A Good Definition of Treason

[maineman]

Typical Liberal non-response: "shoot the messenger". We see yet another pattern.

The "messenger" brings only opinions and no facts.... there really is nothing to shoot.

Now when you bring some facts that proove that Saddam helped Osama...which IS what you have already claimed .... we can talk about the message....

I won't hold my breath.

 

[glockmail]

The "messenger" brings only opinions and no facts.... there really is nothing to shoot.

Now when you bring some facts that proove that Saddam helped Osama...which IS what you have already claimed .... we can talk about the message....

I won't hold my breath.

I've summarized a series of articles for you and you simply dismiss them as opinion. Is there any source that you would approve?

Too bad that Sandy Berger destroyed a lot of the evidence in the National Archive.

 

[glockmail]

The "messenger" brings only opinions and no facts.... there really is nothing to shoot.

Now when you bring some facts that proove that Saddam helped Osama...which IS what you have already claimed .... we can talk about the message....

I won't hold my breath.

Ha! Another zero-negative rep point form you. I think that was your third, tough guy.

 

[maineman]

I've summarized a series of articles for you and you simply dismiss them as opinion. Is there any source that you would approve?

Too bad that Sandy Berger destroyed a lot of the evidence in the National Archive.

when you "summarize" oped pieces that quote SECRET documents never presented but somehow known by conservative opinion writers, that can only honestly be construed as opinion. If you were to bring me a source from within our government...from within our intelligence community that displayed this FACT that you so confidently proclaimed earlier, I'd be all ears.

You didn't say that you had strong suspicions that Saddam helps Osama...you didn't say that you thought that maybe he had helped Osama....you used the rather unambiguous word "FACT". SOOOOOO if you got any FACTS to back that up, now would be a good time to bring them.... either that, or earn a large measure of respect from me by admitting that your mouth wrote a check that your ass couldn't cash.

 

[maineman]

Ha! Another zero-negative rep point form you. I think that was your third, tough guy.

in direct response to yours. "tough guy" .

 

[glockmail]

when you "summarize" oped pieces that quote SECRET documents never presented but somehow known by conservative opinion writers, that can only honestly be construed as opinion. .....

So are all articles written by conservatives op-ed in your world? Do you deny the documents exist? What about the other non-secret documents that are discussed?

You haven't bothered to dispute one real issue that has been raised. It appears that you don't have the ability.

 

[glockmail]

in direct response to yours. "tough guy" .

Wrong- mine are worth 6/2 to you.

 

[maineman]

So are all articles written by conservatives op-ed in your world? Do you deny the documents exist? What about the other non-secret documents that are discussed?

You haven't bothered to dispute one real issue that has been raised. It appears that you don't have the ability.

it would seem to me that if you wanted to make your case, you would bring the facts and not merely steve hayes opining about them

 

[maineman]

Wrong- mine are worth 6/2 to you.

super cyber tough! can you hear my cyber knees rattling in cyber fear at your cyber toughness, "tough guy"?

 

[glockmail]

it would seem to me that if you wanted to make your case, you would bring the facts and not merely steve hayes opining about them

Again: "shoot the messenger", as you are somehow not able to respond. Also, only two of the dozen or so articles were written by Hayes.

Nice try at avoiding 3 direct questions though.

 

[glockmail]

super cyber tough! can you hear my cyber knees rattling in cyber fear at your cyber toughness, "tough guy"?

When I point my ears north, yes!

 

[maineman]

Again: "shoot the messenger", as you are somehow not able to respond. Also, only two of the dozen or so articles were written by Hayes.

Nice try at avoiding 3 direct questions though.

I wonder why you felt the need to cut and paste all those words..... you have got some unconfirmed testimony from a defector, some reports of meetings, but I see NOTHING in there were Saddam aided Al Qaeda in any substantive way whatsoever.... certainly nothing that rises to the level of FACT. And those few tidbits were interspersed in this giant cut and paste that has all sorts of irrelevant filler .... did you have professors in college (assuming you went to college) that graded term papers by weight? Is that where you learned your research and documentation skills?

 

[glockmail]

I wonder why you felt the need to cut and paste all those words..... you have got some unconfirmed testimony from a defector, some reports of meetings, but I see NOTHING in there were Saddam aided Al Qaeda in any substantive way whatsoever.... certainly nothing that rises to the level of FACT. And those few tidbits were interspersed in this giant cut and paste that has all sorts of irrelevant filler .... did you have professors in college (assuming you went to college) that graded term papers by weight? Is that where you learned your research and documentation skills?

The case is not a simple one, and requires "connecting the dots" from several sources.

No, I didn't have profs in either college or grad school that graded using that method.

