Faith Freedom International :: View topic - KERRY CAMPAIGN FINANCED BY TERRORISTS

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

KERRY CAMPAIGN FINANCED BY TERRORISTS
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> [Archived] Comments on the Articles Posted in the Main Site

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

T_ID

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 1207
Location: Holland

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:27 pm Post subject:

Dan-Cannon wrote:

Why not?
You are a Bush-basher with even weaker arguments.
Every time you make a post you get caught with your pants down.

lol.

weak arguments?

bush is too pro-christian for me. prove that weak pls, it;s my opinion.

bush is bad for the economy. prove it wrong, trade balance for the US is more ruined than ever, most new jobs pay bad, while those that pay better are lost. in addition, bush's aproach of terror costs billions of unnecesary dollars. (not tomention getting people killed needlessly)

Bush failed the war on terror in the past 3 years. Al qeada is still at large, other terrorist organisation arise, the sources of their money are untouched.

All of that has to oppose a candidate who's worst part are hypothetical doubts about leadership.

Both candidates get cash from the middle east, live with it.

Bush isn't going to invade Iran, even he knows it's too big to handle in the long run.
_________________
production of a decent signature quote is in progress

Dan-Cannon

Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3144

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:22 pm Post subject:

T_ID wrote:

Dan-Cannon wrote:

Why not?
You are a Bush-basher with even weaker arguments.
Every time you make a post you get caught with your pants down.

lol.

weak arguments?

bush is too pro-christian for me. prove that weak pls, it;s my opinion.

And you and Kerry are too lefty (and you are too anti-American) for others.
See how easy it is to make a weak statement?
And it's vacuous too.

So compared to these statements, the arguments in the article are a whole hell of a lot stronger.

Quote:

bush is bad for the economy. prove it wrong, trade balance for the US is more ruined than ever, most new jobs pay bad, while those that pay better are lost. in addition, bush's aproach of terror costs billions of unnecesary dollars. (not tomention getting people killed needlessly)

Yes, all those people under Saddam sure 'needed' to be killed.
Screw the Kurds, its none of our business.
It sure is better having those people gassed by Saddam and preaching tolerance and peace from your Dutch windmill, than it is offering them a chance by a US Republican, isn't it?

Who are you kidding, T_ID?
You are not even an American, so don't pretend you give a hoot about American $$$. Its just your pretext for Bush-bashing.

Kerry may not be any better for the economy. Prove it wrong.

P.S. Have you figured out how much the inane, impotent UN costs?
Now THAT is an important question, since THAT one you really are paying for.

Quote:

Bush failed the war on terror in the past 3 years. Al qeada is still at large, other terrorist organisation arise, the sources of their money are untouched.

So what is your country (and mine) doing in the war on terrorism?
If they are doing LESS, then who the hell are you to judge anybody else.

Kerry may not do ANYTHING worth while in the war on terrorism. Prove me wrong.

Quote:

All of that has to oppose a candidate who's worst part are hypothetical doubts about leadership.

Your opinion. Prove it wrong.

Since when are doubts "hypothetical"?
You either doubt something, or you don't. You don't "hypothetically" doubt something.

P.S. People oppose Kerry for many reasons. Like you oppose Bush for many reasons. The difference is they hate a flip-flopping salon-socialist, while you hate conservatives.
It is all partisan.

I've already proven in another thread that you use crooked, intellectually dishonest so-called "logic" to come to the defense of Kerry. From that moment on your credibility was completely gone. Your opinions stem from nothing but Bush-hatred or conservatism hatred. Otherwise you wouldn't have had to try to 'cheat' while trying to defend Kerry from accusations.

Face it. You're a lefty. No matter how Bush does or how Kerry does. You will be pro-Kerry and anti-Bush by default.
And you're anti-American to boot.

Quote:

Both candidates get cash from the middle east, live with it.

I could live with it.
But there seems to be this hypocrite who CAN'T live with it.
He is called T_ID and he bashes Bush but looks the other way, or defends Kerry, when Kerry's dirty contributions come into question.
There's a lot of people talking about Bush and the Saudis.
Yet when terrorists or radicals contributing to Kerry is mentioned, watch T_ID come out like a jack-in-a-box trying to stick up for Bighead Kerry, trying to refute the article with vacuous arguments, and meanwhile trying to bash Bush a little if the opportunity arises.

So again, where are your arguments that those in the article are WEAK? Other than your Kerry-love of course.

Quote:

Bush isn't going to invade Iran, even he knows it's too big to handle in the long run.

Who said anything about anybody invading Iran?

Looking forward to your arguments or proof that the arguments in the article are weak. Don't be predictable and bash Bush again, T_ID. You made a point about the article, not about Bush.
So show why the arguments are weak, or see your pants around your ankles again.
_________________
Islam is anti-infidel, therefor i am anti-Islam. - Dan Cannon.

I am the greatest minority in the world: an individual. - David Gulbraa.

Yohan

Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 7684
Location: USA

Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:50 pm Post subject:

gupsfu wrote:

Yohan wrote:

Our Ali Sina has gotten caught up in the American elections, got the election fever and has gotten disoriented!

The same thing can be said of those who posted to refute him, including you.

What are you trying to say? If one refutes Ali's political view one is disoriented?

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:12 am Post subject:

Yohan wrote:

What are you trying to say? If one refutes Ali's political view one is disoriented?

No, I am simply saying that those who refuted him so far on this thread obviously have their own political agenda, and in your own words "has gotten caught up in the American elections, got the election fever and has gotten disoriented!"

