Don't worry, Parados, it's a Mexican stand-off . . .
Mexican hat dance?
I thought you didn't disco.
Deb wrote:
Quote:Aaaa - yer all balls and horns. No bum.
Yer right about the no bum, but very sweet little cheeks...
Do y'all live in Nuevo Mexico del Norte? There's a great restaurant just off 84 . . . or used to be, Rancho de Chimayo . . . ever eat there?
I've heard of it--highly recommended. No, we don't live in the the north, Albuquerque is in the middle. The area around Santa Fe is so expensive only movie stars can afford to actually live anywhere nearby.
BTW, loved the photo of me you posted. It's one of my favorites...when I was feeling all warm and cuddly.
You do have a certain . . . je ne sais quoi . . . in that photo . . . an alluring glow, let us say . . .
My sister lives in Santa Fe, and i briefly lived near Espanola, but then, she is still paying the same rent she was in the 80's . . .
The lesson to be learned here is that, yes, if someone, with some degree of respect for the truth, had early reached out to Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or, hell, even to Bill O'Reilly; not that I'm equating them with you, Lash. I think you do have a large measure of intelligence.
dlowan wrote: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.
Your powers of deduction are horrible at best, or intentionally misleading--which you do have a penchant for...
Your sentence here--
"It can definitely not be proven that they did not work together" is proof that they DID.
Has no basis in fact--nor have I insinuated or believed any such thing. I have gone to the trouble already in pointing this out.
Can't you think up something new to help you avoid admitting that the facts I bolded from the 911 Commission Report are true?
The little brained insults to Parados followed several of his/hers to me, as they always do.
I am not the first to get personal--but when others do-- I take it as a welcomed invitation to do the same. And, I will. Every time. No matter how many people don't like it.
If I believe items that appear in the 911 Commission Report, there is no way in hell I will be made to feel duped or wrong that I do believe them. There is evidence that collusion was possible between them. So, there is no moral or logical authority to belittle people who say their collusion was possible.
You are all so hung up on the words worked together.
Tough ****.
They did.
Bin Laden DID cooperate with Saddam by withholding assistance from the Kurds.
No amount of quibbling or equivocating or creating analogies changes what appears in the report.
Parados was insulting to me, and obviously couldn't back handle what she bit off. Pathetic.
BTW, joe. I'm sorry to say the GPA is now a 3.87.
Just wanted you to be able to throw out the correct number next time the urge compels you.
Lash,
I couldn't handle it? LOL.. don't worry. I am a big boy. I can take out anything you feel you have to dish out. I thought I was being gracious giving you an out to claim you mispoke. I would have been happy to let it go and defended you against anyone else if you had.
I am sorry if you were offended by my statement, "I think you just like to make things up and then whine.." It is what I think. It is too bad you are working so hard to justify my opinion to everyone else.
I don't think I have ever attacked you personally by calling you "little brained" or any of the other names you love to throw around. But as I said, I am a big boy. I find it amusing that you feel you have to resort to that instead of seeing your position for what it really is.
This can be put to rest very easily and without further rancor. When I am broadly insulted as a liar--yet the one insulting me will not even specifically point to what they consider the lie, so that I can respond to it, it obviously makes me quite angry. I'd be surprized if I called someone a liar, and they didn't react similarly.
Let's dispatch this.
You accused me of making up facts. Which facts did I make up?
Lash,
Explain which of the following statements is true...
If you think all are true then explain the contradictions that can be found in your statements.
Quote:I am stating facts.
Not straws.
Not conjecture.
Not wishful thinking.
Facts.
Quote:The offers by both men are recorded in the 911 Commission Report. Those offers of assistance are working together.
Quote:parados--
You are in agreement with me, then, as to the meetings.
They don't PROVE anything....except that they took place,
Quote:Why do you think they met? If Saddam offered OBL safe haven---THAT IS EVIDENCE OF A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP.
Quote:In the least--since neither side can prove a working collaboration nor disprove one--neither side should scoff at the other's opinion of what went on between the two.
Quote:The facts are messages and offers of assistance were passed between SH and OBL.
Their relationship, real or imagined, was not the sole reason the war occurred.
Quote:There is no evidence they didn't collude, Setanta. I'm not denying the best evidence presented, as you said.
I accept it. There were meetings and offers of assistance between them. I strongly suspected this to be the case.
The evidence lends itself more toward my assertions than yours.
parados wrote:Lash,
Explain which of the following statements is true...
If you think all are true then explain the contradictions that can be found in your statements.
Quote:I am stating facts.
Not straws.
Not conjecture.
Not wishful thinking.
Facts.
