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

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

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:

And the best part is, I don't have to worry about losing my job for supplying faulty intelligence. :wink:

Hey, that sounds familiar too. Maybe I can be ambassador to the UN in a couple of years.

0 Replies

what Parados was quoting

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1352120#1352120

lash wrote

Quote:

Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 11:08 am Post: 1352120 -

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.

<snip balance of that post>

and then later on this thread

Quote:

Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 11:16 am Post: 1352135 -

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.

lash didn't quite bring over what she wrote there

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Setanta--

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

Insist until you are blue in the face. I have never changed your posts. Therefore, you have just retailed a lie.

Given the research which Parados has now done, i not only offer no apology, but am willing to state that i consider you to have been willfully disingenuous about what your stated position has always been, and that you are attempting to play fast and loose with the details of an on-going debate.

Given your penchant for declaring your moral superiority, of always claiming that you are victimized by personal attack when your motives were of the purest, and your behavior above reproach . . . the irony and the hypocrisy are enormous.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
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:

And the best part is, I don't have to worry about losing my job for supplying faulty intelligence. :wink:

Hey, that sounds familiar too. Maybe I can be ambassador to the UN in a couple of years.

Only if you swear to destroy it and replace it with the USA.

Damn - I can't sleep and I am getting stroppy.

0 Replies

I see that my text appears 'cut off' on the other thread.

I apologize for thinking it was done here on purpose. And, I'm glad it wasn't. I had never suispcted anything like that before.

I edit my posts during the writing process, and sometimes (not frequently)they don't appear on the screen as they did on my field. I obviously hit the Submit before it was as I wished on the other one. I thought it was the same there. It should have been. That is my meaning.

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

But, thanks for pointing out the error. I'll fix the other one.

0 Replies

Don't fix the other one.

It's already quoted - with time references - here.

<and my grasp on English fails completely>

0 Replies

My aunt was a principal in a grade school and told the story of one of her students claiming that he dropped his homework on the way to school and it was blown to the top of a telephone pole. The poor child was adament that it happened.

0 Replies

I don't know what you think I would possibly want to hide.

I created Point A. Why should I care to hide how it appeared during construction?

The only significance is I blamed other people for doing it on purpose--because I knew how I'd written it.

Otherwise, it is a non-issue.

0 Replies

Yes, it was a non issue when YOU brought it up.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

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, 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.

The Point A is the one I say you all denied. It is.

I could have put this fragment:
and cooperated toward at least one goal.

anywhere I chose and said you denied it. I'd still have been right.

You do deny it, don't you?

0 Replies

I, personally, don't dispute that Iraqis met members of AQ, which is not even tantamout to saying that Hussein and bin Laden communicated through representatives, something which is not established by the Commission report--which only asserts that Iraqi security personnel met with members of AQ.

I do not for a moment consent to the proposition that they worked together. I consider it likely that some understanding was reached with regard to Ansar al Islam. At no time have i agreed, nor would i agree, that the first clause of your point A is the basis for stating that the second clause is fact. It is not a basis for such a contention.

0 Replies

I agreed that the originally posted, shorter version, of Point A was proven by the Commission.

Quote:

Point A-- Saddam and OBL communicated through representatives

I still do.

0 Replies

I am 1000% positive that Donald Rumsfeld met with AND worked with Saddam Hussein prior to 9/11, so I guess that means that Rumsfeld is somehow behind 9/11 as well?

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

I am 1000% positive that Donald Rumsfeld met with AND worked with Saddam Hussein prior to 9/11, so I guess that means that Rumsfeld is somehow behind 9/11 as well?

Which brings to my mind the apposite remarks of the much and scurrilously maligned Mr. Galloway:

George Galloway, MP wrote:

As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.

0 Replies

BPB--

No. But they did have a relationship, and they did work together.
----------------

Anyway. I appreciate those who admit their beliefs pertinent to the 911 Commission Report.

This entire flambeau was important to me, though not much in the way of light-hearted entertainment.

Some people seem to try to negate any logical inferences that there was a collusion.

I wanted to illustrate that possibility founded on some of the facts presented in the Report.

I am satisfied.

0 Replies

Given the title of this thread, you may well imagine why the rest of us are far less than satisfied with your tortured logic.

0 Replies

Had you stuck to possibility, we would have been satisfied, too, a long weary time ago.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

BPB--

No. But they did have a relationship, and they did work together.
----------------

Anyway. I appreciate those who admit their beliefs pertinent to the 911 Commission Report.

This entire flambeau was important to me, though not much in the way of light-hearted entertainment.

Some people seem to try to negate any logical inferences that there was a collusion.

I wanted to illustrate that possibility founded on some of the facts presented in the Report.

I am satisfied.

So Rumsfeld and Saddam having a working relationship doesn't mean that Rumsfeld had anything to do with 9/11. but Saddam meeting with OBL means he was complicit in the 9/11 attacks...interesting that....

0 Replies

BPB--

The they I mention refers to Rumsfeld and Saddam.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

BPB--

The they I mention refers to Rumsfeld and Saddam.

I know that.

I am following your logic.
Saddam met with OBL so Saddam is complicit in the 9/11 attacks.(according to you)
Rumsfeld met with, worked with, sold goods to Saddam, a known (according to you) AQ cooperative.
Therefore by association Rumsfeld is in bed with AQ.

Perfect.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know