|
sir prince duke alevine
|
Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 10:38pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 10:33pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 10:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 10:19pm:  Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 10:13pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 9:29pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 9:15pm: Frank wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 8:23pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 6:06pm: Frank wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 5:58pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 26 th, 2017 at 5:52pm: How many?
And the use of crusade was admitted by bush to be the wrong choice of word. Now, how many jihadists afterwards tell us they were wrong to say they committed an act in the name of their religion?
Keep trying to link where links don't exist. It only goes to show how much of a spineless, dishonest apologetic you are. Good point. Oh, I know. Alevine's taken to your style, dear boy. The only thing he's left out is the tinted Paki Bastard compliment. Still a good point. True. The focus groups, speech writers and White House history buffs stumbled upon the wrong choice of word. An easy mishtake to make. You'd never see the tinted races do that, eh? Apart from that spineless Sheik Hilaly and his cat-meat nonsense. Typical. "Regressives". Now you're strawmanning the point I made. But let's play your strawman: it is not unreasonable that at some point someone on bushs staff thought it appropriate to talk about religious war, when talking to Palestinians, because , let's face it, that's what Islamic leaders seem to want to talk about. After two years of planning the message and beating the war drums? Not really, Alevine. You? Oh, that's right. You used to say exactly the same thing yourself. "Regressives". I've never claimed Bush went to war on the basis of religion. yes, I once thought invasion Iraq was a bad idea, as we've covered time and again, but similarly to how Bush is allowed to misspeak, I am allowed to change my mind. My mind on Iraq has changed, as we've covered time and again. Not sure why you think that's some kind of negative, or why you think that somehow diminishes what my argument to you is? Is this another of your 'I'll ignore what he says and just go with what I want him to say' type of nonsense? Was it nonsense then, or now? I'm curious. And yes, you most certainly blamed Bush for being a religious zealot and waging a religious war. I don't think you're being dishonest, I just think you'd like to forget. You can of course quote me when ever I said 'waging a religious war.' A religious zealot? yes, I don't like any leaders who try to use religion within their decision making. I think it's stupid and inappropriate, so undoubtedly I may have called Bush a religious zealot because he probably is. But waging a religious war? Not to my recollection. And nonsense then, as I have clearly stated and you have clearly ignored time and again. Why would I be pretending now? Do you not see how irrational this question is, Karnal? It's just plain stupid to think someone is making something up NOW. Especially with the Iraq War, which has only seen a decline in its public opinion. Why would I NOW say I would agree with removing Sadam Hassain if it was 'nonsense'? I can't say why you'd pretend now, Alevine. Some people just get mixed up, I guess. It's a surprise to me too, remember. I have no idea why your views changed. So you can't see why I'd pretend ,and yet I'm pretending? Great logic, Karnal. Great logic indeed. 
|
Forum
Pages: 
spineless apologetics (Read 340998 times)
