can someone help me refute a freeper

[silverchair]

i know it's a pain to ask for someone's help but can someone give me some facts or point me to a website that will refute this freeper i know.

original message:

"When I was in the military Saddam was constantly doing things against the U.S. because we did not retaliate. Al Qaeda has been a pain since Bill Clinton was in office. Bill knew about them and even had information that would have prevented 911. Bill even knew where Bin Laden was located, but instead chose to bomb an aspirin factory to cover the Lewinski scandal. When we were at peace, not attacking anyone, minding our own business, the Twin Towers were struck. Now that we have taken out Saddam have terrorist attacked us again? When the invasion of Iraq began, remember the reports of Al Qaeda camps were found, Bin Laden leaving Iraq and going into Afghanistan. Also a lot of the countries that were against the invasion were getting illegal oil from Iraq. The media shows an angry Iraq, but they don't show the thousands of grateful Iraqi citizens. A soldier that
was over in Iraq said a lot of times there will be peace until the media shows up, then an Iraqi insurgent will do something to strike attention, such as shooting at the U.S. soldiers or self inflict injury and claim the military did this. Also I want to bring to your attention, the scientist that were caught were interrogated and they found biological substances in their homes. Saddam ordered them to take these items from their labs and take them home. WMD is there, remember President Bush wanted to go in immediately and take out Saddam, but the Senate wanted to give Saddam time and go through the U.N. This gave Saddam ample time to hide these weapons. He hid a whole air field under the sand. President Bush to me is doing the right thing. I think people need to be in the military to understand what is going on. One last point, all we hear of is the casualties of Iraq, how come we do not and did not hear of casualties in Kosovo. I remember a soldier stepped on a mine in Kosovo,
we were told by the media, he was okay, just a few bruises. I met this soldier, he was damaged pretty bad. A lot of lives have been lost there, a war where we have nothing to gain."

[Caution]

1. This repeats so much garbage that

this person may be hopeless. Send him to snopes and tell him to look up each of his assertions in turn and see what he finds. It amazes me that people still buyinto this shit.

[Wickerman]

2. A couple things

The airfield was buried long ago. Check Snopes. Why aren't casualties of Kosovo mentioned? Number of GI deaths = 0.

The rest of it? Have HIM prove it. He makes the statements. The refute of Clinton missing the chance to take out OBL was refuted in the 9-11 hearings. The aspirin factory verdict is still out. The reports of OBL leaving Iraq were all just that, reports - from Faux. Have him prove the bio stuff found. Hell, tell him he must document any of it. THEN you refute that documentation. If he won't document - you have won the argument.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. He's a freeper.

Why bother refuting someone so willingly reality-challenged? Smacking him or her behind the left ear with a cast-iron frying pan makes much more sense and would be far more gratifying. ;-)

[goddess40]

16. Refuting freeper

After the 1991 bombing of the Towers in NY there were no more attacks on the US until 2001. That's 10 years, We're only 3 years from the 2001 attack. And look at the increased attacks through out the world. Of course, to freepers it doesn't matter what happens to those in other countries. Also, the 1991 attack took place a very short time after Clinton took over. Sorry I don't know the exact time table. No one blamed Bush senior for that attack when the planning for it must have taken place when he was in office. During the Clinton presidency a plot to attempt massive bombings at the LA airport was foiled when custom officials interrupted a terrorist at the Canadian border. This occurred due to a full alert put into effect by Richard Clarke.
In an article by Gene Lyons, who co-authored "The Hunting of the President" and who now writes for the Arkansas Democratic-Gazette, he claims, "Each time Clinton struck Al Qaeda or warned against terrorism, Republicans accused him of trying to divert attention from his sexual sins."

[jtb33]

22. ?

"After the 1991 bombing of the Towers in NY there were no more attacks on the US until 2001. That's 10 years, We're only 3 years from the 2001 attack. And look at the increased attacks through out the world. Of course, to freepers it doesn't matter what happens to those in other countries. Also, the 1991 attack took place a very short time after Clinton took over. Sorry I don't know the exact time table. No one blamed Bush senior for that attack when the planning for it must have taken place when he was in office."

I thought the TC bombing in NY happened in 1993 (not 1991)...

