THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

ican711nm wrote:

You make assertion after assertion about Saddam and the Al Qaeda and offer zero evidence to support your assertions. Does that mean your assertions are untrue? Of course not!

I cannot prove Saddam:
1. used toxic chemical agents to kill many thousands of his own citizens.

Documented in the world's press.

Quote:

2. funded families of Palestinian jihadists.

See above.

Quote:

3. attacked Iran.
4. was driven out of Iran.
5. attacked Quwait.
6. was driven out of Quwait.
7. lost the 1st Gulf War.
8. was found in a hole after an 8 month search.
9. was hated by the Al Qaeda.

See above.

Quote:

Does that mean that none of these assertions are true? Of course not!

Again, these are well documented.

Quote:

I cannot prove:
1. disassembled rockets and empty toxic agent containers were discovered by UN inspectors in Iraq.

In 1998. Documented.

Quote:

2. Saddam was a distributor of weapons, ordinance and money to terrorist groups.

Money, up til 2003. Weapons, ordinance, prior to 1998. again, well documented.

Quote:

3. Saddam was incapable of preventing jihadists from entering his country after the 1st Gulf War.

No evidence of this occuring. Please provide evidence.

Quote:

4. Saddam was one of several sponsors of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups after the 1st Gulf War.

Again, no evidence of this. Please provide evidence, or admit you are lying.

Quote:

Does that mean that none of these assertions are true? Of Course not!

Actually, that is exactly what it means.

Quote:

What you and I are incapable of proving about Saddam or Al Qaeda is irrelevant. What is true about Saddam is what is relevant.

But you have yet to offer any eveidence for your beliefs, unlike the rest of us here who have. I wonder if you perhaps are deranged?

0 Replies

OK guys, let's calm down.

0 Replies

I am calm, but I am curious about the so called "evidence" rocket doggy has repeatedly referred to, then obfuscated about, like he did above.

0 Replies

You do, of course, realize the assbackwardness of debating with somebody who thinks the evidence of Hussien's terrorist connections is plastered all over the daily news, right? There is no point to this discussion. You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

0 Replies

Well I, for one, am turning in, having been done in by heavy labor tilling the soil today and planting the spring garden. Yawn. If you guys want to fight it out, go to it. But be careful you don't get the joint locked down.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

You do, of course, realize the assbackwardness of debating with somebody who thinks the evidence of Hussien's terrorist connections is plastered all over the daily news, right? There is no point to this discussion. You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Actuallym I think he is like Bush, and listening to the voices in his head.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

You make assertion after assertion about Saddam and the Al Qaeda and offer zero evidence to support your assertions. Does that mean your assertions are untrue? Of course not!

I cannot prove Saddam:
1. used toxic chemical agents to kill many thousands of his own citizens.

hobitbob wrote:
Documented in the world's press.
PROVE IT!

Quote:
2. funded families of Palestinian jihadists.

hobitbob wrote:
see above.
PROVE IT!

Quote:
3. attacked Iran.
4. was driven out of Iran.
5. attacked Quwait.
6. was driven out of Quwait.
7. lost the 1st Gulf War.
8. was found in a hole after an 8 month search.
9. was hated by the Al Qaeda.

hobitbob wrote:
See above.
PROVE IT!

Quote:
Does that mean that none of these assertions are true? Of course not!

hobitbob wrote:
Again, these are well documented.
PROVE IT!

Quote:
I cannot prove:
1. disassembled rockets and empty toxic agent containers were discovered by UN inspectors in Iraq.

hobitbob wrote:
In 1998. Documented.
PROVE IT!

Quote:
2. Saddam was a distributor of weapons, ordinance and money to terrorist groups.

hobitbob wrote:
Money, up til 2003. Weapons, ordinance, prior to 1998. again, well documented.
PROVE IT!

Quote:
3. Saddam was incapable of preventing jihadists from entering his country after the 1st Gulf War.

hobitbob wrote:
No evidence of this occuring.
PROVE IT!

Quote:
4. Saddam was one of several sponsors of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups after the 1st Gulf War.

hobitbob wrote:
Again, no evidence of this.
PROVE IT!

Quote:
Does that mean that none of these assertions are true? Of Course not!

hobitbob wrote:
Actually, that is exactly what it means.
PROVE IT!

Quote:
What you and I are incapable of proving about Saddam or Al Qaeda is irrelevant. What is true about Saddam is what is relevant.

hobitbob wrote:
But you have yet to offer any eveidence for your beliefs, unlike the rest of us here who have.
PROVE YOU HAVE!

