• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Quiz for PDFAngus and TexasBred-Proof they are morons

A

Anonymous

Guest
You two lads seem to be very well informed.

so, where did the Anthrax come from that was sent all over the country with the muslim letters?
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
shaumei said:
You two lads seem to be very well informed.

so, where did the Anthrax come from that was sent all over the country with the muslim letters?

I have no idea but I do have a feeling that you're going to tell me...right down to the address of the lab. The gospel according to ShamWow
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
shaumei said:
You two lads seem to be very well informed.

so, where did the Anthrax come from that was sent all over the country with the muslim letters?

I have no idea but I do have a feeling that you're going to tell me...right down to the address of the lab. The gospel according to ShamWow

well, if I am so wrong about 9/11, you should know this answer. I know steve knows as some of his coworkers helped get it out of its location. try to take a guess..you went to aggie land so you should be able to guess....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Fort Dietrich. And I suppose that Ivins was working directly for Bush and Cheney, correct?

Is that why they forced him to commit suicide?

interesting...Ft. Dietrich. we have a winner. the us military base is where the anthrax came from. you sound like a crazy there hypo...but, you cannot change the facts can you as it is the Ames strain.....and that is guaranteed. a messy job by the cia on this one...dumbasses is what they really are but they knew that most people in america are fluoride brain dead morons....just dumber than them...but not much....as all of us with some brains left figured it out fairly quick...

now, you still think that the other parts of 9/11 were like the govt said? i mean, where is ole Bin Laden...bush said he was wanted dead or alive...he did get hussein but he needed him as hussein had the oil...but, bin laden family are the bush family business partners...

mccain went on david letterman show and blamed the anthrax on iraq prior to the invasion...never retracted...on and on...but you idiots still believe these liars... unbelievable.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
shaumei said:
hypocritexposer said:
Fort Dietrich. And I suppose that Ivins was working directly for Bush and Cheney, correct?

Is that why they forced him to commit suicide?

interesting...Ft. Dietrich. we have a winner. the us military base is where the anthrax came from. you sound like a crazy there hypo...but, you cannot change the facts can you as it is the Ames strain.....and that is guaranteed. a messy job by the cia on this one...dumbasses is what they really are but they knew that most people in america are fluoride brain dead morons....just dumber than them...but not much....as all of us with some brains left figured it out fairly quick...

now, you still think that the other parts of 9/11 were like the govt said? i mean, where is ole Bin Laden...bush said he was wanted dead or alive...he did get hussein but he needed him as hussein had the oil...but, bin laden family are the bush family business partners...

mccain went on david letterman show and blamed the anthrax on iraq prior to the invasion...never retracted...on and on...but you idiots still believe these liars... unbelievable.

The anthrax was stolen from the lab. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last.

McCain did not say the anthrax came from Iraq.

MCCAIN: I think we’re doing fine …. I think we’ll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.

LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?

MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that’s when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.


By the time of the Iraq invasion, it was already known where the anthrax came from and it was the Government/FBI that released the details.

It is only because of,"these liars", that you know where the anthrax came from. Are you sure it came from Fort Dietrich?, or are you just believing "those liars" again. :lol: :lol:



:roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Here is mccain linking anthrax to iraq...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMiDXoYJbN4
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
shaumei said:
Here is mccain linking anthrax to iraq...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMiDXoYJbN4

That's what I posted. He clearly states he does not know, but there were some indications. but once it was known it came from Ft. Dietrich, that information was released.

You're not telling us anything that was not in the news, shamoo.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Interesting how McCain's comments on Letterman morphed into "McCain went on Letterman and blamed the anthrax on Iraq".

If anyone has the energy to check Shamu's "facts", they'll find that most (if not all of them) fit into the above category.

The man's a loon.
 

jodywy

Well-known member
mn_common_loon5.jpg
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Interesting how McCain's comments on Letterman morphed into "McCain went on Letterman and blamed the anthrax on Iraq".

If anyone has the energy to check Shamu's "facts", they'll find that most (if not all of them) fit into the above category.

The man's a loon.

whitewing, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hd6UuzkUSU


KATIE COURIC: On Iraq, books have been written, as you know, many, many books; documentaries have been made about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war, and memos from that time do suggest that officials knew there was a small chance of actually finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, wait a second, what?

COURIC: (Chuckles.) There are -- there are some things that seem to suggest that in the buildup to the actual war that there was some doubt about that, wouldn't you say --

RICE: No. (Laughter.)

COURIC: Well --

RICE: Actually, I don't agree with that premise at all.

COURIC: You don't?

RICE: No.

