You and your f*** buddy FutureGM keep bringing this up. Do you not realize that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when we were attacked on 9/11? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when our embassies were bombed? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the WTC was bombed for the first time?

 

So sorry to have to break this to you, but pulling out will do nothing for our relations or our security.

 

I believe they said thousands not ten thousands. Besides the point US Troop levels at the time of the USS Cole attack

 

 

 

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/988026.stm

 

Common sense would also tell me troop level did not decrease between the USS Cole attacks and 9/11. Do you have any proof of troop level being as you said it is? Just because you can make declarative statements on a message board doesn't make what you say true.

you know what ive stated my opinion which is an AMERICAN freedom, Accord....differing opinions make this country what it is....and i have prefaced my comments with the words taht it probably wont happen, but all you do is call me naive...i understand your point and i hope you understand mine even if it is overly optomistic....you say that muslims are fed propaganda about us....while that maybe true we dont help that image by being in a waar with them and torturing prisoners...and one more thing the US does help in foreign problems but the last time i checked africans re dying of aids and starvation everyday, the worlds oceans are fished out, genocides.....im done if you haven t gotten my point yet then you never will

You and your f*** buddy FutureGM keep bringing this up. Do you not realize that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when we were attacked on 9/11? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when our embassies were bombed? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the WTC was bombed for the first time?

 

So sorry to have to break this to you, but pulling out will do nothing for our relations or our security.

 

I believe they said thousands not ten thousands. Besides the point US Troop levels at the time of the USS Cole attack

 

 

 

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/988026.stm

 

Common sense would also tell me troop level did not decrease between the USS Cole attacks and 9/11. Do you have any proof of troop level being as you said it is? Just because you can make declarative statements on a message board doesn't make what you say true.

All of those countries are our allies who allow us to be there. Your argument is incredibly lame.

You and your f*** buddy FutureGM keep bringing this up. Do you not realize that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when we were attacked on 9/11? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when our embassies were bombed? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the WTC was bombed for the first time?

 

So sorry to have to break this to you, but pulling out will do nothing for our relations or our security.

 

I believe they said thousands not ten thousands. Besides the point US Troop levels at the time of the USS Cole attack

 

 

 

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/988026.stm

 

Common sense would also tell me troop level did not decrease between the USS Cole attacks and 9/11. Do you have any proof of troop level being as you said it is? Just because you can make declarative statements on a message board doesn't make what you say true.

All of those countries are our allies who allow us to be there. Your argument is incredibly lame.

 

You are the one who made the claim:

 

[Do you not realize] that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked?

 

So back it up. Oh you can't. Lame. Instead of acting like a dumbass who knows nothing and just makes blanket statements and doesn't know facts, how about you actually go spend time to learn things instead of just shooting generalities and lies from the hip.

You and your f*** buddy FutureGM keep bringing this up. Do you not realize that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when we were attacked on 9/11? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when our embassies were bombed? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the WTC was bombed for the first time?

 

So sorry to have to break this to you, but pulling out will do nothing for our relations or our security.

 

I believe they said thousands not ten thousands. Besides the point US Troop levels at the time of the USS Cole attack

 

 

 

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/988026.stm

 

Common sense would also tell me troop level did not decrease between the USS Cole attacks and 9/11. Do you have any proof of troop level being as you said it is? Just because you can make declarative statements on a message board doesn't make what you say true.

All of those countries are our allies who allow us to be there. Your argument is incredibly lame.

 

You are the one who made the claim:

 

We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked?

 

So back it up. Oh you can't. Lame. Instead of being a dumbass who knows nothing and just makes blanket statements and doesn't know facts, how about you actual go spend time to learn things before just shooting generalities and lies from the hip?

 

 

You knew EXACTLY what I was talking about, an invasion force with tens of thousands of troops like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not a handful of troops scattered about our bases in countries who are our allies.

 

And secondly, the countries are our allies and allow us to be there, yet somehow it's AMERICA'S fault we were attacked by terrorists all those times. WTF is wrong with you and the blame America first crowd? You're actually arguing with me that we were attacked because we had troops in our allied countries in the middle east. Do you know how absurd the notion of that is?

 

You are a sick piece of crap if you think it's America's fault we were attacked all those times by Al Qaeda over the past decade.

 

Like I said, you have a lame argument and anyone not named Jimmy or FutureGM will agree.

You and your f*** buddy FutureGM keep bringing this up. Do you not realize that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when we were attacked on 9/11? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when our embassies were bombed? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the WTC was bombed for the first time?

 

So sorry to have to break this to you, but pulling out will do nothing for our relations or our security.

 

I believe they said thousands not ten thousands. Besides the point US Troop levels at the time of the USS Cole attack

 

 

 

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/988026.stm

 

Common sense would also tell me troop level did not decrease between the USS Cole attacks and 9/11. Do you have any proof of troop level being as you said it is? Just because you can make declarative statements on a message board doesn't make what you say true.