We all care about who the next US president will be, and that's why we are commenting on this thread. I admit I'm no better than you in that respect, but you should realize that Ali isn't the only one who deserved what you said about him if what you said was true.
_________________
‌

Yohan

Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 7684
Location: USA

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:57 am Post subject:

gupsfu wrote:

Yohan wrote:

What are you trying to say? If one refutes Ali's political view one is disoriented?

Sorry, I can't buy your argument. Remember, it is Ali who presented this thread to be refuted and debated. Others are just responding.

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:04 am Post subject:

Yohan wrote:

Sorry, I can't buy your argument. Remember, it is Ali who presented this thread to be refuted and debated. Others are just responding.

Yes, he created the thread, and you're welcome to refute what is said in the article, but your comment had nothing to do with the article itself.
_________________
‌

Yohan

Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 7684
Location: USA

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:46 am Post subject:

gupsfu wrote:

Yohan wrote:

Sorry, I can't buy your argument. Remember, it is Ali who presented this thread to be refuted and debated. Others are just responding.

Yes, he created the thread, and you're welcome to refute what is said in the article, but your comment had nothing to do with the article itself.

Sorry, I can't agree again! I clearly explained why Ali is disoriented going into the specifics. Please re-read what I wrote.

T_ID

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 1207
Location: Holland

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:46 am Post subject:

@dancannon: here ya go:

crazy canuck wrote:

Ali likes Bush, because he thinks that Bush will libertae Iran as as he did to Iraq.

for the sake of discussion I will limit this purely the economic things for now.

my argument: Under bush, jobs were lost, most of the new jobs were badly paid. soldiers of the US army arne't paid decently, ruining families in the long run. the trade balance went off to recordgaps under Bush, he has no plan to fix it. Bush expenditures style will cause massive depths.

ok, your response to this?

(please don't turn around things this time)
_________________
production of a decent signature quote is in progress

DavidE

Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 255

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:57 am Post subject: Question on Kosovar

The writer did not mention what Bush's position regarding Kosovar is. He certainly has not made Kosovar an issue in this campaign. My own view is that in Kosovar we backed the wrong side. Essentially the war strengthened Al Qaeda. Kosovo is and has always been part of the Serbian homeland. Now I know Kerry, Holbrook, Albright and Clark backed this fiasco. But I have no information that says that Bush ever opposed it. Without any information that Bush is any better on Kosovar, it's tought to make the supposed connections to the KLA, a real issue.

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:59 am Post subject:

Yohan wrote:

Sorry, I can't agree again! I clearly explained why Ali is disoriented going into the specifics. Please re-read what I wrote.

That's alright, you don't have to agree. I never expected that you would anyway.
_________________
‌

Wodan82

Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Posts: 2473

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:33 am Post subject:

Cyberite wrote:

I seem to recall the KLA being supported by the U.S. when that was politically expedient.

You mean when Clinton needed to appaese the Taliban to convince them to let an oilpipeline be build trough Afghanistan?

piggy wrote:

While at the fundraiser, they openly identify themselves as the KLA. Kraniqi is seen introducing himself and his brothers-in-arms to Wesley Clark (Commander of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and former Democratic presidential candidate). Kraniqi says, "Mr. Clark. This is your group, your KLA." Clark then praises the group saying, "They fought against tremendous odds."

I wish to speak a word to defend Clark, well as he was my favorite candidate to become the democratic presidentcandidate. The KLA did fought against tremendous odds, because the serbs wore better equiped, trained and organized. So this could be seen as a praise on purly militairy level and not a political level.

Yohan wrote:

If Bush is so good in fighting terrorism, why can't he get Osama? He had three years to catch Osama.

And if he is caputerd then what? Do you think Al’Qaida come crumbeling down. Al’Qaida is not that hierachel.

T_ID wrote:

Bush failed the war on terror in the past 3 years.

And that is why we will lose, to focused on the short-term. We are fighting against an enemy who are willing to fight for decades, even centruries to get what they want. Why else do you think Osama talks about what happend in Spain centruries ago?

Quote:

Al qeada is still at large,

They lost their stronghold in Afghanistan and now fighting in an atempt to reclaim it and are in the escense on the defense there.

Quote:

other terrorist organisation arise,

I don’t think so. They are probaly al part of the same hydra. The differt name’s are more likey to cause confussion among us.

Quote:

the sources of their money are untouched.

For a part. However “chairities” who fund islamic terror are being moniterd and subjected to investagation. To war on drugs is being expanded to Afghanistan where the opiumtrade is/was one the major income-sources of the Taliban and Al’Qaida.

Of course the lagerst of all is left relative untouched : oil.

DavidE wrote:

The writer did not mention what Bush's position regarding Kosovar is. He certainly has not made Kosovar an issue in this campaign. My own view is that in Kosovar we backed the wrong side. Essentially the war strengthened Al Qaeda. Kosovo is and has always been part of the Serbian homeland. Now I know Kerry, Holbrook, Albright and Clark backed this fiasco. But I have no information that says that Bush ever opposed it. Without any information that Bush is any better on Kosovar, it's tought to make the supposed connections to the KLA, a real issue.

On this I agree. We need to know how Bush thinks about Kosovo.

Wodan82

Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Posts: 2473

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:38 am Post subject:

P.S. I have a strong dislike for both Bush and Kerry.

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:08 am Post subject:

Wodan82 wrote:

P.S. I have a strong dislike for both Bush and Kerry.

Now that's the most balanced view I've read on this forum so far.
Kudos to you, Wodan82!
_________________
‌

armour_piercing_bullets

Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 203

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:28 am Post subject:

judeo christianity islam is a disease...truth is the only cure. save world from religion,save mankind.

freidenker

Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 304

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:41 am Post subject:

Weren't the neocons Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle among the first who wanted to help the KLA kick out the Serbs out of Kosovo?

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> [Archived] Comments on the Articles Posted in the Main Site	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum