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

parados wrote:

Who the hell claimed the meetings didn't take place? Talk about building a strawman....

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

parados--

You are in agreement with me, then, as to the meetings.

They don't PROVE anything....except that they took place, although the anti-Bushies previously claimed they did not and could not because of Saddam/OBL animosity.

It shows good reason for people to suspect the two were cohorts.

How does it show "good reason"? Provide you basis for this. Prove it logically. The fact that the 9/11 commission stated there was "no evidence" is pretty compelling that they weren't cohorts. It takes a rather large leap based on ZERO facts to claim they were.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

They don't PROVE anything....except that they took place, although the anti-Bushies previously claimed they did not and could not because of Saddam/OBL animosity.

It shows good reason for people to suspect the two were cohorts.

Your contention about "anti-Bushies" is, of course, not something you can prove.

Nevertheless, by what passes for logic in your statement here, Rummy and Hussein are cohorts. They had meetings, the meetings were shown to have taken palce on American televised new reports. Ipso fatso, Rummy and Hussein were cohorts. The right always sneers at such a contention, and adduces all sorts of evidence that the links between Iraq and the Reagan administration were insignificant. Now, however, a few such meetings between Iraqis and AQ operatives take on a sinister significance. But you can't have it both ways, sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander.

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/Rumsfeld-hussein.jpg

(Edited to provide clarity in the statement.)

0 Replies

Yes. They were cohorts. They both had a common enemy at the time, and as people with common enemies will do--they worked together.

Like Saddam and OBL did more recently.

0 Replies

edit: no relevance

0 Replies

The meetings between al Qaeda operatives and an intermediary, Hassan al Turabi, indicates that there was espionage going on on the part of Iraq, so as to keep their finger on things al Qaeda were up to, much like the espionage that the US has been and currently is involved in, like the meeting "links" between the US and the Soviet Union back in the day.

Ergo, the US and the Soviet Union were cohorts.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Yes. They were cohorts. They both had a common enemy at the time, and as people with common enemies will do--they worked together.

Like Saddam and OBL did more recently.

I guess that proves that Bush sided with Osama then since they both opposed Clinton. Thanks for making that clear with your logic.

0 Replies

I see . . . so then, Lash, we can use the logic you've outlined here to hold the Reagan administration guilty for the murderous actions of the Hussein regime.

Well . . . thanks . . . that clears up a lot of things.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Lash wrote:
parados--

You are in agreement with me, then, as to the meetings.

They don't PROVE anything....except that they took place, although the anti-Bushies previously claimed they did not and could not because of Saddam/OBL animosity.

It shows good reason for people to suspect the two were cohorts.

How does it show "good reason"? Provide you basis for this. Prove it logically. The fact that the 9/11 commission stated there was "no evidence" is pretty compelling that they weren't cohorts. It takes a rather large leap based on ZERO facts to claim they were.

Prove they weren't.
And, explain their meetings.

0 Replies

I thought you were the one that said you can't prove a negative.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Prove they weren't.
And, explain their meetings.

LOL.. it is YOUR responsibility to prove it.

"Proof is the duty of the affirmative side. A negative cannot be positively proved." --Thomas Jefferson to Martin Van Buren, 1824. ME 16:55

You claim the meetings have a meaning... PROVE IT. I say you can't make that claim based on any known logical construct. I can just as easily claim the meetings were to talk about the price of Grey Poupan. I have as much evidence to support that as you seem to have to support your claim.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I thought you were the one that said you can't prove a negative.

My point.

What I sought to prove, I proved.

Beyond that, we are equally unable to 'prove' further.

Previous to the findings of the Commission, many people scoffed at the idea that OBL and Saddam would even meet.

They did.

The opportunity and the desire were present, and documented. If people in denial want to pretend they were talking about the weather, and their offers for assistance and safe haven didn't mean anything--it doesn't change anything.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

squinney wrote:
I thought you were the one that said you can't prove a negative.

My point.

What I sought to prove, I proved.