All of those countries are our allies who allow us to be there. Your argument is incredibly lame.

 

You are the one who made the claim:

 

We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked?

 

So back it up. Oh you can't. Lame. Instead of being a dumbass who knows nothing and just makes blanket statements and doesn't know facts, how about you actual go spend time to learn things before just shooting generalities and lies from the hip?

 

 

You knew what I was f***ing talking about, an invasion force with tens of thousands of troops like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not a handful of troops scattered about our bases in countries who are our allies.

 

And secondly, the countries are our allies and allow us to be there, yet somehow it's AMERICA'S fault we were attacked by terrorists all those times. WTF is wrong with you and the blame America first crowd? You're actually arguing with me that we were attacked because we had troops in our allied countries in the middle east. Do you know how absurd the notion of that is?

 

You are a sick piece of crap if you think it's America's fault we were attacked all those times by Al Qaeda over the past decade.

 

Like I said, you have a lame argument and anyone not named Jimmy or FutureGM will agree.

 

Who said any of those things? All I said was you are wrong in saying that there was no troops in the middle east at the times we were attacked. Should I have let you have lied? I even asked you and gave you a chance to retort with evidence I may have missed, but no you get angry that you were caught in a lie.

 

There was not a handful of troops in the middle east there was over 14,000. And you were trying to say there was not even thousands.

 

I like how after you are proven wrong all you can do is change the subject and just attack viciously instead of actually trying to prove what you said. No you just make up lies and deductions about someone just because they try to correct and clarify a lie that you made and tried to pass off.

 

From this thread I can deduce a few things. You are an embarressment to those who can think, who can do research, and most importantly to yourself.

I love how threads are mysteriously locked the SECOND after someone makes an insulting post towards me making it impossible for me to reply.

 

Re: http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...67206&st=40

 

Who said any of those things? All I said was you are wrong in saying that there was no troops in the middle east at the times we were attacked. Should I have let you have lied? I even asked you and gave you a chance to retort with evidence I may have missed, but no you get angry that you were caught in a lie.

 

There was not a handful of troops in the middle east there was over 14,000. And you were trying to say there was not even thousands.

 

I like how after you are proven wrong all you can do is change the subject and just attack viciously instead of actually trying to prove what you said. No you just make up lies and deductions about someone just because they try to correct and clarify a lie that you made and tried to pass off.

 

From this thread I can deduce a few things. You are an embarressment to those who can think, who can do research, and most importantly to yourself.

I never said there were no troops in the middle east when we were attacked, now you're just twisting my words in your favor.

 

Yes, i'm sure having a handful of troops in Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bahrain, etc. all of whom are our biggest allies in the region, who want us there and need us there, are the reason the WTC was bombed for the first time, the reason the USS Cole was bombed, the reason our embassies were bombed, the reason 3,000 American's were killed in 9/11, the list goes on.

 

WTF goes through your little head to come to the conclusion that we were attacked because we have troops in countries who are our ALLIES?

 

I was referring to an invasion force with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of troops like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, not a handful scattered over a half dozen countries who are our allies. You knew exactly what I was talking about and you knew that you were dead wrong, so like so many thickheaded others before you, when you're backed into a corner with no reasonable argument, you play the semantics game.

I never said there were no troops in the middle east when we were attacked, now you're just twisting my words in your favor.

 

 

[Do you not realize that w]e didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked?

 

Did you say this or not? kthnxbi

I never said there were no troops in the middle east when we were attacked, now you're just twisting my words in your favor.

 

 

[Do you not realize that w]e didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked?

 

Did you say this or not? kthnxbi

 

Tens of thousands - as in a massive invasion force like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that's what I was referring to, not a handful of computer specialists in some tent in Qatar.

I never said there were no troops in the middle east when we were attacked, now you're just twisting my words in your favor.

 

 

[Do you not realize that w]e didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked?

 

Did you say this or not? kthnxbi

 

Tens of thousands - as in a massive invasion force like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that's what I was referring to, not a handful of computer specialists in some tent in Qatar.

So you have proof that all the troops there were just a handful of computer specialists hiding in some tent in Qatar? No? Does this mean you are going on a rant again because you can't clarify? :lol :lol You are such a joke. One would think if you meant "massive invasion force" one would say it. But then again that would be me reading into your now revisionist history of what you meant, and I wouldn't want to make you think.

I never said there were no troops in the middle east when we were attacked, now you're just twisting my words in your favor.

 

 

[Do you not realize that w]e didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked?

 

Did you say this or not? kthnxbi

 

Tens of thousands - as in a massive invasion force like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that's what I was referring to, not a handful of computer specialists in some tent in Qatar.

