T1B

Report: US sailor spied for Israel

How about wrapping this guy in bacon and burying him in a shallow grave?

Oh yeah, criticizing Israel's stolen weapons technology sales to China is anti-Semitic...my bad.

Martyred wrote:Report: US sailor spied for Israel

How about wrapping this guy in bacon and burying him in a shallow grave?

Oh yeah, criticizing Israel's stolen weapons technology sales to China is anti-Semitic...my bad.

...that shouldn't be a problem seeing we have several Marines in shackles and solitary confinement who have yet to be charged!

Might want to re-check your story.

Report: US sailor spied for Russia

Cuda wrote:Might want to re-check your story.

Report: US sailor spied for Russia

My link is to the right wing, Zionist Jerusalem Post.

Yours is to the leftist, liberal, hand-wringing, Kumbaya-singing CNN.com.


I win.

It's a link to a Jerusalem Post article, Ramblow.

My God, you're fucking dense.

Oot. - Marty

Helps to actually READ the info on the links that you post, Beavis.

Where does my link take you?

You're on the ropes, fuckface.

Martyred wrote:Where does my link take you?

You're on the ropes, fuckface.

Actually, if you READ what is in the link you gave, the source cited within the article IS a [gasp] Saudi paper, as mvs pointed out earlier.

You lost.

Again.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Martyred wrote:Where does my link take you?

You're on the ropes, fuckface.

Actually, if you READ what is in the link you gave, the source cited within the article IS a [gasp] Saudi paper, as mvs pointed out earlier.

You lost.

Again.

I don't recall ever denying the JP used a Saudi source.
I linked to a Jerusalem Post article.

They sourced a Saudi outlet.

It's not a Saudi article, it's a Jerusalem Post article that has a Saudi source.

Wait...what am I doing? I'm asking Americans to understand the mechanics of journalism...my bad...

mvscal wrote:Your link is from a Saudi paper, dumbfuck.

Everbody was so willing to weigh anchor with the U.S.S. Dumbfuck, that they didn't bother to dispute mv's erroneous claim.

Go ahead. Tell me again that I linked to a Saudi article.

Martyred wrote:I don't recall ever denying the JP used a Saudi source.

Actually, you pretty much ignored that inconvenient fact, since it screwed up your validity.

Martyred wrote:I linked to a Jerusalem Post article.

They sourced a Saudi outlet.

It's not a Saudi article, it's a Jerusalem Post article that has a Saudi source.

Which means the information in it is highly suspect.

Which is our point.

Martyred wrote:Wait...what am I doing? I'm asking Americans to understand the mechanics of journalism...my bad...

You mean like....oh.....SOURCES.

Like the biased one used in the article. The one that the Navy said is erroneous.

Martyred wrote:

mvscal wrote:Your link is from a Saudi paper, dumbfuck.

Everbody was so willing to weigh anchor with the U.S.S. Dumbfuck, that they didn't bother to dispute mv's erroneous claim.

Because it was irrelevant with regards to your original point.

How truly pathetic you are...you slap up a post to troll and then when the article's source is slammed, you resort to pathetic whining about a minor and irrelevant point as if THAT was the main argument.

That Canadian educational system is a winner.

Hey retard...

...I actually read the article.

I know they used a Saudi source. The point is that it's an article from
A MAJOR ISRAELI NEWSPAPER.

If you think the Saudis are full of shit, fine.

The Jerusalem Post saw it fit to print.
Call their integrity into account.

Martyred wrote:The Jerusalem Post saw it fit to print.
Call their integrity into account.

You chose to cite it, so we're calling your (rapidly diminishing) integrity into account.

You screwed up.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
You chose to cite it, so we're calling your (rapidly diminishing) integrity into account.

You screwed up.

I didn't write the article. I didn't write an article and use a Saudi source.

I just posted a link to a Jerusalem Post piece.

I anxiously await to see your blast of the JP's motivation for posting it.

mvscal wrote:
The purpose of the article was debunk the Saudi claims, dimwit.

Much better.

Oh, and Jonathan Pollard is innocent, too.

Martyred wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
You chose to cite it, so we're calling your (rapidly diminishing) integrity into account.

You screwed up.

I didn't write the article. I didn't write an article and use a Saudi source.

I just posted a link to a Jerusalem Post piece.

I anxiously await to see your blast of the JP's motivation for posting it.

I await to see your admitting that you screwed up seeing what you thought was an "AHA! THE DEVIOUS JEWS!" and posting it without realizing that, ummmmm......the alleged crime was being reported by frigging ARABS. Oh, and that the claim was called "erroneous."

Instead, you'll probably latch on to some other irrelevant tangent like a pitbull, ignore your screw up and hope we'll do the same.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
I await to see your admitting that you screwed up seeing what you thought was an "AHA! THE DEVIOUS JEWS!" and posting it without realizing that, ummmmm......the alleged crime was being reported by frigging ARABS. Oh, and that the claim was called "erroneous."

Dude, I know my Jerusalem Post from a hole in the ground. You're not talking to Derron here.

I think I can navigate my way around news agency websites when I'm looking to prove the veracity of The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion.

Give me a little credit.....Jeeeez...

Martyred wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
I await to see your admitting that you screwed up seeing what you thought was an "AHA! THE DEVIOUS JEWS!" and posting it without realizing that, ummmmm......the alleged crime was being reported by frigging ARABS. Oh, and that the claim was called "erroneous."

Dude, I know my Jerusalem Post from a hole in the ground. You're not talking to Derron here.

I think I can navigate my way around news agency websites when I'm looking to prove the veracity of The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion.

Give me a little credit.....Jeeeez...

...don't sell yourself short Marty, you received a ton of credit (albeit negative) for the hapless defense of your gaffe.

ChargerMike wrote: ...don't sell yourself short Marty, you received a ton of credit (albeit negative) for the hapless defense of your gaffe.

I may not be very well recieved on T1B and Spin Zone in particular, but I sure
as hell am smarter than you.

Martyred wrote:

ChargerMike wrote: ...don't sell yourself short Marty, you received a ton of credit (albeit negative) for the hapless defense of your gaffe.

I may not be very well recieved on T1B and Spin Zone in particular, but I sure
as hell am smarter than you.

...in a twisted sort of way..concur

Martyred wrote:
I don't recall ever denying the JP used a Saudi source.

just take your beating like a midget and move on.....