, and doubt that,
Better check your history.
Saddam invaded Kuwait because of a
disagreement about Allah by pretending they were some province just because both
kingdom were part of the ottoman Empire.
Your history is pretty weak, whether ancient, medieval
or contemporary. Saddam invaded Kuwait because he had
slant drilled into Kuwait's oil fields and did not want
to pay for the oil he stole.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
10 May 2004 01:44:21 AM |
|
|
Le Mod Pol a e'crit:
Jean Guernon wrote:
Le Mod Pol a e'crit:
bollogs wrote:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes and which would be acted upon by the UN and not the fuckin'
cowboys in the US. It was a UN resolution and hence was to be acted on
by the UN.
NO UN Assembly resolution has *any* force of law. You
are all blathering, but Jean is correct up to a point:-
"The war was totally justified" ...
In fact, it is not a new war, rather it is a
continuation of a war that began 1,382 years ago in Mecca.
Well, I don't know if, and doubt that,
Better check your history.
Saddam invaded Kuwait because of a
disagreement about Allah
by pretending they were some province just because both
kingdom were part of the ottoman Empire.
Oups, this here is way too simplified, I don't know how I just summarized that
that way, this theological disagreement was merely the excuse that he gave to
invade Iran, whose war he initiated for material reasons in order to conquer
them, and the cost of the war that ensued for 10 years was partly financed by
money borrowed from Kuwait. The excuse he then gave afterwards not to pay them
back for the Iran-Iraq war WAS some dream about Kuwait being an ex-province.
Your history is pretty weak, whether ancient, medieval
or contemporary. Saddam invaded Kuwait because he had
slant drilled into Kuwait's oil fields and did not want
to pay for the oil he stole.
This is another excuse Saddam gave afterwards, but pretending KUWAIT did this TO
him. Not the other way around. But again, these are excuses, albeit they have
common oil reserves... The real reason was because he didn't trust Kuwait to
refinance him and just didn't want to bother with it, though tit was simpler
just to attack them because they were weak and he could make this stuff up to
justify it. It was a fatal error.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
10 May 2004 02:49:45 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<E2Wmc.14973750$Of.2498513@news.easynews.com>...
tw a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com...
The war was totally justified by the implementation of resolution 1441,
So why enforce that one but not .. oh I don't know resolution 242 for
example?
Ignoring this bit, Jeanne? How surprising. LOL.
Who has the authority to enforce UN resolutions? It wouldn't be the UN by
any chance?
The UN did sign 1441 unanimously and failure to comply to all of 687e would
result in the serious consequences that were many times reiterated.
Yes, but only the UN was authorised to implement those serious consequences.
But why am I repeating this to you
Because you are a fucking hariy fool, a racist and a liar.
<snip idiocy>
Now then, what nationality is Hans Blix again?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don W. McCollough" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
07 May 2004 04:28:32 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com>...
The war was totally justified
<snip>
Your arguments have been refuted countless times in this newsgroup. I
know your ***** helps you sleep at night, but why keep posting the
same ***** to Usenet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
07 May 2004 07:32:45 PM |
|
|
Don W. McCollough a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com>...
The war was totally justified
<snip>
Your arguments have been refuted countless times in this newsgroup. I
know your ***** helps you sleep at night, but why keep posting the
same ***** to Usenet?
My arguments have NEVER been refutesd here or anywhere, only in your braindead
mind maybe. Nowhere elsse than in your dreams.
My arguments are THE VERY RESOLUTIONS of the UN.
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm
Read them and weep, *****.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bollogs" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 10:25:27 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<NUVmc.14881122$Id.2462126@news.easynews.com>...
Don W. McCollough a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com>...
The war was totally justified
<snip>
Your arguments have been refuted countless times in this newsgroup. I
know your ***** helps you sleep at night, but why keep posting the
same ***** to Usenet?
My arguments have NEVER been refutesd here or anywhere, only in your braindead
mind maybe. Nowhere elsse than in your dreams.
