I already have shown why, go back and read it. then try to respond to it with something of substance.
I asked you because i didn't understand what were trying to say earlier, isn't it obvious?
which is just a long winded way of saying you dodged the question. anyone noticing a pattern here?
I don't need to convince you, and if you think i dodged them so be it.
wow, how surprising. You are explaining why you can't respond...
From now on, i'll ignore any silly comment if you don't have a proper response. The "why don't you response and dodged questions" game is distasteful and silly and we are tired of seeing it all over and over in your posts. Following people and forcing them to answer your questions in your way is really an old fashion game of pushing your openent to the corner. I'll answer you and i don't care if you like my answers or not, and if you came again that i didn't answer your questions yet so i'll ignore, and sorry for that.
Not. That is war.
what was the example about Iraq, I didn't see it.
Really? so the Iraqis who are killing your fellow americans one by one in Iraq are not terrorists?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/11/wirq11.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/13/wgoogle13.xml
What do you call this then?
yes he does. That is the only way he could have sought to influence society or government.
Not according to the definition.
Insanity is not something you prove, it is something you determine. He was determined to be insane by a court of law a period of time before the shooting.
Can you give me any link for that? I'll be really thankful if you did, because it will clarify the misunderstanding we have about this issue. That's why i asked you to prove that it was determined to be insane by a court of law.
You can't simply assert that it didn't fail.
And you can't simply claim that it does.
I don't need to prove it.
As you wish.
uh... yes, you did change the rules of the thread. When you write an OP, it sets out certain guidelines , you left them open until I proved you were wrong. Then you changed the guidelines of the thread to rule out the way I proved you wrong.
You didn't prove me wrong, and i showed you clearly what i mean, and what i had in mind, and if you can't accept it then it's your right and no one will force you to discuss it with me anymore about it.
You don't seem to take it very well. Why not just accept that I gave a valid example showing your argument to be wrong. It isn't that difficult.
Valid is a way too far from your feeble arguments and boring tactics. I don't know how could you call it so.
Anytime Saudi Arabia takes out Al Qaida capabilities and personnel, they are helping in the war on terror. They are both fighting the same enemy.
The war on terror is not just about Al Qaida, it's about all countries who choose to say no to Mr. Bush.
Why wouldn't Bush say it if that is what is was? He is a Christian, if this were a war between Christians and muslims as you claim, then why would the christians be afraid to say it? Were the Christians afraid to say it in the past?
Those people in the past who share the same mentality like Bush today were brave enough in the past to admit it, but not today. Plus that, in the past the entire country was controlled by the Chruch but not today.
so you are saying that it necessarily has to mean a christian v. muslim crusade because Bush is a christian? I am sorry but I find that laughable.
I dismissed your quote because the very article you quoted it from dismissed the quote. I can't help it, the quote isn't reliable and the article itself said so.
What about these links?
Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen ... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...075950,00.html
Also if someone claim that God speak through him so there is no secret he see everything from a religious point of veiw. For more information read these links below:
http://www.irregulartimes.com/godspeaksthroughme.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece
and guess what? They did.
Hmmm, let me see.
I didn't travel on that trip
He wasn't there.
You should have done your own research since you cited such a pathetic article in the first place.
You seem so angry, why is that? calm down man. I know it hurts but you have to be reasonable and face the truth when you see it, then admit it.
nope. I am saying: this is a silly statement. It is simply an assertion. If you are able to prove it is true then prove it.
I already did.
You hide from my questions and I answer all of yours. How is that fair?
You can't simply ask me to answer your questions in your way, that's so silly. I answered all your questions but you didn't like them, and you wanted specific answers in your mind to prove me wrong or guilty, and that tactic don't work on me, so get over it.
that in no way answers this:
1. In order for the use of the word "crusade" to constitute proof it could only have one meaning. If it has mulitple applicable meanings, you could not honestly say that the use of the word consitutes proof.
Unless the one who said such thing is religious by nature, through his words and actions.
2. You claimed it was "proof" that this war was about religion.
It was based on what Bush said "crusade war".
3. You have since admitted that you knew there was more than one understanding of the word.
I will let you draw your own conclusions.
Done.