So you have proof that all the troops there were just a handful of computer specialists hiding in some tent in Qatar? No? Does this mean you are going on a rant again because you can't clarify? :lol :lol You are such a joke. One would think if you meant "massive invasion force" one would say it. But then again that would be me reading into your now revisionist history of what you meant, and I wouldn't want to make you think.

 

Gee, when someone says TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS, logic would not make one automatically think: "900 troops in the UAE!"

 

Instead of addressing the topic at hand by having an intelligent debate, you start playing games and arguing semantics resulting in the thread being locked. The thread was fine until you started playing word games over absolutely nothing at all.

 

You and everyone else reading the thread knew exactly what I was saying and referring to - it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. The fact of the matter is you're just trying to play games rather than address the topic at hand.

 

Moral of the story? Quit being a little bitch.

I never said there were no troops in the middle east when we were attacked, now you're just twisting my words in your favor.

 

 

[Do you not realize that w]e didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked?

 

Did you say this or not? kthnxbi

 

Tens of thousands - as in a massive invasion force like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that's what I was referring to, not a handful of computer specialists in some tent in Qatar.

So you have proof that all the troops there were just a handful of computer specialists hiding in some tent in Qatar? No? Does this mean you are going on a rant again because you can't clarify? :lol :lol You are such a joke. One would think if you meant "massive invasion force" one would say it. But then again that would be me reading into your now revisionist history of what you meant, and I wouldn't want to make you think.

 

Gee, when someone says TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS, logic would not make one automatically think: "900 troops in the UAE!"

 

Instead of addressing the topic at hand by having an intelligent debate, you start playing games and arguing semantics resulting in the thread being locked. The thread was fine until you started playing word games over absolutely nothing at all.

 

You and everyone else reading the thread knew exactly what I was saying and referring to - it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. The fact of the matter is you're just trying to play games rather than address the topic at hand. Quit being a little bitch.

 

So you went the way of the rant. I commend you for staying the course and not giving into the pressure of logic. And as it comes to logic, you are the only one in the thread who ever said anything about TENS of Thousands of troops, as I pointed out in my initial post about those you were replying to, they mentioned an American presence of thousands of troops in the Middle-East. And somewhere along the line your logic tells you what they meant by that was an invasion force of tens of thousands of troops, not just in the Middle-East, but specifically inside non-ally countries. How you made that leap only your false logic could explain. So how should we know what you are referring to or replying to when no one made such claims?

 

 

And as far as intelligent debate you haven't shown proof of anything I asked you of, most recently your claim of America's presence in the Middle East at the time of the USS Cole attack being nothing but a handful of computer specialists inside a tent in Qatar.

 

If you don't want people to qibble over your semantics perhaps you should be more clear and say what you mean and not revise the meaning of what you said later on because you were proven wrong. Just some advice.

 

PS: If you thought I was wrong about mis-quoting you, in your first response to me could have simply been, "what I meant was.... and you misunderstood me" but no you just called me "lame" and later on decided I misunderstood you.

Sigh.

 

This place would be much better if PhishPhan had never come back again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Sigh.

 

This place would be much better if PhishPhan had never come back again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

 

Sdrawkcab = PhishPhan?

Very astute of you, mon capitaine.

Very astute of you, mon capitaine.

 

What can I say :thumbup .

From February 2005

 

 

 

Superhero thugs captured on CCTV

CCTV footage of the suspects dressed as superheroes

 

The three wanted men were dressed as comic book heroes

 

Police have released CCTV footage of three men they are still trying to trace following an attack which left a 23-year-old man with facial injuries.

 

The victim was assaulted by a man dressed as Superman after a dispute over a shortage of food at a burger van at about 0030 GMT on Christmas Day.

 

The assailant was with two other men, one dressed as Batman and the other wearing a Spiderman outfit.

 

The assault happened in Station Road East, Canterbury.

 

Officers are appealing for anyone with information to come forward.

 

Let's see if this updated system can stop them.

Sigh.

 

This place would be much better if PhishPhan had never come back again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

 

Come on dude. You can't seriously read that debate and consider sdrawkcab as being the problem. For God's sake, Accord's reaction to an isolationist argument is to call people f*** buddies and spew rhetoric about 9-11 and invasions.

Accord is just as guilty for indulging him.

 

But Phishphan should learn to just move on already. It's quite sickening.

Sigh.

 

This place would be much better if PhishPhan had never come back again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

 

Come on dude. You can't seriously read that debate and consider sdrawkcab as being the problem. For God's sake, Accord's reaction to an isolationist argument is to call people f*** buddies and spew rhetoric about 9-11 and invasions.

It's sad when someone makes a good point and you have no retort, so you just write it off as rhetoric when it's really anything but that.

Blanket statements made out of emotion and anger=rhetoric, not good points.