 

[maineman]

The case is not a simple one, and requires "connecting the dots" from several sources.

No, I didn't have profs in either college or grad school that graded using that method.

and you think that those dots which are subjectively connected by you constitute FACT?

Like I said.... all you have to do is say that your use of the word FACT to describe Saddam HELPING Al Qaeda was not justified....

 

[glockmail]

and you think that those dots which are subjectively connected by you constitute FACT?

Like I said.... all you have to do is say that your use of the word FACT to describe Saddam HELPING Al Qaeda was not justified....

I didn't connect the dots, but I agree with the assessment; beyond a reasonable doubt: fact.

Why not debate the issues instead of focusing on your definition of a word that apparently bothers you?

 

[maineman]

I didn't connect the dots, but I agree with the assessment; beyond a reasonable doubt: fact.

Why not debate the issues instead of focusing on your definition of a word that apparently bothers you?

just because YOU happen to agree with the way some right wing op-ed writer connects a tortuous series of dots does not make that connection a FACT. YOu could, for example, have no doubts that the moon was made of green cheese..... what wacko tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist rightwing nutjobs think is reasonable doubt, and what reasonable people think is reasonable doubt are miles apart.

And you ask me why I focus on the definition of the word "fact"? Because if we don't have a commonly agreed upon reference as to what all words mean, how in the hell are we supposed to communicate?

Having lived in the middle east amongst baathists and fundamentalist shiites {and druze and israelis and palestinians and muslim socialists and a whole host of other armed and dangerous factions), I think I have a fairly good idea of who gets along with whom and whose philosophies are anathema to whom..... Given my personal experience living in the middle east, I cannot begin to imagine why Saddam Hussein, a fervent secular ba'athist, would ever get in bed with islamic fundamentalists whose very vision included the destruction of Saddam's very own dictatorship. I cannot imagine a scenario - like the one the right wanted us to buy in the runup to war - where Saddam would give weapons of mass destruction to a group of people who were bent on his own destruction.... based upon what? a promise? a handshake? a "cross my heart and hope to die"? That makes no sense to me given my personal relationships with baathists and with fundamentalist muslims.

Upon what do you base your opinion, other than on the opinion of Steve Hayes and other right wing commentators, that YOU find so reasonable that it becomes FACT?

 

[glockmail]

....Upon what do you base your opinion, other than on the opinion of Steve Hayes and other right wing commentators, that YOU find so reasonable that it becomes FACT?

I followed the dots. It's a complex realtionship, but understandable. To me anyway. Must be something to do with my advanced reading comprehension, that you commenetd on a few hundred posts back.

Do you deny that Saddam supported any terrorists, other than bin Laden?

 

[maineman]

I followed the dots. It's a complex realtionship, but understandable. To me anyway. Must be something to do with my advanced reading comprehension, that you commenetd on a few hundred posts back.

Do you deny that Saddam supported any terrorists, other than bin Laden?

I do not deny for one minute that Saddam provided extensive support for a variety of arab nationalist organizations who use terror as a tactic. I simply discount the idea that Saddam would provide any HELP to an organization whose strategic goal was the elimination of the nation-state of Iraq, among others... and I certainly have not seen any FACTS that would prove such HELP.

 

[glockmail]

I do not deny for one minute that Saddam provided extensive support for a variety of arab nationalist organizations who use terror as a tactic. I simply discount the idea that Saddam would provide any HELP to an organization whose strategic goal was the elimination of the nation-state of Iraq, among others... and I certainly have not seen any FACTS that would prove such HELP.

1992

This is the first year that contact between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Osama Bin Laden’s organization was established. According to CIA reports, the first meeting between a Bin Laden representative and an Iraqi representative occurred. By the end of 2002, nearly 100 direct meetings of the kind would be recorded by the CIA.[5]

One of the first meetings was between Ayman Al-Zawahiri, head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad which later merged with Al-Qaeda, making Zawahiri second only to Bin Laden. This has been confirmed by a former Iraqi intelligence officer and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan forces.[6]

http://www.milnet.com/geo-pol/iraq-terror.html

 

[glockmail]

.....Upon what do you base your opinion, other than on the opinion of Steve Hayes and other right wing commentators, that YOU find so reasonable that it becomes FACT?

On May 7th, a federal judge awarded $104 million in damages to the families of 9/11, to be taken from Iraqi government assets. Judge Harold Baer says the case proved, “albeit barely”, that Iraq provided material support that contributed to 9/11. The case proved that Iraq did indeed have links to Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.[126]

[emp mine]http://www.milnet.com/geo-pol/iraq-terror.html#_ednref126