Why Do We Let bush Get Away With This Crap?

Craven de Kere wrote:

Karzak wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's also disingenuous to create straw men. Nobody claimed Saddam "had no knowledge or influence within his own borders".

Well the, exactly how much knowledge of and influence with Ansar-al-Islam did saddam have?

Your question is a deflection from your straw man. I made no claim about Saddam's influence with Ansar-al-Islam. I merely addressed your mental flatulence with the straw man.

There is no straw man, saddam had ties with terrorism and al qaeda that are documented, it is you who are attempting to deflect the issue.

0 Replies

Salman Pak is a few miles almost due South of Baghdad. I've mentioned it here on A2K a few times myself: Here, Here, and Here come immediately to mind, though probably there are other examples.

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

Well the, exactly how much knowledge of and influence with Ansar-al-Islam did saddam have?

Back in April 2003, "Sources familiar with the ongoing U.S. effort to tie al-Qaida to Saddam" said they were "confident the evidence gathered so far in northern Iraq will eventually confirm a relationship. One source, who requested anonymity, said it was just a matter of "connecting the dots."'

It is now one year and almost four months later. What we know is still that Ansar-al-Islam was an Iranian-supported group that strove for the overthrow of Saddam's regime, and that it operated from a part of the Kurdish autonomous zone where neither Saddam's rule nor that of the Kurdish leaders extended. Ansar is said to have harboured and trained al-Qaeda operatives there, which wouldn't be surprising, considering Ansar's Taliban-like ideology. Saddam's intelligence agents are said to have regularly passed back and forth into Ansar territory, though what they did there and what, if any interaction they had with Saddam's Ansar-al-Islam foes remains unclear.

The dots remain, to put it mildly, unconnected ... Again, none of these "dots" amounted to proof of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and al-Qaeda, according to the 9/11 Commision and the bipartisan Senate report.

0 Replies

Karzak there is, in fact, a straw man. I don't think you are here to do anything but troll so I'll make this my last post on this insignificant subject.

You took up a demonstratably false position bourne of ignorance of, to name just one example, the autonomous Kurd enclave.

When your ignorance in this regard was redressed your response was to ridicule the straw man position of your own creation that claims that Saddam "had no knowledge or influence within his own borders" had been made.

See Karzak, that you were wrong about there being areas that Saddam didn't control doesn't then mean anyone is claiming that there were no areas that he did control.

This is a very simple bit of logic that I am confident that you can comprehend.

You created a straw man by seguing from "Saddam didn't control all areas" to "It's disingenuous to claim he controlled no areas."

At issue is rudimentary understanding of the words "all" and "no".

Again, issues I trust you can overcome.

Now if correcting your factual errors on the subject (your ignorance about the Kurd enclave) and correcting laspes in your cognitition (logical fallacies like straw men) is to "deflect the issue" one seems to be drawn to the conclusion that for you, such mental flatulence is, in fact, the issue.

0 Replies

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

You created a straw man here:

Quote:

Redheat wrote:

Really do you people read anything but Newsmax? The training camps were in the NORTH. Now who controlled the North? Here's a hint IT WASN'T SADDAM.

LOL, you think saddam had no control in his own borders? I find that very unlikely.

You see, Redheat didn't say that Sadaam had 'no control in his own borders.' YOU said that.

Then, when you get called out on it,

Quote:

Karzak wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
It's also disingenuous to create straw men. Nobody claimed Saddam "had no knowledge or influence within his own borders".

Well the, exactly how much knowledge of and influence with Ansar-al-Islam did saddam have?

You didn't address the original straw man argument. You shift the argument to a seperate discussion in an attempt to cover up the fact that you took the wrong meaning from the original comment in an attempt to bolster your case.

Learn to argue properly, troll.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Salman Pak is a few miles almost due South of Baghdad. I've mentioned it here on A2K a few times myself: Here, Here, and Here come immediately to mind, though probably there are other examples.

Timber, yes, I remember all your assertions about Salman Pak back then. So, you read all those reports in full it seems - what did the 9/11 Commission and the Senate report conclude, in the end, about the alleged training of al-Qaeda men at Salman Pak?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Again, none of these "dots" amounted to proof of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and al-Qaeda, according to the 9/11 Commision and the bipartisan Senate report.

That depends on what your standard of proof is. Considering the standard of proof the liberals here seem to accept to claim that we sold Iraq chemical weapons or that bush said iraq wasan "imminent threat", I think the same standard of proof has been surpassed in linking saddam with alqaeda.

