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

No one is afraid you will use your silly point A to support your scurrilous point E. We've already seen the attempt, and it disgusts, not frightens.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Very interesting that you both knee-jerk immediately to religious references.

I hope you'll think about that. It may explain to your conscious mind why you are apoplectic about the fact these two were so embroiled with one another--and the likelihood Saddam did at least indirectly assist OBL in preparing for 911.

What does the religious reference signify? Hatred of Bush? A wide insult to me--that anyone who looks at this evidence and sees a connection is a wild-eyed...Christian who'll believe anything?

I think the Christianity angle is affecting the two of you much moreso than anyone else. It has given you a dodge of the issue. Or maybe you think it has.

You couldn't tolerate it if Bush was correct.

Have you actually thought of why they arranged so many meetings?

What Salman Pak was really for?

There is too much evidence of a relationship for a responsible person to avoid.

You should at least give credence to the possibility that Saddam was a part of 911 planning. It hasn't been proven, but it is quite possible, and even likely.

First of all, I couldn't care less why you think I picked the religious reference. It has nothing to do with anything here, insofar as it relates to this discussion. I was just making a point, which I know you got, about how loony you've become in your zeal to keep your belief system in tact that they were in fact, working together. Instead you attacked me for the religious references I made. I wonder why? Is it because you have no case? Is it because you were trying to discredit me because you have nothing to back up your conclusions? Who knows? I'll let you take a look in the mirror and figure that out on your own.

I could easily handle it if Bush was right. In fact, last night, I was just talkiing to a friend of mine and saying that it is possible that this whole Iraq thing will someday turn out to have worked to the good for all of us. I doubt it, but hey, who knows? And if it does, I will gladly admit that I was incorrect. I have no party affiliation. I don't care. You obviously do, or you wouldn't be so adamant in trying to make 2+2=5.

My example was only meant to illustrate how one could probably conclude just about anything if one were to jump far enough off into any ideological deep end, much like the one you are obviously drowning in.

0 Replies

Oh, and here's a simple question for you, Lash.

Do you believe that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

You were all so frantic to herd off Point E--that you vehemently denied Point A.

Point E-- The war was justified.

Point D-- Saddam actively cooperated with OBL in the 911 attack.

Point C-- Saddam indirectly assisted OBL by providing training ground and finances for 911.

Point B-- Saddam and OBL discussed working together against the US.

Point A-- Saddam and OBL communicated through representatives.

-----
This is what I truly hate passionately. You were all so afraid I may take your admission of Point A and miraculously turn into Point E.

Point A happened. Making Point E more of a possibility than if it didn't.

Reasonable people can take a look at these men, their goals, what is going on with them at the time--add in Salman Pak, Yousef Ramzi, and other factors and come to the logical conclusion these men were working together.

The fact that I have been asserting is that SH and OBL worked together--cooperated --when OBL withdrew his support of the Islamic Kurds who fought Saddam from the North.

That is cooperation.

I cannot make it clearer than that. And I cannot understand why any logical person who can read could disagree. Unless they are greatly afraid of being a little closer to Point E.

Point A only leads to the conclusion in point B. Everything after that is a house of cards based on conclusions that have little evidence.

By the way I have seen no one deny Point A, let alone do it vehemently.. That seems to be YOUR strawman.

0 Replies

Yes. I think he provided training in Iraq for some AQ terrorists, and may have provided finances for AQ--which may or may not have been used pertinent to 911--but hey, money feed them and pays the rent for them.

I have read a lot of material about Salman Pak, as well as information recieved from former Iraqi nationals. The evidence to me is overwhelming.

My views have nothing to do with ideology. I was pissed at Clinton for Somalia--and felt like Saddam had gotten away with murder literally--because Bush1 pussyfooted.

I wanted Saddam dealt with when "my party" did not. Everything is not about politics. Some people think for themselves. I was glad Bush2 happened to agree with what I thought should have been done, which was removal of Saddam Hussien from power.

I just wish we could have done it a different way.

0 Replies

parados--

You all denied they worked together. Point A.

0 Replies

You think that were the case, but you cannot assert it as fact. Time and again, and especially before the war, members asserted that Iraq were complicit in the September 11th attack. The evidence of this position is easily found. The progession from your point A to your point E was adduced again and again as a causus belli before the war, and has been desparately trotted out after the invasion, because the WoMD have not been found.

THE US, THE UN & IRAQ: A Bibliography

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I just wish we could have done it a different way.

You mean like legally and morally, Lash?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

parados--

You all denied they worked together. Point A.

You contradict your own post--which is not to be wondered at.

Your point A:

Lash wrote:

Point A-- Saddam and OBL communicated through representatives.

No one here has denied that, we have denied your continual assertion that this makes "they worked together" a fact, which it most assuredly is not.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

parados--

You all denied they worked together. Point A.

Point A was that they "communicated"....

Quote:

com·mu·ni·cate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-myn-kt)
v. com·mu·ni·cat·ed, com·mu·ni·cat·ing, com·mu·ni·cates
v. tr.