[goddess40]

23. Correction

The first attack on the World Trade Center was in 1993, not 1991. Sorry.

[Ganja Ninja]

4. Why is it up to you to disprove this horse crap?

Break it down piece by piece and ask the freeper for more specific info and links for some of the claims made. Pretend you care and are close to being convinced. That should keep him/her busy for a while. Life is too short to argue with the terminally stupid.

[DinahMoeHum]

8. Right, remember, YOU have nothing to prove. He does.

And if he can't present viable evidence, well, the hell with him.

:kick:

[rooboy]

5. Even if all that your freeper friend said was true...

does he find it coincidental that the worst terrorist attack in US history occurred right after * took the longest presidential vacation in US history?

Because if this person thinks "I'm new here" is an excuse for a president, I've got news for him...

[librechik]

6. It's not about Clinton.

Obviously that person has been trained to hate Clinton through influential media or peers. The facts he proposes are easily refuted but common propoganda heard on conservative talk radio. You won't convince him on Clinton.

But this president promised to change the tone in Washington. And yet he has committed even worse atrocities than any recent president. He didn't have to go down the road that he says Clinton went down. He could have been a man of peace, as he claimed to be, instead of entangling us in a war that he himself says will last forever.

There are many sites that debunk those lies he believes. Try Snopes.com or factcheck.org. All those laughable clinkers are common elements of propoganda spread by Rush and Savage and their fellow cult members.

But I doubt you will change that person's well made-up mind. He's been drinking the koolaid.

[ET Awful]

7. They guy has obviously lost his grip on reality. . . .

First, Clinton was continuously and actively going after Bin Laden, he was accused of wagging the dog for doing so. There were CIA operatives in Pakistan with explicit orders to eliminate bin Laden pursuant to an executive order signed by Clinton.

Your friend's moronic statements about "have we been attacked since" is the height of stupidity. How many attacks were there on US soil PRIOR to 9/11? How many over seas? Now, how many overseas attacks have there been SINCE? Perhaps you should point out multiple attacks in Riyadh, Turke, Morrocco, Spain, etc. How many car bombings were there in Iraq prior to the US invasion? His argument is completely moronic.

His comments on Kosovo are also incorrect. There was not a single US death as a result of the Kosovo action, we are now over 700 dead in Iraq. This guy needs to get his facts straight. He met this soldier???? BULLSHIT.

A war where we have nothing to gain? So, in his opinion, war should be fought only if you can profit from it? Is that what he's saying?

[wtmusic]

'He hid a whole air field under the sand'

Might as well argue with a turnip.

[Skittles]

9. um..............you have over 1000 posts

and you need help refuting a freeper? Especially one as f***ing stupid as this one? What is up with that?

[bobbyboucher]

10. Paragraphs! Tell him to use paragraphs, the fuckin

idiot. It's a freeper giveaway, no paragraphs.

[Hav]

12. rofl!

Take a look at his use of the enter key right in the middle of a sentence, too.


" A soldier that
was over in Iraq said a lot of times there will be peace until the media shows up, then an Iraqi insurgent will do something to strike attention, such as shooting at the U.S. soldiers or self inflict..."

"remember a soldier stepped on a mine in Kosovo,
we were told by the media, he was okay, just a few bruises. I met this soldier, he was damaged pretty bad. A lot of lives have been lost there, a war where we have nothing to gain."

[Hav]

11. wow

It's hard to find a sentence without a lie there.
Right now, I don't have the time to find some sources, but you could just google for some of the claims.

Anyway, it's full of shit, typical illogical freeper work.
They always say Clinton did nothing against terrorism but when he did something like sending missiles to kill Bin Laden, they scream "He's wagging the dog!!" and talk about aspirin factories.

Also he shouldn't start talking about casualty numbers, that would be probably the dumbest thing a freeper could do (yeah I know).
Right now, the US is in Iraq. What importance should have the casualty numbers of the Kosovo war for the current situation?
Around 700 of Americans died there, many thousends badly injured and thousands of Iraqies died for the lie.
Yeah, why do they talk about the dead in Iraq..:eyes:

[Richardo]

13. Now that we have taken out Saddam have terrorist attacked us again?

This is the most idiotic argument I've heard regarding safety.