Beyond that, we are equally unable to 'prove' further.

Previous to the findings of the Commission, many people scoffed at the idea that OBL and Saddam would even meet.

They did.

The opportunity and the desire were present, and documented. If people in denial want to pretend they were talking about the weather, and their offers for assistance and safe haven didn't mean anything--it doesn't change anything.

When you can't argue the logic of your case then just bring out the old strawman again.

You seem to have only 2 arguments here Lash, strawman or demand the other side prove a negative. Neither of which stand your argument in good stead.

The fact remains that there is no evidence of cooperation between Saddam and Osama. ZERO.. NONE.. Your claiming it doesn't make it so. You have "proved" nothing concerning a cooperation.

0 Replies

Tha position is one of the oddest I have ever seen you try on, Lash.

If the opposing side tried it against one of your favourites, you would be screaming from the rooftops.

0 Replies

I don't know why you say so, dlowan.

I'm not trying to prove anything...other than what the Commission said.

The left acts as though anyone who has confidence in a Saddam/OBL collaboration are crazy--yet the Commission clearly shows they met, they offered one another concessions and safe haven...

To me, the crazy ones are the ones who think this meant nothing.

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.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Lol - I love you sometimes Lash.

Of course, I can easily imagine one might, but this would not be one of those times.

Are you a Republican now?

Nah - my love has not yet driven me insane.

0 Replies

Lash, you pick from the commission report just the bits you need for your conspiracy theory, and skip the rest of it. Like, the part where it says "no evidence for a collaborative operational relationship" - duh!

The report talks about the meetings, and draws the conclusion that these meetings are no evidence for a collaboration, and here you go and say, "hey, I'm just citing the commission report, and that's why I have confidence in a Saddam/OBL collaboration"...

Weird, Lash. Weird.

0 Replies

Well, Lash, if you are unable - as I said earlier - to see the enormous ethical burden placed on countries which continue to wish to trumpet their virtues (and in the case of the US try to see itself as world moral arbiter) AND invade another sovereign sstate, killing up to 100, 000 of its citizens, to have proper evidence to justify their slaughter, there can be - and indeed is - nothing more to say.

C'mon - your girl looks to have done something really unethical. Admit it and move on.

You are so never gonna be able to untangle those legs if you continue these contortions.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Lash wrote:
parados--

You are in agreement with me, then, as to the meetings.

They don't PROVE anything....except that they took place, although the anti-Bushies previously claimed they did not and could not because of Saddam/OBL animosity.

It shows good reason for people to suspect the two were cohorts.

How does it show "good reason"? Provide you basis for this. Prove it logically. The fact that the 9/11 commission stated there was "no evidence" is pretty compelling that they weren't cohorts. It takes a rather large leap based on ZERO facts to claim they were.

To begin, your counting is WAY off.

Three meetings between intermediaries.
One offer to OBL from Saddam for safe haven.

3+1=4.

(I have retained a few math skills.)

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Lash, you pick from the commission report just the bits you need for your conspiracy theory, and skip the rest of it. Like, the part where it says "no evidence for a collaborative operational relationship" - duh!

The report talks about the meetings, and draws the conclusion that these meetings are no evidence for a collaboration, and here you go and say, "hey, I'm just citing the commission report, and that's why I have confidence in a Saddam/OBL collaboration"...

Weird, Lash. Weird.

Why do you think they met? If Saddam offered OBL safe haven---THAT IS EVIDENCE OF A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP.

If OBL was orchestrating attacks--WHICH HE WAS

and he took Saddam's protection WHICH WAS OFFERED TO HIM

He would be harboring the most dangerous terrorist in the world--the one who killed 3000 Americans, and countless others around the world.

You are so busy trying to win an argument, you've completely turned your head off to reality.

I didn't overlook any part of it. YOU DID.

I realize there is no conclusive proof. But, you are ignoring the facts.

Why did they meet?
Is providing safe haven to Osama Bin Laden collaboration with him? Would it help him to plan more terrorist attacks?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know