Quote:The offers by both men are recorded in the 911 Commission Report. FACT
Those offers of assistance are working together.
Quote:parados--
You are in agreement with me, then, as to the meetings.
They don't PROVE anything....except that they took place, FACT
Quote:Why do you think they met?
If Saddam offered OBL safe haven---THAT IS EVIDENCE OF A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP. FACT
Quote:In the least--
since
neither side can prove a working collaboration nor disprove one--FACT
neither side should scoff at the other's opinion of what went on between the two.
Quote:The facts are messages and offers of assistance were passed between SH and OBL. FACT
Their relationship, real or imagined, was not the sole reason the war occurred. FACT
Quote:There is no evidence they didn't collude, Setanta. I'm not denying the best evidence presented, as you said. FACT
I accept it.
There were meetings and offers of assistance between them. FACT
I strongly suspected this to be the case.
The evidence lends itself more toward my assertions than yours.
If you are stumbling a bit over the nuance between the collaborative-- offering of safe haven, and the lack of evidence of a
working collaboration,... a
working collaboration is associated with an ongoing collaboration --or an operational collaboration; not to be confused with the collaborative effect of providing or offering safe haven. Proof that SH and OBL worked together on terrorist projects: That would have been evidence of a collaborative operational relationship. There is no evidence of that. Assisting a fugitive from justice is collaboration. You can collaborate on one item, and not another. Proving Saddam collaborated with Bin Laden in his attempt to avoid capture by US forces does not require that they collaborate on additional items.
Now I have done my work. Which facts did I make up?
We will start simple then Lash..
You state it is a fact that their relationship is "real or imagined"
yet you later claim that their relationship is real
Which is it?
If the meetings ONLY prove that the meetings took place then how can it be a FACT that they had a collaberative relationship based on those meetings. Since the ONLY fact that comes from the meetings is that they met then anything about what happened at those meetings is conjecture on your part and NOT fact.
col·lab·o·rate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lb-rt)
intr.v. col·lab·o·rat·ed, col·lab·o·rat·ing, col·lab·o·rates
To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.
Since collaberate specifically means "work together" what evidence do you have that they did work together at those meetings? An offer is not "working together" since that requires both people to be involved in the work. Perhaps you are not familiar with the story of the "Little Red Hen."
If the evidence lends towards your assertion then how can your assertion be stated as fact? Would your assertion not be a conclusion based on other facts?
Wow.
"Real or imagined" does not preclude it from being either real or imagined.
The relationship was real.
They had a relationship. It involved asking for, offering, and complying with at least one request for, assistance. This interaction constitutes a relationship.
The meetings included at least one offer of assistance which was accepted. I've stated it several times. When two people work toward a goal --that is a collaboration. The fact that they both had officers at a meeting doesn't prove a collaboration.
A collaboration is proved because they made an agreement designed to help achieve a goal.
Clarify your statement:
If the evidence lends towards your assertion then how can your assertion be stated as fact? Would your assertion not be a conclusion based on other facts?
-------
That is correct. As you may now note, I never said different.
-------
Which of my statements is a made up fact?
Parados
Which of my statements is a lie?
Lash wrote:Wow.
"Real or imagined" does not preclude it from being either real or imagined.
The relationship was real.
They had a relationship. It involved asking for, offering, and complying with at least one request for, assistance. This interaction constitutes a relationship.
The meetings included at least one offer of assistance which was accepted. I've stated it several times. When two people work toward a goal --that is a collaboration. The fact that they both had officers at a meeting doesn't prove a collaboration.
A collaboration is proved because they made an agreement designed to help achieve a goal.
Clarify your statement:
If the evidence lends towards your assertion then how can your assertion be stated as fact? Would your assertion not be a conclusion based on other facts?
-------
That is correct. As you may now note, I never said different.
-------
Which of my statements is a made up fact?
We are right back to where you started. You claim there was an agreement. You have no facts to back that up.
Cite one place in the 911 report that specifically addresses an agreement between the two. You make a CONCLUSION that they agreed to something but that is NOT fact. It is CONCLUSION or ASSERTION.
Parados said--
Cite one place in the 911 report that specifically addresses an agreement between the two. You make a CONCLUSION that they agreed to something but that is NOT fact. It is CONCLUSION or ASSERTION.
Lash wrote:From the 911 Commission Report--
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
--------------
Bin Laden honored the pledge to Saddam.
It is a fact.
Which of my statements did I make up?
The 911 Commission Report also alludes to further cooperation--but they only cited "indications". Which shouldn't be confused with "we have seen no evidence"...
You are all in deep denial.
Why can't you admit the facts?