My arguments are THE VERY RESOLUTIONS of the UN.
And the UN told the yanks and brits that they didn't have a mandate to
invade Iraq on their behalf...or have you forgotten that.
Oh and furball you don't use "arguements. You just parrot the same old
***** over and over again.
Now get that yankie ***** outa yer filthy mouth and wake up to the real
world!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 01:44:42 PM |
|
|
bollogs a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<NUVmc.14881122$Id.2462126@news.easynews.com>...
Don W. McCollough a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com>...
The war was totally justified
<snip>
Your arguments have been refuted countless times in this newsgroup. I
know your ***** helps you sleep at night, but why keep posting the
same ***** to Usenet?
My arguments have NEVER been refutesd here or anywhere, only in your braindead
mind maybe. Nowhere elsse than in your dreams.
My arguments are THE VERY RESOLUTIONS of the UN.
And the UN told the yanks and brits that they didn't have a mandate to
invade Iraq on their behalf...or have you forgotten that.
The UN didn't tell that, the ASSHOLES in the UN said that.
AND THEY WERE WRONG, the minute they signed 1441, it was a matter between Iraq
and the allies of Kuwait to implement the serious consequences of lifting the
cease fire if Iraq didn't comply fully with 687e, unless it was ONLY about some
lies concerning WMD.
So yes, whatever the ASSHOLES pretended before, they forgot to mention that if
Saddam didn't comply with other articles than WMD his goose was cooked.
The letter of the law was clear.
If they had some money deal going on with Saddam, either by stealing food and
medicine from its people or by selling him arms, that made them make a
declaration that didn't, include those eventuality to the world in their joint
declaration is their problem, no one else.
Saddam was going to get the serious consequences, the minute he threatened
Kuwait, or the minute he refused to give back the POWs (or news about their
assassination), or the minute he refused to give them their national aRCHIVES,
OR the minute he encouraged international terrorists by paying homicide bombers.
The UN tossers statement just barely covered lies about WMD, which were there
and it was the German ***** Blix' responsibility to go back to the UN to have
them lift the cease fire, IF, and ONLY IF, there had only been that breach to
the UN resolution.
With the four breach unrelated to WMD, it was not a matter that Blix had to
decide, it is clear in the 2 resolutions, it is the lifting of the cease fire
and solely a matter between the allies of Kuwait and Iraq.
Not the same thing, *****.
My arguments are THE VERY RESOLUTIONS of the UN.
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res1441.htm
http://www.michelnostradamus.org/Res687e.htm
Read them and weep, *****.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 05:51:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 08 May 2004 00:32:45 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Your arguments have been refuted countless times in this newsgroup. I
know your ***** helps you sleep at night, but why keep posting the
same ***** to Usenet?
My arguments have NEVER been refutesd here or anywhere, only in your braindead
mind maybe. Nowhere elsse than in your dreams.
J.
Hahahahaha, in your dreams furrball. Hahahahahaha
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 05:50:14 AM |
|
|
On 7 May 2004 02:28:32 -0700, (Don W. McCollough)
wrote:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com>...
The war was totally justified
<snip>
Your arguments have been refuted countless times in this newsgroup. I
know your ***** helps you sleep at night, but why keep posting the
same ***** to Usenet?
Because he is a rambling crack addicted FROG who dosen't know fantasy
from reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Le Mod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: Stupid Arabo-Euro-cunts!!! |
08 May 2004 07:41:44 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 7 May 2004 02:28:32 -0700, (Don W. McCollough)
wrote:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message news:<8zCmc.14825221$Id.2453399@news.easynews.com>...
The war was totally justified
<snip>
Your arguments have been refuted countless times in this newsgroup. I
know your ***** helps you sleep at night, but why keep posting the
same ***** to Usenet?
Because he is a rambling crack addicted FROG who dosen't know fantasy
from reality.
That libel probably applies more to McCollough and Zak
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
