Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Why were the threads on the death of Zarqawi closed?  It's a current event and big news as far as the war on terror goes.  Are you sympathetic to his cause?  Down with America!  Down with free speech!  This is ridiculous!!

Read the rules in the Jungle.

Awhile back they made a "no politics" rule.

It may still be in effect...

Edit: Just checked....post is still stickied there.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=24304.0

News is not automatically politics.  It's more political to not allow us to discuss this.  Whether you support the war or not, it's big news.

I don't disagree.  I'm simply telling you what the mods reasoning is....

They view it as a topic likely to cause some charged political debate/conversations, I assume.  So no dice.

No the news is not automatically politics...

George Bush's 'war on terrorism' and news concerning that _is_ politics. And we've seen how these threads go, so it's not just because we want to fuck with you. It starts cool with some people like Charity Bag (name changed) saying "yeah.. that guy deserved it.. haha fuck him", and some people joining him "yeah, he's an asshole. haha double fuck him". Then SLK or RickyNixon (names changed so identities are kept secret) will say something along the lines of "Yeah! This is almost as cool as going to Irak to find WMDs they didn't have..." And after that it's Kerry's a flip flop, Bush is a junkie...

And no, this is not to point fingers, but so you'll get the genral idea. We've seen how it's gone. And this arrangement has worked pretty well. The ban might be removed one day, but 'till then. These topics are a no no.

All that happens in political threads, at least on this site, is people start talking, then they disagree and then they want to slit each other's throats. It's kind of sad really.

Actually I think SLK would have used Charity bag's quote from a year ago explaining how catching Osama would not have made a difference (His defense for the "war".)

 :hihi:

But I'm just guessing....



Well, c'mon. You know where this would have gone, right?

I feel really stupid and ignorant but who was this Zarqawi person?

I was wondering the same thing.
Was he the terrorist who was killed? I think I saw a headline on it this morning.

He was in charge of Al Quaida in Iraq.

Skeba, why would you insult me by changing my name to Charity Bag?  You disagree with my politics so you think you can take a swing in here.  You're a real objective moderator.     ::)

SLC, you could throw that up in my face and I'd just agree with what I said back then.  My opinion has not changed.  It doesn't mean too much IMO.  I simply posted the news and said "good riddance" to the piece of shit.  I enver said it would change anything.  I believe it was the liberals who were charging that the US couldn't even get Al Zaqawui or Bin Laden.  Well we got one and I still think it is not a huge deal.

Sorry if you took offence... It wasn't meant to be taken like that.. Just a random word that popped to my head from "case". Don't be like that. Besides... How'd you recognize yourself?

And we're most certainly not having an Al Quaida discussion here.

I think this "RickyNixon" fellow would have also pointed out that not only did Iraq not have WMD, but there was no evidence of it in the first place, and if only Hans Blix had been able to compete his job, this whole war could have been avoided and the 2000+ US troops that are now dead would instead be alive. Not to mention the thousands of US troops injured and thousands of Iraq civilians that have been killed would have been spared. 

Nice going Dubya.

You're all banned.

And Iraq would still be in the hands of a mass murderer, and Iraq would not be finding their way in a democratic system, and Hussein would still be controlling too much oil.  There are good and bad about it my friend.  Sucks to lose troops for sure, but in the end their sacrifice might actually be for something quite good.

Now bring back the political threads.  We can all get along.   :yes:

There are evil/vicious dictators all over the world. Who are we to say who can and cannot be in power? Who are we to impose democracy on other peoples??

As for Sadam being an evil dictator, it was fine to have him in power in the 1980s, but when his actions went against the interests of the US, he had to go.

He was the same tyrant in 1983, 1993, 2003?

In a nutshell.........yup.

Civil war is raging on as Sunnis and Shiites slaughter each other daily. The occupation has basically traded one hell for another.

If Bush would have asked America to lay down 2400 of our best kids to "spread democracy" in the middle east, I doubt he would have gotten the green light. Instead he lied about WMD to gain support. It has been all over the news lately about top CIA officials who came forward to tell the truth. The truth was that they told Bush that the intel about WMD was no good and not to use it. They asked him to take it out of his speech the week (he was told.) He did, but a week later he used it, knowing full well that the informant the CIA had was not trustworthy.

The entire claim of "spreading democracy" is laughable anyway. As the USA government have overthrown democracies and installed dictators (See: Iran for starters) that were more suitable for to their needs.

I thought I _just_ explained that politics is off limits.

Did you interpret the "And we're most certainly not having an Al Quaida discussion here." as "Al Quaida off limits, Iraq's ok"??