Phred said:No, but you did post within a day of posts being made in one of the most comprehensive threads covering Hussein's connections with terrorists. You were active in the forum at that time. Most people when they are active in a forum will usually catch up on posts made since their last visit.
I haven't been seriously active as a poster for awhile now. I don't go back and read every thread that I might have missed. This is just insane.
Quote:
Phred said:Besides, if you did miss the threads, so what? The threads were made and they are easy to find. Even if the threads had never been made, there are plenty of other sources which have the same material in them the threads do. That's pretty much what most of the threads are, really - cut-and-pastes from sources the poster found on the internet. If they can find it, so can you.
Again, how do I even know which claims you find credible? There are so many that have been discredited that requiring me to dig through old threads is inane.
Quote:
Phred said:Reading comprehension, Twirling, reading comprehension. I wasn't answering you, I was answering zorbman. And zorbman, remember, presents himself as such a thorough scrutinizer of this forum that if he can't remember any such threads, why, the only possible explanation is that no such threads exist, by golly!
I know you weren't responding to me. You were still saying that the reason why you haven't posted a link is out of principal.
Quote:
Phred said:No, it isn't. The first reports coming out of Iraq said nothing about this guy being under arrest. Quite the contrary - it was reported that he had been given a place to live and money to live on. Then nothing was heard about the guy one way or the other for quite some time until just before crunch time in late 2002 when - Lo and behold! - Hussein claims to be willing to hand him over to the US if Bush will just pack up and go home. Gee... nothing suspicious about the timing there, right?
Now, you can believe Hussein changed his mind, kicked the guy out of the house he'd been provided, cut off his stipend and tossed him into Abu Ghraib in 1996 if you want to believe that. Me... I'm gonna want to see some evidence that this was the case.
But lack of evidence can go both ways in this case. There's lack of evidence for the explanation you're giving. And since this situation deals with a claim by you that this man was evidence that Hussein was aiding al-Qaeda/al-Qaeda memebers, the burden of proof is on you. You're shooting yourself in the foot here.
Quote:
Phred said:
Twirling said:I noticed you left out the last two sentences:
But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
What's your point?
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint." - George Bush
My point is that quotes like the above were entirely wrong considering that the 9/11 Commission stated that there was no operational link between the two.
Quote:
Phred said:Fuck me. Why do I even bother replying to you when you won't fucking read what I fucking write?
Where did I ever say "Hussein aided al Qaeda" the organization? I didn't say it. However, Hussein most certainly did aid terrorists, some of whom were members of al Qaeda at the time, some of whom later became members of Al Qaeda. Terrorists are terrorists. Not all terrorists who murdered Americans belonged to al Qaeda, you know. Or do you even know?
I KNOW, I GET IT. But you're still saying that Hussein aided al-Qaeda members. It's a little word game. You're still making false claims.
Besides, you said you deny the idea that the justifications for this war was built on lies. One of the justifications Bush gave was that Hussein aided al-Qaeda. So even following this defense of yours that you're talking about members and not the actual organization, you're still arguing in favor of the idea that the basis for the war was lies.
Quote:
Phred said:No you didn't. You are reading into plain and simple English stuff that isn't there.
Fuck me. Why do I even bother replying to you when you won't fucking read what I fucking write?
Quote:
Phred said:But some of the ones supported by Hussein were al Qaeda members, either at the time they were still dealing with him or afterwards.
No evidence presented. And saying I need to do a search isn't "evidence".
Quote:
Phred said:And again, it doesn't matter even if none of them were. Some were, of course, but so what? Terrorists are terrorists. After 9/11 official American policy was that those regimes which harbored terrorists would face consequences. Not regimes which harbored al Qaeda, regimes which harbored terrorists.
Two sides to this.
1. The reasons that were given to justify the war included that Saddam Hussein aided al-Qaeda, and that he had WMDs which he could have also given to al-Qaeda. So of course it's relevant.
2. If we accept the statement that "regimes which harbored terrorists would face consequences" were true, then how do you explain the vast majority of countries out there which didn't face consequences. Especially when you consider that the level of support for terrorists is much higher in other countries.
Quote:
Phred said:It turns out no vast stockpiles of ready-to-go bio and chem warheads were found, yes. That doesn't change the fact that MAIA's claims were bullshit.
You do realize every time something which challenges your false assertions comes up, you switch the topic to MAIA's claims (false claim being that the war was based on discredited & cherrypicked information). That's your ace in the hole. Instead of having to answer for it, it's all about MAIA.
Quote:
Phred said:
Quote:
I already provided plenty of quotes that the administration made that we all know to be false!
About Hussein's responsibility for 9/11? No you haven't.
Where in that quote did I say Hussein's responsibility for 9/11? My argument is that there was such a high level of false statements which inaccurately linked Iraq with al-Qaeda. The implications are there, even though we're never going to agree on that. But more importantly, the actual reasons given for the war were false, and I gave plenty of quotes which showed just that.
Phred said:And I will say again, if you want to rehash the entire "was it right to go to war with Hussein" can of worms again, do it in another thread. This thread has a very narrow focus - MAIA's bullshit claims about Bush's blaming Hussein for 9/11 and his claims the US government became a "Big Brother" system engaged in "control" of US residents.
Putting this quote into context:
Quote:
Twirling said:What I was trying to say, and maybe I wasn't clear enough, was that almost everyone I talk to admits that Bush cherry picked information that he knew to be questionable to tie Iraq with al-Qaeda, and therefore, indirectly, 9/11. Therefore, the President mislead the public into war. Do you dispute that, or do you agree with that statement?
Quote:
Phred said:Of course I dispute it! That's what the whole fucking thread is about, duh! *Facepalm*
So this line about "This thread has a very narrow focus - MAIA's bullshit claims about Bush's blaming Hussein for 9/11" directly contradicts what you said. You even gave me a "facepalm".
Quote:
Phred said:The Clinton administration, yeah.
There's far more than that.
Quote:
Phred said:
I give up. You're hopeless. Believe whatever the fuck you want, it makes no difference to my life.
Fine by me. What I get from all this is that when you were challenged on the assertion that Saddam supported members of al-Qaeda, you couldn't provide any evidence. The little evidence you did provide didn't support your case. When asked for links to these threads, you refused. And despite plenty of quotes which shows the Bush administration falsely linking Iraq with al-Qaeda, you still refuse to accept that there was an implied link between Iraq & 9/11. I suppose that comes down to personal opinion, but there's still plenty of false statements made by the Bush administration. Had you proved those quotes to be correct, more evidence would be in your favor on the issue of "opinion". But since you didn't provide any evidence to support your case, I consider your "challenge" to be a flop.
--------------------
The very nature of experience is ineffable; it transcends cognitive thought and intellectualized analysis. To be without experience is to be without an emotional knowledge of what the experience translates into. The desire for the understanding of what life is made of is the motivation that drives us all. Without it, in fear of the experiences what life can hold is among the greatest contradictions; to live in fear of death while not being alive.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Bulk Substrate
Twirling 
johnm214 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
MAIA
Learyfan
wingnutx
Autonomous
Phred
Evolving
PsiloKitten