Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

[IlarMeilyr]

OVER half of the export business of Niger is attributable to WHAT "product?"

Stop.

Don't look behind that curtain! DANGER! It might cause you to have to think for the first time in recent history, TruthOut. And Faun. That applies to you, too, obviously.

 

[Faun]

OVER half of the export business of Niger is attributable to WHAT "product?"

Stop.

Don't look behind that curtain! DANGER! It might cause you to have to think for the first time in recent history, TruthOut. And Faun. That applies to you, too, obviously.

And your proof that the Iraqis met with the Nigerian PM to import resources and not export them is ... ???

 

[IlarMeilyr]

OVER half of the export business of Niger is attributable to WHAT "product?"

Stop.

Don't look behind that curtain! DANGER! It might cause you to have to think for the first time in recent history, TruthOut. And Faun. That applies to you, too, obviously.

And your proof that the Iraqis met with the Nigerian PM to import resources and not export them is ... ???

Already answered.

You are pretty fucking slow.

Oh. Right. You're a liberal. Understood.

 

[Faun]

Wait, wait, wait... The entire official narrative of you wing-nuts is "Bush LIED us into war". But now, when you think it helps your argument, you suddenly believe what George W. Bush says and cite him as a trustful source?

Holy shit, you can't make this stuff up folks.....

Yes, it's hard to feign ignorance like yours. You can't even grasp the concept of truth in confession. Like when a criminal suspect denies he's guilty, his denials alone do not lend him credibility; but when that same person confesses to the crime, his confession is accepted as truthful.

So yes, it's perfectly reasonable to accept Bush was being truthful when he finally confessed that the WMD for which he went into Iraq, weren't there -- he was believable, even though he wasn't believable earlier.

And again, you attempt deflection to avoid answering a question, so I'll repeat it ... who knows better if Bush was wrong? Mr. Pfarerr ... or Bush himself?

Wow - you have taken ignorance to a level seen before on USMB (and that is saying a LOT). You see, when someone "admits to being guilty" (as in your example), they are NOT seen as being truthful unless they can corroborate that admission with facts that only the criminal would know (the fact that you don't know that shows how stupid you really are - you hide in your little liberal web sites and don't know a damn thing beyond what they tell you).

So I'll repeat what's already been stated (only this time I'll sum it up in my own words since you're clearly too stupid to understand what Mr. Pfarrer stated in his book): who has more to hide - the highest politician in the land who needs to be re-elected and/or needs to maintain a certain level of "respectability" to increase his party's chances of re-election, or a former Navy Seal turned author who has no horse in the race?

Seriously - with each post you expose your ignorance. I highly recommend you stop before the entire world knows how dumb you are.

There's nothing funnier than being called ignorant by someone who posts something so stupid, it's mind-boggling; as it proves you're even dumber than the target of your insults. In this case, you infer that Bush wanted to get re-elected when uttering his confession ... note the date ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't" ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006 ​

Hey, look at that! Bush was already re-elected when he admitted the weapons for which he went into Iraq, weren't there!

G'head, keep up the name calling in lieu of rational thinking.



Oh, and you still haven't answered the question. You know, the one you keepp running away from ... who knows better if Bush was wrong? Mr. Pfarerr ... or Bush himself?

 

[Faun]

OVER half of the export business of Niger is attributable to WHAT "product?"

Stop.

Don't look behind that curtain! DANGER! It might cause you to have to think for the first time in recent history, TruthOut. And Faun. That applies to you, too, obviously.

And your proof that the Iraqis met with the Nigerian PM to import resources and not export them is ... ???

Already answered.

You are pretty fucking slow.

Oh. Right. You're a liberal. Understood.

Holy fuck! Another brainiac from the right.

No, you didn't answer that. All you said was they "discussed doing business." That doesn't prove they discussed Nigeria exporting resources and not importing them.

Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?

 

[Faun]

George W. Bush: "We have reason to believe that Saddam has WMD's"
Faun: "GWB has lied us into war - he's a blood-sucking vampire who deserves to rot in hell"

George W. Bush: "We have not found any WMD's"
Faun: "GWB is an HONEST man, and damn it, the world needs to listen to what he's saying and believe him because he's a good man who would never lie"

Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up. Give an idiot liberal enough time, they will contradict 100% of what they've said. These people can't even remember their "official stance" on an issue from what post to the next. It's how you know they are the wrong side - they have to spin everything, and when you spin, you never know where you will end up

Here comes the funny part -- you've never seen me say that Bush lied us into the war.