There is certainly plenty of evidence to support ties between saddam and terrorism, even to alqeada.

0 Replies

I'd like to ask that we refrain from namecalling with Karzak please. If his positions are flawed they can be addressed on the basis of their flaws.

If the product is mental flatulence then by all means show why. But to attack the messenger is, itself, mental flatulence.

0 Replies

It's only mental flatulence in the absence of data proving it to be true.

Our good buddy here has made a habit of flooding threads with posts that show no consistent logical structure, are full of assertions with little data to back them up, and has consistently taken quite the crass tone with his opponents.

To me, that = troll. I just call them as I see them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

nimh wrote:
Again, none of these "dots" amounted to proof of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and al-Qaeda, according to the 9/11 Commision and the bipartisan Senate report.

That depends on what your standard of proof is.

Ehm - I'm referring to the standards applied by the two bipartisan commissions that were established by Congress, of course - as I specified. You don't agree with those standards?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

You created a straw man here:

Quote:
Redheat wrote:

Really do you people read anything but Newsmax? The training camps were in the NORTH. Now who controlled the North? Here's a hint IT WASN'T SADDAM.

LOL, you think saddam had no control in his own borders? I find that very unlikely.

ROTFLMAO, no, sorry, but I wasn't the one who said saddam had no control within his borders.

Learn to read.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Karzak wrote:
nimh wrote:
Again, none of these "dots" amounted to proof of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and al-Qaeda, according to the 9/11 Commision and the bipartisan Senate report.

That depends on what your standard of proof is.

Ehm - I'm referring to the standards applied by the two bipartisan commissions that were established by Congress

And those are fine if you are within those commissions.

I am refering to the standards used on this board, where we happen to be.

0 Replies

See what I mean, CdK?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Craven, I dont like name-calling either, but in defence of Cyclo calling Karzak a "troll", he did so only after you yourself opined that Karzak wasn't "here to do anything but troll" ...

Anyway, that on a really insignificant aside ;-)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

To me, that = troll. I just call them as I see them.

Cycloptichorn

Regardless of how you "see them" there are standards of civility that help foster productive discussion.

"A skunk is better company than one who prides himself in being 'frank'".

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Craven, I dont like name-calling either, but in defence of Cyclo calling Karzak a "troll", he did so only after you yourself opined that Karzak wasn't "here to do anything but troll" ...

Anyway, that on a really insignificant aside ;-)

To me that is significant. I do not call Karzak names, I comment on his product and not on him.

This is significant because it is the difference between going for the message or the messenger.

0 Replies

Karzak wrote:

I am refering to the standards used on this board, where we happen to be.

Standards on this board vary widely ...

I myself think that, when you are arguing justifications for war, you should apply pretty stringent standards.

There's also a question of sequence here. The allegations on Salman Pak and Baathist co-operation with their foes of Ansar-al-Islam are quite old. Since then, two bipartisan, Congress-established independent commisions have worked their way through all these old allegations and purported proofs, and have come to an evaluation of them.

So I'm really interested in what they had to say about Salman Pak and Ansar. After all, they must have reviewed the alleged pieces of evidence on these things that you're still referring to, yet they still came to the conclusion that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda.

0 Replies

I suppose it would be snippy of me to point to Nimh's post above, so I won't.

You are, of course, correct. I'll try to be more civil in the future.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Karzak wrote:
The point is that the vast majority of politicians in the US and abroad believed saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons, and that they posed a threat.

Am not going to go thru this whole thing again, so lets just post two quotes and leave it at that:

Two posts are hardly indicative of a majority, are they?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Karzak wrote:
I am refering to the standards used on this board, where we happen to be.

Standards on this board vary widely ...

I myself think that, when you are arguing justifications for war, you should apply pretty stringent standards.

There's also a question of sequence here. The allegations on Salman Pak and Baathist co-operation with their foes of Ansar-al-Islam are quite old. Since then, two bipartisan, Congress-established independent commisions have worked their way through all these old allegations

What you are doing here is confusing what data we had before the fact, with findings from after the fact.

It is a little dishonest, given that the support for the liberation of iraq was so broad and bipartisan to now try to revise history and make it seem like the libs were against this war or doubted the intel in the first place.

0 Replies

Why Do We Let bush Get Away With This Crap?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know