One more thing. Scientists and engineers prove negatives frequently as a part of their daily work regarding theories and problems. It is pure bunk to claim that one cannot prove a negative. They prove alleged theories are not true and alleged solutions to problems do not work.

For example, any jet pilot can prove the world is not flat by taking you up in a jet to 45,000 feet for you to see for yourself. At that altitude it is obvious that the earth is spherical.

0 Replies

Rocket doggy, I''m not doing a google search that even you are capable of doing. I wonder how efective you were as an engineer if you simply made things up as you went along?

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Rocket doggy, I''m not doing a google search that even you are capable of doing. I wonder how efective you were as an engineer if you simply made things up as you went along?

PROVE THAT I AM MAKING THINGS UP! PROVE THAT YOU ARE NOT MAKING THINGS UP! What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that much of what you call well documented is simply documented but does not of itself represent more than mere opinion.

Re-examine that which you claim is well documented. Can you not draw some VALID inferences from these well documented assertions that provide evidence that you are wrong? Is your bond with your mantra too strong to allow you to draw valid inferences that contradict your previous positions?

0 Replies

Oh man!

0 Replies

LOL. Let them get it out of their system. Maybe we won't be revisited by it continuously. LOL

0 Replies

I don't have anything to "get out of my system." I am through debating someone who is eiother intellectually dishonest or stupid.

0 Replies

Then let it be. The silence of the spring lambs.

0 Replies

It comes from over dosing on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News (sic) - an obvious fault of the Bush Regime too <sigh>

0 Replies

I see Saddam has now got himself a good lawyer.

If he gets to court, the case for the defence will be interesting (and will probably contain reference to a certain Mr Rumsfeld.....appearing for the defence?)

0 Replies

LOL

0 Replies

I'm wanting to see the prosecution prove the "Satan" theory and that Bush was "ordered by God" vindication for going to war.......

0 Replies

www.m-w.com:

Quote:

Main Entry: 1spon·sor
Pronunciation: 'spän(t)-s&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin, from Latin, guarantor, surety, from spondEre to promise -- more at SPOUSE
1 : one who presents a candidate for baptism or confirmation and undertakes responsibility for the person's religious education or spiritual welfare
2 : one who assumes responsibility for some other person or thing
3 : a person or an organization that pays for or plans and carries out a project or activity; especially : one that pays the cost of a radio or television program usually in return for advertising time during its course
- spon·so·ri·al /spän-'sOr-E-&l, -'sor-/ adjective
- spon·sor·ship /'spän(t)-s&r-"ship/ noun

ican711nm wrote:

1. disassembled rockets and empty toxic agent containers were discovered by UN inspectors in Iraq.

hobitbob wrote:
In 1998. Documented.

ican711nm wrote:

2. Saddam was a distributor of weapons, ordinance and money to terrorist groups.

hobitbob wrote:
Money, up til 2003. Weapons, ordinance, prior to 1998. again, well documented.

Well documented? Documented = one documented opinion; well documented = more than one documented opinion. Some Arab reporting revealed a continuation of the weapons and ordance flow to terrorists by Saddam after 1998.

ican711nm wrote:

3. Saddam was incapable of preventing jihadists from entering his country after the 1st Gulf War.

hobitbob wrote:
No evidence of this occuring.

Jihadists were permitted entry into Iraq for training.
For example, the fuselage of a Boeing 727 was found in Iraq.

Americans are currently incapable of totally preventing jihadists from entering Iraq. Americans now have far more capability to achieve that than did Saddam after the 1st Gulf War. So if jihadists hate non-jihadist Iraqies so much that they now murder them daily with Saddam removed, they certainly would have done that with Saddam in power unless they had some incentive not to. I claim that incentive not to was Saddam's sponsorship (i.e., Saddam's aiding and abetting) of some of their terrorist activities.

ican711nm wrote:

4. Saddam was one of several sponsors of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups after the 1st Gulf War.

hobitbob wrote:
Again, no evidence of this.

Yes there is. While not well documented by the popular news, it was reported.

0 Replies

Quote:

ican711nm wrote:
4. Saddam was one of several sponsors of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups after the 1st Gulf War.

hobitbob wrote:
Again, no evidence of this.

Yes there is. While not well documented by the popular news, it was reported.[/quote]

Just like working with my children - "The Children of George", duh............... Just keep obfuscating, they'll eventually tire or run out of time and stop.

Where's the evidence boy Exclamation

0 Replies

ican71, when you're not right, and I think most can agree on that, then you must consider the possibility that you are wrong.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know