Do you get it? That entire diatribe of yours is a) based on a false premise; and b) yet another attempt of yours to avoid answering the question I've been trying to get you to answer, but you've been running away from as fast as your walker will allow ...

who knows better if Bush was wrong? Mr. Pfarerr ... or Bush himself?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And your proof that the Iraqis met with the Nigerian PM to import resources and not export them is ... ???

Already answered.

You are pretty fucking slow.

Oh. Right. You're a liberal. Understood.

Holy fuck! Another brainiac from the right.

No, you didn't answer that. All you said was they "discussed doing business." That doesn't prove they discussed Nigeria exporting resources and not importing them.

Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?

It is beyond your severely limited "liberal" "mind."

Discussing business COULD mean discussing onions.

But considering what Saddam actually wanted and what Niger exported primarily, it takes no secret decoder ring to figure out what was being discussed.

You may be an idiot (and you clearly are), but your effort to pretend that there is any mystery in what the topic of that discussion was is totally transparent.

Niger's exports in 1995 were mainly uranium (49 percent), livestock and meat products (17 percent), and cowpeas (7 percent).

Niger International trade, Information about International trade in Niger

They really do export onions, too. IPS ? Niger Onion Producers in Tears Over Market Glut | Inter Press Service

 

[Faun]

Already answered.

You are pretty fucking slow.

Oh. Right. You're a liberal. Understood.

Holy fuck! Another brainiac from the right.

No, you didn't answer that. All you said was they "discussed doing business." That doesn't prove they discussed Nigeria exporting resources and not importing them.

Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?

It is beyond your severely limited "liberal" "mind."

Discussing business COULD mean discussing onions.

But considering what Saddam actually wanted and what Niger exported primarily, it takes no secret decoder ring to figure out what was being discussed.

You may be an idiot (and you clearly are), but your effort to pretend that there is any mystery in what the topic of that discussion was is totally transparent.

Niger's exports in 1995 were mainly uranium (49 percent), livestock and meat products (17 percent), and cowpeas (7 percent).

Niger International trade, Information about International trade in Niger

They really do export onions, too. IPS ? Niger Onion Producers in Tears Over Market Glut | Inter Press Service

It's a pity all you can do is hurl invective, since as we both know, you are incapable of rising to the challenge ... Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?

By the way, just to be clear, you guessing what they discussed is NOT proof. It's your imagination working overtime to fill in the gaps the way you want them to be filled.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Holy fuck! Another brainiac from the right.

No, you didn't answer that. All you said was they "discussed doing business." That doesn't prove they discussed Nigeria exporting resources and not importing them.

Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?

It is beyond your severely limited "liberal" "mind."

Discussing business COULD mean discussing onions.

But considering what Saddam actually wanted and what Niger exported primarily, it takes no secret decoder ring to figure out what was being discussed.

You may be an idiot (and you clearly are), but your effort to pretend that there is any mystery in what the topic of that discussion was is totally transparent.

Niger's exports in 1995 were mainly uranium (49 percent), livestock and meat products (17 percent), and cowpeas (7 percent).

Niger International trade, Information about International trade in Niger

They really do export onions, too. IPS ? Niger Onion Producers in Tears Over Market Glut | Inter Press Service

It's a pity all you can do is hurl invective, since as we both know, you are incapable of rising to the challenge ... Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?

By the way, just to be clear, you guessing what they discussed is NOT proof. It's your imagination working overtime to fill in the gaps the way you want them to be filled.

Hey Fauny. What YOU said is the thing to which I responded, lest we forget.

Your effort at diversion and deflection is noted, but rejected this time like it was initially.

What YOU stupidly and ignorantly claimed was, "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

I denied YOUR asshole assertion. Then YOU told me to "prove it." I suggested that YOU made the original claim so YOU should prove it.

You haven't even tried. All you have done is argue that the discussion was ambiguous. Yeah, right. Like a discussion of "business" between Iraq and Niger might have been about cowpeas, livestock or onions.

What I did, by contrast (sailing over your tiny pathetic mind), was to demonstrate that the economy of Niger (exports) was predominantly URANIUM. And that appears to be the only export product from Niger in which Saddam would have had any interest.

So, I commend you on your droll ability to spin and evade the point, but you should probably know that you aren't in the tiniest little bit convincing.

So, let's put it back on you, dimwit, where it belongs. As the original proponent, meet your own burden of persuasion. YOU said, "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake." Now, prove it.

We all know you won't.

 

[Faun]

It is beyond your severely limited "liberal" "mind."

Discussing business COULD mean discussing onions.

