The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Then Tico sticks his dick in, you wave yours around and I'm getting tag-teamed by a pair of neocons with no KY. Aint this fun!

May I ask you to leave your wish-fulfillment out of these threads?

I find it untoward.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I thought that you and Tico leaned towards that untoward stuff.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

JGoldman10 hacked into my account

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

trying2learn wrote:
untoward? do any of you speak common American English?
Untoward is common American . . . and some people, myself included, use it in everyday speech if it is the appropriate word. I even use whom where it is appropriate. Don't extrapolate from your own ignorance.

I don't think the majority of Americans use that word in everyday speech. Hey at least I am able to admit that I am ignorant. It makes life interesting since there is so much to learn.

3 Replies

@trying2learn,

If you had any idea how much you would give it up as a bad job.

0 Replies

@trying2learn,

You aren't ignorant, T2L, Setanta is.

Quote:

and some people, myself included, use it in everyday speech if it is the appropriate word.

Imagine that, people actually use words that are appropriate to the language situation. Whoda ever thunk such a thing.

0 Replies

@trying2learn,

trying2learn wrote:

Setanta wrote:
trying2learn wrote:
untoward? do any of you speak common American English?
Untoward is common American . . . and some people, myself included, use it in everyday speech if it is the appropriate word. I even use whom where it is appropriate. Don't extrapolate from your own ignorance.
I don't think the majority of Americans use that word in everyday speech. Hey at least I am able to admit that I am ignorant. It makes life interesting since there is so much to learn.

It's really only a minor issue, (although I've surely been fixated on minor issues before), but your criticism or mockery of using words you consider to be obscure hardly suggests a mind hungry for learning.

Read the threads with a dictionary available and you will be able to take advantage of how interesting life can be.

4 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

I don't think the majority of Americans use that word in everyday speech.

I'd bet that a quick check in any American language corpus would prove T2L to be right.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I didn't consider that word obscure. If I was mocking anything, it was myself for never had heard that word before and not even knowing what it meant.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

One of those rare occasions where you and I agree.

0 Replies

Evil was seen on Sept. 11th 2001. It still continues, yet I believe that the good in people will over come that evil. My condolences to the family and friends of those who were murdered that day.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I thought I did address your point, though, about Bush not unequivocally announcing to the American people that Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but perhaps not.

Clearly he did not make such an announcement and, in retrospect, I would have preferred that he had if for no other reason than it would have put an immediate end to this ever presented tangential argument.

I think all three of you discussing this have several details of the public record wrong on this.

For example, Bush did explicitly deny the connection. So did Cheney.

At the same time, after the 9/11 commission came out and said there was no evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11 Cheney started a small controversy by seeming to try to counter that narrative and further the narrative that there was ongoing discovery of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But to say that Bush and Co. were pushing this narrative is not accurate, Bush distanced himself from Cheney's comments and issued his own comments about it.

Here is video that captures a lot of the above:

tl;dr - It's not accurate to say that the Bush administration promoted the connection, but there is a pretty strong case to be made that Cheney deliberately exploited some ambiguity and insisted on bringing up weak intel about an Al Qaeda/Iraq connection.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Thanks for the info Robert, but that Bush denial is post invasion. So any denials or clarifications are a moot point. As Colin Powell famously invoked, by then the pottery shop rules applied.

Not to mention how implausible a Hussein/Bin Laden alliance was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

Oh right, they're towel heads of course they're in cahoots. (not directed at you Robert - just that perception, through ignorance of Bin Laden's opposition to Ba'athism in general and Hussein in particular)

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Read the threads with a dictionary available and you will be able to take advantage of how interesting life can be.

Pompous git! Very Happy

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Thanks for the info Robert, but that Bush denial is post invasion. So any denials or clarifications are a moot point.

This is true (and I've not read that far back so I apologize if this is the context you guys are discussing), and in the build-up to the war while Bush didn't link the two explicitly he did pair them in his rhetoric on multiple occasions.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Thanks for the info Robert, but that Bush denial is post invasion. So any denials or clarifications are a moot point. As Colin Powell famously invoked, by then the pottery shop rules applied.

I'm having difficulty ascertaining your point ... are you concerned about the timing of the Bush "denial"? Are you asserting that had he issued the "denial" pre-invasion it would have changed history in any significant way? Do you think the invasion would not have occurred had the "denial" been issued?

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

This thread within the thread began when JTT posted that Bush explicity linked Saddam to the planning and execution of 9/11.

I posted that this was not the case (I guess you could say it was a lie),

Hinge stepped in and argued that since Bush had spoken of Saddam and al-Qaida in the same breath, and since before launching the Iraqi War he never explicitly stated Saddam was involved with 9/11 (even though he must have known 60% or more of Americans believed there was a connection) was tantamount to him making the charge JTT attributed to him.

He'll have to answer the question about whether or not such a speech might have changed history as regards the Iraqi War, but I can't imagine that he does, or even really cares.

The entire Bush cabal was, to hinge, so hellbent on going to war with Saddam that I doubt he believes they wouldn't have pulled whatever other tricks were necessary to make it happen, had the explicit denial been given and American support for war waned.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Yes he did Robert. I think the pairing was understandable given the context of the American situation, but the gist of this side-thread (or at least what I've seen it to be) is did Bush & Co.'s failure to explicity rule out a connection between Saddam and 9/11 (before the Iraq War began) constitute a nasty, decietful lie---particularly since he knew that a great deal of Americans believed in the connection and could assume it was, to some extent, behind their support for war with Iraq.

(Obviously if pairing them was in and of itself a nasty decietful lie, then it's pretty moot as to whether failing to explicity rule out the connection was)

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Quote:
Read the threads with a dictionary available and you will be able to take advantage of how interesting life can be.

Pompous git!

Ignorant brute!

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

YOU!!! I have done my best to stay away from you. Geeez a girl can't have any fun.

0 Replies

The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know