OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

Here is the nub - and it is just as I thought:

"Since they communicated three times through intermediaries--(what was that about again...?) and since they offered one another assistance that we know of-- and it can definitely not be proven that they did not work together--

Then acting like a bunch of hyenas when one submits their collusion IS possible is stupid."

Lash appears to think this stuff (which is pretty damn doubtful in and of itself) - plus her assertion that "It can definitely not be proven that they did not work together" is proof that they DID.

I do not know enough nomenclature to name that egregious logical error - but if it is not obvious to Lash now, my guess is it never will be.

I married a devout christian once, stayed married for 19 years, this confirmed my atheism.

Be nice to Lash you guys...
She is making a very strong case for proving that the GOP were actually members of Al Qaeda when they opposed Clinton and tried to remove him from office.

I'm always nice to Lash, she has lust in her heart.

Lash - if you were JUST asserting that their collusion was possible, nobody would be bothering.

You have asserted that their collusion is FACT - then wiggled and thrashed about trying - I was about to say to defend your position, but actually, you have more often just made ongoing attacks against the intelligence etc of those pointing out your error.

I, for one, will stop attempting to do so - it is a waste of time. I cannot believe you don't see it - I am guessing it is just too hard for you to back down gracefully? Yes, it IS hard to do that. Shrugs. It is POSSIBLE this is your motive - but of course I do nat attempt to avow it as FACT,

Lash, there is no need to respond . . . you continue to offer your opinions, but state that they are facts. They are not. Your simple statement that the Report is wrong does not make it so, and is made all the more absurd as you have continually adduced that report as support for your contentions in this thread. However, when i go to the trouble to reproduce a section of the Report here, you now claim these portions are wrong. How do we know they are wrong? Because Lash told us so.

Here is a sterling example:



The statement stated that bin Laden offered some cooperation. From which, Lash leaps to working together . . . not offering to work together . . . working together.

You bend the statements of the Report to support your thesis, and apparently think we're so dense that we'll just swallow it whole. I don't know, perhaps one can expect that kind of fuzzy thinking to make an impression on a Young Republicans meeting, but it has little chance of success here.

If you feel i've not posted the relevant portions of the report, perhaps you'd like to put your money where you mouth is and post the relevant portions, with the text of the foot notes, as i've done.

Until such time, i have no intention of getting into a silly discussion which you will attempt to base upon your contentions about what the text means, as opposed to the text iteself.

But thats just plain nonsense! The analogies serve a purpose here. You're a smart girl, you too can think of a dozen examples where different parties or persons work towards some same goal, yet are not working together in any way.

If you claim that OBL and Saddam co-operated, you can come up with practical examples of what they are supposed to have done together. But the blanket assertion that the fact that they shared some goal or other proves they co-operated plain doesnt make any sense. You wouldnt yourself accept it in any other context.

Say, you'll be out at the next elections registering new voters, because you want as many people as possible to vote Bush. Howard Dean will be rallying his volunteers to register voters to vote for Hillary Clinton. You have the same goal: registering more voters for the US elections! Increase the turnout! Are Howard Dean and you "working together"?

Really, you wouldnt accept that logic if it was used by anyone else on any other topic.

I did not say, nor have you any reason to assume that i was in the throes of any such hysterical laugh attack . . . i do laugh at things i find hysterically funny, but it is what i laugh at that is hysterical, not me . . .

Note to Lash on reading comprehension -
"offered" is NOT synonymous with "accepted." Cooperation requires acceptance, not just the offer.

If I offer you an orange, you do not have the orange unless you accept it. The orange is still an orange whether you accept it or not but there is no transaction until you do accept it.

Hey, if a drug dealer has been seen to offer me drugs and there's no reports of me having refused them, we know I was out smoking them with him, right? I mean, even if years of research into the question by the most powerful country in the world didnt manage to actually unearth any evidence of me having done such a thing, you know - we know I used drugs at previous points in time, and we know he offered them to me, so it's literally "a fact", right?

Man, if Lash hadnt gone all repetitively insulting at Parados for being little-brained and ignorant, I probably wouldnt have been as just kind of, eh, what?! at the utter lack of logic of something so brazenly asserted (and apparently sincerely and deeply believed).

Now now, you should all be nice to Lash. After all, she has a 4.0 grade point average. Your puny intellects are clearly no match for her enormous brain.

The wisdom of Joefromtheplaceofbadsmells is not to be disputed . . .

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa . . .

Look at the big brain on Lash!!!

I am terribly, terribly sorry . . . i should have checked derivations more carefully before i posted . . .


The wisdom of Joefromtheonionfields(Chigagou) is not to be disputed . . .

Hey, I like Lash, in a way. She carries a big burden. Because she's widely interested and curious, not to mention witty and charming enough for us to expect more of her, we come down all the harder on her when she says something more worthy of McGentrix. There's something really unfair in that.

Like, she's pretty much the only American conservative on the board, apart from Georgeob1, who actually shows an interest in things beyond the immediate US domestic political agenda, and on those very threads she then serves as the target for all the ire other posters foster at American conservatives.

Ya lie down with dogs, yer gonna get up with fleas . . .

I like Lash when we're not discussing politics. I'd do her.

OWWWOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

On yer, Nimh. I agree.

And - for what it is worth - which is prolly nothing - can't people stick to criticising arguments?

We have all been doing that, and i will direct you again to the comments Lash has made about the size of other people's brains . . .