But considering what Saddam actually wanted and what Niger exported primarily, it takes no secret decoder ring to figure out what was being discussed.

You may be an idiot (and you clearly are), but your effort to pretend that there is any mystery in what the topic of that discussion was is totally transparent.



Niger International trade, Information about International trade in Niger

They really do export onions, too. IPS ? Niger Onion Producers in Tears Over Market Glut | Inter Press Service

It's a pity all you can do is hurl invective, since as we both know, you are incapable of rising to the challenge ... Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?

By the way, just to be clear, you guessing what they discussed is NOT proof. It's your imagination working overtime to fill in the gaps the way you want them to be filled.

Hey Fauny. What YOU said is the thing to which I responded, lest we forget.

Your effort at diversion and deflection is noted, but rejected this time like it was initially.

What YOU stupidly and ignorantly claimed was, "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

I denied YOUR asshole assertion. Then YOU told me to "prove it." I suggested that YOU made the original claim so YOU should prove it.

You haven't even tried. All you have done is argue that the discussion was ambiguous. Yeah, right. Like a discussion of "business" between Iraq and Niger might have been about cowpeas, livestock or onions.

What I did, by contrast (sailing over your tiny pathetic mind), was to demonstrate that the economy of Niger (exports) was predominantly URANIUM. And that appears to be the only export product from Niger in which Saddam would have had any interest.

So, I commend you on your droll ability to spin and evade the point, but you should probably know that you aren't in the tiniest little bit convincing.

So, let's put it back on you, dimwit, where it belongs. As the original proponent, meet your own burden of persuasion. YOU said, "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake." Now, prove it.

We all know you won't.

Since you're lying (the part I highlighted in red), let's review, shall we ... ?

Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."

IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

Faun: "Prove it."

IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"

Faun: "Sure ... the IAEA identified them as forged ... Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S. ... and the source of the forgeries was later identified ... Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified"​

Well look at that. You challenged me to prove the documents were forged and so I did, despite your pathetic lie now that I "haven't even tried."

Your lies aside, I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, which you said you would do (see exchange above) after I proved the documents were forged. I offered the proof that the documents were indeed forged, yet all I've gotten in return (aside from ad hominem), is you trying to portray your imagination as proof of what was discussed between the Iraqis and Nigerian PM, given said PM claimed they didn't discuss Uranium.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It's a pity all you can do is hurl invective, since as we both know, you are incapable of rising to the challenge ... Where's your proof that they discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Nigeria?

By the way, just to be clear, you guessing what they discussed is NOT proof. It's your imagination working overtime to fill in the gaps the way you want them to be filled.

Hey Fauny. What YOU said is the thing to which I responded, lest we forget.

Your effort at diversion and deflection is noted, but rejected this time like it was initially.

What YOU stupidly and ignorantly claimed was, "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

I denied YOUR asshole assertion. Then YOU told me to "prove it." I suggested that YOU made the original claim so YOU should prove it.

You haven't even tried. All you have done is argue that the discussion was ambiguous. Yeah, right. Like a discussion of "business" between Iraq and Niger might have been about cowpeas, livestock or onions.

What I did, by contrast (sailing over your tiny pathetic mind), was to demonstrate that the economy of Niger (exports) was predominantly URANIUM. And that appears to be the only export product from Niger in which Saddam would have had any interest.

So, I commend you on your droll ability to spin and evade the point, but you should probably know that you aren't in the tiniest little bit convincing.

So, let's put it back on you, dimwit, where it belongs. As the original proponent, meet your own burden of persuasion. YOU said, "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake." Now, prove it.

We all know you won't.

Since you're lying (the part I highlighted in red), let's review, shall we ... ?

Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."

IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

Faun: "Prove it."

IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"

Faun: "Sure ... the IAEA identified them as forged ... Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S. ... and the source of the forgeries was later identified ... Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified"​

Well look at that. You challenged me to prove the documents were forged and so I did, despite your pathetic lie now that I "haven't even tried."

Your lies aside, I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, which you said you would do (see exchange above) after I proved the documents were forged. I offered the proof that the documents were indeed forged, yet all I've gotten in return (aside from ad hominem), is you trying to portray your imagination as proof of what was discussed between the Iraqis and Nigerian PM, given said PM claimed they didn't discuss Uranium.

No. YOU are lying (I'd have to highlight every word you post which defeats the point of highlighting).

YOU made the grand claim. You can deny it, but it's quoted for posterity.

YOU cannot back it up. And you have not done so.

And you never will.

