Quote:
Originally posted by AcidMax
Why is it whenever someone provides you proof to counter your information its not good enough? I posted a large majority of information regarding Saddams link to Terrorism. Then I mention Aristide (yes I knew his name but didnt bother looking up the spelling before the first post) and I provide you information that the man was known for killing Haitians its still not good enough for you.
Does it matter where I get the information from? Does my information become less valid if its the #1 result on google? I guess if thats true many of us in the porn industry wouldn't make any sales being in the #1 slot on google for a search term.
Funny how you are interestingly silent on the Saddam links to Terrorism.
|
You're information is not good enough because you're getting it from a US influenced editorial page that I've read a long time about. I know all about the militant rebels and their claims, thank you. When you back comments up with more than rhetoric, people may start taking you seriously.
Does it matter where you get your information from? Yes, especially when it's wrong.
Based on your comments in this thread, I'd speculate that I've probably read more about Haiti then you've actually read about everything combined in your life, Fox and CNN tickers not included. Smart people find out all the information they can about something and then form and opinion, morons search google for the first biased editorial they can find that agrees with them and then talk about it like it somehow makes them right. You have no clue about Haiti, and you're proving it more with every post. I visit the Dominican and Cuba each once a year, and I've been reading about the culture and politics of the region for years. Do you have any idea who Yves Isidor is? You probably should have at least SOME idea before you start taking his word as fact on world issues.
Quote:
Originally posted by AcidMax
Funny how you are interestingly silent on the Saddam links to Terrorism.
|
Has anyone every doubted that Iraq has support terrorism in the past? You're posting shit most people have known for years. The questions are a) the lies about his connection to Osama, and b) the lies about WMD. Iraq was invaded because it was an imminent threat, remember? Not some vague terrorist sponsoring state.
If you're going to invade every country that has sponsored terrorism over the years, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better then 1 a year. Start with yourselves, after all Reagan funded and trained Bin Laden. The Spanish people really owe you one for that.