COURIC: Even with -- when Tony Blair met with the president in Washington --

RICE: Well, you always -- are you 100 percent sure when you're dealing with an opaque, secretive country in which there have been no inspections for years? No, you're not 100 percent sure. But the preponderance of intelligence analysis -- the preponderance of intelligence analysis from around the world was that he had had weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had used weapons of mass destruction. That was not a theoretical proposition.

COURIC: Right. That's correct.

RICE: He'd used them --

COURIC: Against the Kurds.

RICE: Against the Kurds, against the Shia and against the Iranians. So he'd used them several times. And the preponderance of intelligence was that he was reconstituting or had actually, in the intelligence estimate, reconstituted his biological and chemical capabilities.
There was some debate about how far he had gotten on the nuclear front, some saying that with foreign help it could be a year; others saying it would be several years.

So no, it's simply not the case that there was, if you're in a position of decision-making, evidence to say that it was likely that he did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Now, what we found is that he was indeed breaking out of the constraints that had been put there -- we all know the scandal of oil-for-food -- that he was not as far along in that reconstitution as the intelligence had suggested. But the idea that somehow Saddam Hussein was not pursuing or was never going to pursue weapons of mass destruction, I think, is as misplaced as an argument that he had fully reconstituted.

COURIC: Well, if there weren't, ultimately, weapons of mass destruction found, what was then the rationale for war? Without that, is there another rationale other than the world is better off without Saddam Hussein?

RICE: Well, that's a pretty good rationale. (Laughter.) But let me -- let me go back to the premise, the question, in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, what was the -- it's true that you can only -- that what you know today can affect what you know and do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday.

So the premise that somehow, because weapons of mass destruction were not found in stockpiles, the rationale for the war was flawed leaves out the fact that at the time that we decided to go to war, we thought there were weapons of mass destruction. So let's stipulate that.

Now, we didn't worry about weapons of mass destruction particularly in the hands of Russians. The Russians had the hundred thousand -- a hundred times the weapons capability of Saddam Hussein. The problem was that Saddam Hussein had taken the world to war in really destructive wars twice, Iran and the Gulf War in '91; dragged us into conflict again in '98, as President Clinton had responded to the problem there; violated repeatedly Security Council resolutions. The efforts that we were making to keep him in his box, whether it was oil-for-food or the -- or trying to keep his air forces on the ground through flying no-fly zones -- he was shooting at our aircraft every day, he still refused to acknowledge that Kuwait was an independent country, and so on and so on.

This was the most dangerous tyrant in the middle of the Middle East, and he had repeatedly flaunted (sic) the efforts of the international community to control him after '91. And so I think there is an argument that in those circumstances, getting Saddam -- getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a very good thing.

COURIC: So absent of the presence -- or if you had known at the time that Iraq wasn't as far along with its weapons program as it ultimately turned out to be, would all of those other things you mentioned provide rationale for the war?

RICE: Katie, I'm going to repeat: What you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not

COURIC: No, but just put yourself back there --

RICE: I did -- I can't -- I can't --

COURIC: I mean, you're saying that that seemed like a good rationale. Do you think it is?

RICE: I can't speculate on what I would have thought if I had known. I think it's not a fruitful exercise. We knew what we knew, and we made the decisions based on that intelligence and that knowledge.

Now I still believe that even in the absence of finding weapons of mass destruction, the world and the Middle East are much better places without Saddam Hussein. And you always can know what happened as a result of what you did. What you can't know is what would have happened had you not done it.

The Iraq that we're talking about today, our debate about Iraq today -- our concerns about Iraq today are, of course, about continuing violence. But the conversation is whether Shias, Sunnis, Kurds can within their new democratic institutions form the first multi-confessional democracy in the Arab world. That's a really interesting discussion, and it's different than a discussion that we might have been having about whether or not the nuclear competition between Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq is a greater danger than having taken Saddam Hussein out.

COURIC: Do you --

RICE: So I actually think that might have been where we were.

COURIC: Do you think that democracy will hold in Iraq?

RICE: I do. The Iraqis are a tough people, and they're not easy. But I do think that they've got a chance in these new institutions to find a way to resolve their differences without somebody having to oppress somebody else, which has been the whole history of Iraq and in fact the whole history of the Middle East.

It will take some time. The first couple of outcomes may not, in fact, be very pretty to watch. But history has a long arc, and I think they've got a pretty good chance.


At this point in time, Iraq is profiting off their oil sales by about $10,000/per citizen, without a tyrant stealing the income, from the citizens.

Is that a good, or bad thing? Was saddam stealing more or less, from the citizens than the "western" oil companies are?


