2
   

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

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:30 am
Quote:
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:41 am
I don't think anyone has addressed how they would like OBL free to plan terrorist attacks under Saddam's protection.

Osama wasn't actually gallivanting around, due to his pesky assignation as the most wanted man in the world.

I see no one has ventured to explain why Saddam and OBL--who so hated one another--would chuck that ill will to arrange meetings....
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:46 am
There is an ancient Arab conundrum, older than Islam itself:

I against my brother; both of us against our cousin; all of us against you.

We are the "you" in that expression.

The point is sufficiently belabored, but i'll point it out again. Hussein and bin Laden did not meet. Low level members of their respective organizations met, and no one, least of all the September 11th Commission, reasonably contends that any arrangements grew out of the meetings.

To continue to insist that there is anything sinister in all of that, especially as regards the red herring of September 11th collusion, is the most painful and classic example of flogging the proverbial deceased horse.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:57 am
Most people don't think Saddam was in on the actual planning of 911--but that he provided indirect assistance.

That is enough for me. And likely enough for the families of OBL's victims.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:02 am
Yes, when all else fails, one can always resort to innuendo, and a denial of the best evidence so far presented. After all, anything less might entail questioning one's core assumptions about the motives and honesty of the Shrub and his Forty Theives--we can't have that, can we ? ! ? ! ?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 05:52 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 05:54 pm
So you claim . . .

But those who make claims have the burden of proof, so i don't intend to lose any sleep over your assertions . . .
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 06:29 pm
Lash wrote:
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.


Lash, the CIA operative under deep cover, that even the CIA doesn't know about.

You see Lash, rational people look for proof, especially before they rush off and kill thousands of people. "I have an inkling that such and such happened" just doesn't cut it.

Concocting evidence is much much worse and I suspect that your school of red herrings is designed to move the discussion away from those very pertinent FACTS!
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:07 pm
JTT wrote:
Lash wrote:
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.


Lash, the CIA operative under deep cover, that even the CIA doesn't know about.

You see Lash, rational people look for proof, especially before they rush off and kill thousands of people. "I have an inkling that such and such happened" just doesn't cut it.

Concocting evidence is much much worse and I suspect that your school of red herrings is designed to move the discussion away from those very pertinent FACTS!


Do you hold the media to those same standards? First CBS and now Newsweek. Don't forget about the New York Times and their plagiaristic writer who got fired.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:19 pm
Lash wrote:
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.


Still, you proceed with your argument "since I can't prove it, it must exist." A case based on your logical falacy is not case at all.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:20 pm
JTT-

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.

The fact is that he forced inspectors to wait around in front of facilities while quite large trucks took off behind those facilities.

The fact is an Iraqi scientist was dragged screaming for help from a UN caravan by SH's goons.

The fact is SH had WMDs previously.

The facts do mean something to me. Do they mean anything to you?

No one has said they're conclusive. But, they are not to be ignored, either.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:21 pm
Baldimo wrote:
JTT wrote:
Lash wrote:
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.


Lash, the CIA operative under deep cover, that even the CIA doesn't know about.

You see Lash, rational people look for proof, especially before they rush off and kill thousands of people. "I have an inkling that such and such happened" just doesn't cut it.

Concocting evidence is much much worse and I suspect that your school of red herrings is designed to move the discussion away from those very pertinent FACTS!


Do you hold the media to those same standards? First CBS and now Newsweek. Don't forget about the New York Times and their plagiaristic writer who got fired.

Of course I hold the media to the same standard. Which one of those media organizations rushed off and killed thousands of people?

All those media organizations you stated retracted their statements when they proved false. It sure would be nice if you held the President to even that most basic standard.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:24 pm
Lash wrote:
JTT-

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.

The fact is that he forced inspectors to wait around in front of facilities while quite large trucks took off behind those facilities.

The fact is an Iraqi scientist was dragged screaming for help from a UN caravan by SH's goons.

The fact is SH had WMDs previously.

The facts do mean something to me. Do they mean anything to you?