To convey information about; make known; impart: communicated his views to our office.
To reveal clearly; manifest: Her disapproval communicated itself in her frown.
To spread (a disease, for example) to others; transmit: a carrier who communicated typhus.

v. intr.
To have an interchange, as of ideas.
To express oneself in such a way that one is readily and clearly understood: "That ability to communicate was strange in a man given to long, awkward silences" (Anthony Lewis).
Ecclesiastical. To receive Communion.
To be connected, one with another: apartments that communicate.

If we take your meaning then it means I and everyone else here is working with you now. A point I would love to see you try argue. (It leads to such delicious irony.)

0 Replies

Someone cut off my Point A.

This is it:

Point A-- Saddam and OBL communicated through representatives, and cooperated toward at least one goal.

I wouldn't change your posts.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

We're having the same conversation on another thread--so if you'll excuse me, I'll bring what I wrote there.
-------------
You were all so frantic to herd off Point E--that you vehemently denied Point A.

Point E-- The war was justified.

Point D-- Saddam actively cooperated with OBL in the 911 attack.

Point C-- Saddam indirectly assisted OBL by providing training ground and finances for 911.

Point B-- Saddam and OBL discussed working together against the US.

Point A-- Saddam and OBL communicated through representatives, and cooperated toward at least one goal.

-----
This is what I truly hate passionately. You were all so afraid I may take your admission of Point A and miraculously turn into Point E.

Point A happened. Making Point E more of a possibility than if it didn't.

Reasonable people can take a look at these men, their goals, what is going on with them at the time--add in Salman Pak, Yousef Ramzi, and other factors and come to the logical conclusion these men were working together against the US. But, it can't be proven--so cannot be claimed as a fact.

The fact that I have been asserting is that SH and OBL worked together--cooperated --when OBL withdrew his support of the Islamic Kurds who fought Saddam from the North.

That is cooperation.

I cannot make it clearer than that. And I cannot understand why any logical person who can read could disagree. Unless they are greatly afraid of being a little closer to Point E.

_________________
apparent: ap·par·ent- adj. Readily seen; visible. Readily understood; clear or obvious.
Bin Laden apparently honored his pledge to Saddam Hussein--911 Commission.

A collaboration.

Setanta--

I will have to insist that you don't change my posts.

0 Replies

Lash,

I didn't cut it off, I copied it as a direct quote from the other thread you posted it first. It appears you felt a need to CHANGE it when you moved it here.

Interesting how you did that. Why? We can only assume.

0 Replies

I agree with the short version of Point A.

Nothing has been proven to flow past that by the commission - not even the rest of your original Point A.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ahhhhhhhhh, now it makes sense

edit edit edit

<sometimes English SL/TL just fails me>

0 Replies

I did indeed copy your post as presented by Parados, and i acknowledge that it does not match your post on page 34, and that the post in question has not been edited by you.

In which case, i will point out that you have left open in what matters you contend that they worked together. The only one which i consider reasonable based upon the Commission report is in regard to Ansar al Islam, and even then, the Commission hedges the statement with qualifiers, and makes it contention and not fact.

My apologies for having quoted you from Parados' post, as opposed to the one you made.

None of which changes what is fact, that the Commission report does not authorize a contention that the two worked together at all, let alone that Iraq provided training or even shelter to the September 11th bombers. In fact, the Commission report goes into a great deal of detail on the allegations that the AQ bombers travelled via Iran, which makes a good deal more geographic sense.

0 Replies

ehBeth,

I was on the Dean thread and was replying when I decided it was more appropriate to answer here. I didn't read Lash's comment here other than the first line where she said she copied it here. I assumed it would be the same.

Interesting how SHE changed it.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Lash,

I didn't cut it off, I copied it as a direct quote from the other thread you posted it first. It appears you felt a need to CHANGE it when you moved it here.

Interesting how you did that. Why? We can only assume.

That does indeed raise an interesting question. Thanks for the research, Boss.

EDIT: Apology withdrawn, deception is deception, no matter the subtlety with which it has been carried out.

0 Replies

So what you're saying Set is that when quoting Lash, you acted on good faith based on the information available in Parados' post and therefore this was a case of faulty intelligence and you are blameless. Makes senses. Smells familiar as well. :wink:

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Very interesting that you both knee-jerk immediately to religious references.

I hope you'll think about that. It may explain to your conscious mind why you are apoplectic about the fact these two were so embroiled with one another--and the likelihood Saddam did at least indirectly assist OBL in preparing for 911.

What does the religious reference signify? Hatred of Bush? A wide insult to me--that anyone who looks at this evidence and sees a connection is a wild-eyed...Christian who'll believe anything?

I think the Christianity angle is affecting the two of you much moreso than anyone else. It has given you a dodge of the issue. Or maybe you think it has.

You couldn't tolerate it if Bush was correct.

Have you actually thought of why they arranged so many meetings?

What Salman Pak was really for?

There is too much evidence of a relationship for a responsible person to avoid.

You should at least give credence to the possibility that Saddam was a part of 911 planning. It hasn't been proven, but it is quite possible, and even likely.

Religion is another example of believing - and often asserting as undeniable fact, and being prepared to hurt people because of those beliefs - things that are highly improbable, but cannot absolutely be proven wrong.

Weren't no knee-jerk, methinks - but fit like a hand in a glove.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

I suspect this

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1352050#1352050

may be why Lash is so determined to get this one nailed down. (in part)

I don't get this - here, or on the other thread - what are you saying?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know