I'm not even sure that Alberta makes that much per capita. I'd have to research it a bit more.

Shamoo? In comparison, does Iraq or Alberta, profit more from their oil sales?

Just a side note, but shamoo, do you believe in redistribution of wealth?

and hey, just a request: but if we ever have a tyrant that is killing people in the 100 of thousands range, and stealing our oil income, in Alberta, would someone please notify the "western oil companies" to order the US military off their asses, to come save us? We'll even let them "steal" a bit, just to give us our freedom back. Thanks.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
shaumei said:
Whitewing said:
Interesting how McCain's comments on Letterman morphed into "McCain went on Letterman and blamed the anthrax on Iraq".

If anyone has the energy to check Shamu's "facts", they'll find that most (if not all of them) fit into the above category.

The man's a loon.

whitewing, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

Who said it did have something to do with 9/11?

Iraq was a festering wound that Bush, virtually all US congressmen and senators, and virtually all western intelligence services believed still possessed WMD's and feared that they could easily fall into the hands of the likes of al Qaeda.....either by direct contact with the Iraqis or via the chaos and corruption that reigned in the country at the time.

In a post 9/11 world it made sense to take a serious look at finally cleaning up that mess.

The fact that it turned into a bigger mess after the invasion has nothing to do with the logic of going in in the first place.

And you're still a loon.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
shaumei said:
Whitewing said:
Interesting how McCain's comments on Letterman morphed into "McCain went on Letterman and blamed the anthrax on Iraq".

If anyone has the energy to check Shamu's "facts", they'll find that most (if not all of them) fit into the above category.

The man's a loon.

whitewing, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

Who said it did have something to do with 9/11?

Iraq was a festering wound that Bush, virtually all US congressmen and senators, and virtually all western intelligence services believed still possessed WMD's and feared that they could easily fall into the hands of the likes of al Qaeda.....either by direct contact with the Iraqis or via the chaos and corruption that reigned in the country at the time.

In a post 9/11 world it made sense to take a serious look at finally cleaning up that mess.

The fact that it turned into a bigger mess after the invasion has nothing to do with the logic of going in in the first place.

And you're still a loon.

wrong again....there were problems in korea too but we did not invade them...why not?

whitewing, you will never accept the fact that iraq has oil and we took it...not the american people that is but the elite class that own the corporations, they took it...

iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 BUT THE TIED THEM TOGETHER TRYING TO SAY THEY HAD AL QUEDA THERE AND WERE HELPING THEM...LIES...


WMD'S WERE ALL LIES...

WE PROVIDED THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS TO MURDER THE KURDS 22 YEARS AGO...ON AND ON.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
WMD'S WERE ALL LIES...

WE PROVIDED THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS...............


Uhhhh, you do see the incongruency of the above comment, don't you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
WMD'S WERE ALL LIES...

WE PROVIDED THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS...............


Uhhhh, you do see the incongruency of the above comment, don't you?

yes, but that was in 1988 or so...he had no ongoing chemical weapon program and we knew it. no wmd's were found either...bush admitted as much...he joked about it....thought it was funny...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Just so I can follow your logic here Shamu, when Bush says something you don't like, he's lying and can't be trusted. But when Bush says something you agree with, he's telling the truth. Does that sum it up?

Appears to be the same logic you use when evaluating facts about your conspiracy theories.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Just so I can follow your logic here Shamu, when Bush says something you don't like, he's lying and can't be trusted. But when Bush says something you agree with, he's telling the truth. Does that sum it up?

Appears to be the same logic you use when evaluating facts about your conspiracy theories.

Bush admitted there were no WMD's even though he lied saying they were there prior to us bombing and murdering the iraqi people for their oil.

bush is a moron. he says things he should not say all of the time. that is why he does not do interviews unless he is promoting a book and on a neocon's show like hannity.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
shaumei said:
Whitewing said:
Just so I can follow your logic here Shamu, when Bush says something you don't like, he's lying and can't be trusted. But when Bush says something you agree with, he's telling the truth. Does that sum it up?

Appears to be the same logic you use when evaluating facts about your conspiracy theories.

Bush admitted there were no WMD's even though he lied saying they were there prior to us bombing and murdering the iraqi people for their oil.

bush is a moron. he says things he should not say all of the time. that is why he does not do interviews unless he is promoting a book and on a neocon's show like hannity.

Reminds me of you :D :D :D
 

andybob

Well-known member
Is this the same anthrax that was wrongly identified as having come from Rhodesia for many years??
http://www.rense.com/general26/susp.htm
 
Top