No one has said they're conclusive. But, they are not to be ignored, either.
If the facts mean something perhaps you could provide your evidence of these facts occurring in 2001 or 2002. I think you just like to make up "facts" then whine that we haven't proved them untrue yet.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:24 pm
parados wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
JTT wrote:
Lash wrote:
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.


Lash, the CIA operative under deep cover, that even the CIA doesn't know about.

You see Lash, rational people look for proof, especially before they rush off and kill thousands of people. "I have an inkling that such and such happened" just doesn't cut it.

Concocting evidence is much much worse and I suspect that your school of red herrings is designed to move the discussion away from those very pertinent FACTS!


Do you hold the media to those same standards? First CBS and now Newsweek. Don't forget about the New York Times and their plagiaristic writer who got fired.

Of course I hold the media to the same standard. Which one of those media organizations rushed off and killed thousands of people?

All those media organizations you stated retracted their statements when they proved false. It sure would be nice if you held the President to even that most basic standard.


Since when is 12 years rushing?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:27 pm
Baldimo wrote:

Since when is 12 years rushing?

Care to explain the 12 years Bush waited? He hasn't been President for 12 years in my world.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:34 pm
parados wrote:
Lash wrote:
JTT-

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.

The fact is that he forced inspectors to wait around in front of facilities while quite large trucks took off behind those facilities.

The fact is an Iraqi scientist was dragged screaming for help from a UN caravan by SH's goons.

The fact is SH had WMDs previously.

The facts do mean something to me. Do they mean anything to you?

No one has said they're conclusive. But, they are not to be ignored, either.
If the facts mean something perhaps you could provide your evidence of these facts occurring in 2001 or 2002. I think you just like to make up "facts" then whine that we haven't proved them untrue yet.

One problem with coming in late and wrong--you have to read back.

Meanwhile, you yap for proof a lot for someone who runs off with his tail between his legs when somebody gives him proof.

You have unfinished business elsewhere.

Good God, parados.

You've got a LOT of reading to do.

Bush hasn't been President for 12 years...?

LOL.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 07:49 pm
JTT wrote:
Quote:
Concocting evidence is much much worse and I suspect that your school of red herrings is designed to move the discussion away from those very pertinent FACTS!

Got a pretty good idea of your line of thinking here. Care to expand on that statement, so I am not accussed later of putting words in you mouth?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:33 pm
Baldimo wrote:
JTT wrote:
Lash wrote:
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.


Lash, the CIA operative under deep cover, that even the CIA doesn't know about.

You see Lash, rational people look for proof, especially before they rush off and kill thousands of people. "I have an inkling that such and such happened" just doesn't cut it.

Concocting evidence is much much worse and I suspect that your school of red herrings is designed to move the discussion away from those very pertinent FACTS!


Do you hold the media to those same standards? First CBS and now Newsweek. Don't forget about the New York Times and their plagiaristic writer who got fired.


More red herrings, Baldimo.

Evidently they do hold themselves to standards. Honest mistakes and still there have been consequences for all of those situations. Have you read the news?

Newsweek retracts story on Koran

Newsweek' Apologizes For Errors In Koran-Desecration Report

Have you heard boo from the biggest liars of all? No, they just spin their mistakes so rapidly that it confuses some idiots.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:40 pm
Lash wrote:
JTT-

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.

The fact is that he forced inspectors to wait around in front of facilities while quite large trucks took off behind those facilities.

The fact is an Iraqi scientist was dragged screaming for help from a UN caravan by SH's goons.

The fact is SH had WMDs previously.

The facts do mean something to me. Do they mean anything to you?

No one has said they're conclusive. But, they are not to be ignored, either.


You don't invade sovereign countries based on lies and concocted info. You don't kill thousands of innocents under false pretenses. You don't switch stories at your convenience. You don't defend these same things unless you are seriously delusional.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 08:57 pm
tommrr wrote:
JTT wrote:
Quote:
Concocting evidence is much much worse and I suspect that your school of red herrings is designed to move the discussion away from those very pertinent FACTS!

Got a pretty good idea of your line of thinking here. Care to expand on that statement, so I am not accussed later of putting words in you mouth?


I wonder who it might have been that bestowed this gift of prescience upon your good person, Tommrr? Do you also tell fortunes?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/06/2025 at 04:47:13