On September 10th, we had not had any foriegn-based terror attacks in the US in 8 years. Were we safe on September 10th?

The rest is even more idiotic. This person is lost, and should be sterilized ASAP.

[Hav]

14. .

Yeah, I find that argument very bad as well.
But it is obvious that they are thinking in simple terms.

[strategery blunder]

17. I don't think we had had ANY 'foreign-based' terror attacks

on US soil before 9/11.

The OKC bombing was carried out by domestic, not foreign, terrorists.

[Richardo]

19. WTC bombing in 1993...

Egyptian Islamic Jihad, later part of Al-Qaeda.

(I learned that from Clarke!)

[strategery blunder]

25. Oh, yeah...

Thanks for refreshing my memory...

[strategery blunder]

26. Oh, yeah...

Thanks for refreshing my memory...

[strategery blunder]

27. Oh, yeah...

Thanks for refreshing my memory...

[robbedvoter]

24. Condi said they are just about to: Election day and before

Didn't mr Duck Tape roll a whole list of potential dates to ...duck tape?

[DDiamond]

15. Wow

That message is so full of lies and twists it is mindboggling! Here's some points:

"Saddam was constantly doing things against the U.S. because we did not retaliate." - NO. We did retaliate. Clinton had him bombed DOZENS of times. This is just plain out totally untrue.

"Bill even knew where Bin Laden was located, but instead chose to bomb an aspirin factory to cover the Lewinski scandal." -NO. The freeper is confused with two separate incidents. First of all, Clinton DID ATTACK BIN LADIN. Heck, tell the freeper the truth that Clinton was the first president to attack Bin Ladin instead of Republicans funding and training him! Clinton attacked Bin Ladin in Afganistan with cruise missels. That's a fact. He missed (by a few hours) because Clinton didn't know where Bin Ladin was with the accuracy necessary (that's two lies so far in merely this part of the Freeper's statement). When Clinton DID attack Bin Ladin, it was the REPUBLICANS who STOPPED further attacls by claiming it was to distract from Monica. That was something they made up (unelss they can read Clinton's mind). Repeat that back to the freeper: Clinton DID attack, and the Republicans lied to stop follow-up attacks.
The dig about the asprin factory is the freeper confusing two separate incidents. Clinton did bomb something that he thought was a chemical weapons lab, may have been incorrect. But that was entirely separate from the attack on Bin Ladin, which DID happen.

"When the invasion of Iraq began, remember the reports of Al Qaeda camps were found, Bin Laden leaving Iraq and going into Afghanistan." Complete fantasy. Al Qaeda camps were not found. No evidence of Bin Ladin being in Iraq.

"WMD is there," Wow. Complete denial of the facts that WMD are not there, as determined by *everyone* who actually looked, including George Bush's picked investegators. If he believes this, he''s beyond facts and reason.

"One last point, all we hear of is the casualties of Iraq, how come we do not and did not hear of casualties in Kosovo." Um, because there are a LOT more casualties in Iraq?

Hopefully those are some solid points you can bring back to him.

[Bozita]

18. Just send him a couple of Bob Boudelang's columns

If he has any sense at all, he'll see himself in the mirror.

[zbdent]

20. Geez, the first line is a lie

Especially when some of the RWers try to say that Clinton had X thousand "skirmishes" and counts the number of airstrikes against Iraq as evidence.

At least, when Clinton was "swatting at flies", he was doing SOMETHING to show that he was paying attention to the terrorism threat!

Even the aspirin factory was an attempt to do something about the terrorists, and the Bush loving CIA gave him old info (CIA named their new Headquarters as "George H.W. Bush" building).

[Richardo]

21. Name one.

When I was in the military Saddam was constantly doing things against the U.S. because we did not retaliate.

"Constantly doing things" :eyes:

How many bombs fell in the no-fly zones between 1991 and 2000? Hundreds?

[bigtree]

28. I make an extensive argument against the war in my book

Power Of Mischief- Into War
http://www.returningsoldiers.us/chapteronepom.htm

"This war with Iraq was the invention of a banished ruling class - enriched by the selling of the influence of their positions in government - who had nursed their broken ambitions in exile."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6040.htm