To clarify things for your weak mind and to rebut your dishonest deflection efforts let us note again: I don't care that the documents were Italian forgeries. They probably were. But that's not the claim you made which I have repeatedly tried to get you to support. The claim YOU made (yet again) was: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

Get it this time? Good. Now prove that there was NO effort.

Go.

 

[Faun]

Hey Fauny. What YOU said is the thing to which I responded, lest we forget.

Your effort at diversion and deflection is noted, but rejected this time like it was initially.

What YOU stupidly and ignorantly claimed was, "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

I denied YOUR asshole assertion. Then YOU told me to "prove it." I suggested that YOU made the original claim so YOU should prove it.

You haven't even tried. All you have done is argue that the discussion was ambiguous. Yeah, right. Like a discussion of "business" between Iraq and Niger might have been about cowpeas, livestock or onions.

What I did, by contrast (sailing over your tiny pathetic mind), was to demonstrate that the economy of Niger (exports) was predominantly URANIUM. And that appears to be the only export product from Niger in which Saddam would have had any interest.

So, I commend you on your droll ability to spin and evade the point, but you should probably know that you aren't in the tiniest little bit convincing.

So, let's put it back on you, dimwit, where it belongs. As the original proponent, meet your own burden of persuasion. YOU said, "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake." Now, prove it.

We all know you won't.

Since you're lying (the part I highlighted in red), let's review, shall we ... ?

Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."

IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

Faun: "Prove it."

IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"

Faun: "Sure ... the IAEA identified them as forged ... Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S. ... and the source of the forgeries was later identified ... Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified"​

Well look at that. You challenged me to prove the documents were forged and so I did, despite your pathetic lie now that I "haven't even tried."

Your lies aside, I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, which you said you would do (see exchange above) after I proved the documents were forged. I offered the proof that the documents were indeed forged, yet all I've gotten in return (aside from ad hominem), is you trying to portray your imagination as proof of what was discussed between the Iraqis and Nigerian PM, given said PM claimed they didn't discuss Uranium.

No. YOU are lying (I'd have to highlight every word you post which defeats the point of highlighting).

YOU made the grand claim. You can deny it, but it's quoted for posterity.

YOU cannot back it up. And you have not done so.

And you never will.

To clarify things for your weak mind and to rebut your dishonest deflection efforts let us note again: I don't care that the documents were Italian forgeries. They probably were. But that's not the claim you made which I have repeatedly tried to get you to support. The claim YOU made (yet again) was: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

Get it this time? Good. Now prove that there was NO effort.

Go.

Holy shit! I even quoted you. That's still not good enough to show what you actually said???



You specifically said you wanted me to first prove the documents were forged before you would accept my challenge for you to prove

Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."

IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

Faun: "Prove it."

IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"​

Now you lie and claim something different.

And again, you still avoid proving they even discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Niger.

You can't, because you have no proof of what you claim.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Since you're lying (the part I highlighted in red), let's review, shall we ... ?

Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."

IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

Faun: "Prove it."

IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"

Faun: "Sure ... the IAEA identified them as forged ... Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S. ... and the source of the forgeries was later identified ... Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Uranium Documents Identified"​

Well look at that. You challenged me to prove the documents were forged and so I did, despite your pathetic lie now that I "haven't even tried."

Your lies aside, I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim, which you said you would do (see exchange above) after I proved the documents were forged. I offered the proof that the documents were indeed forged, yet all I've gotten in return (aside from ad hominem), is you trying to portray your imagination as proof of what was discussed between the Iraqis and Nigerian PM, given said PM claimed they didn't discuss Uranium.

No. YOU are lying (I'd have to highlight every word you post which defeats the point of highlighting).

YOU made the grand claim. You can deny it, but it's quoted for posterity.

YOU cannot back it up. And you have not done so.

And you never will.

To clarify things for your weak mind and to rebut your dishonest deflection efforts let us note again: I don't care that the documents were Italian forgeries. They probably were. But that's not the claim you made which I have repeatedly tried to get you to support. The claim YOU made (yet again) was: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

Get it this time? Good. Now prove that there was NO effort.

Go.

Holy shit! I even quoted you. That's still not good enough to show what you actually said???



You specifically said you wanted me to first prove the documents were forged before you would accept my challenge for you to prove

Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."

IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

Faun: "Prove it."

IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"​

Now you lie and claim something different.

And again, you still avoid proving they even discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Niger.

You can't, because you have no proof of what you claim.

Holy shit. You are dense. Listen you pygmy. I already conceded (three times already unless I've lost count) that the documents are probable forgeries. NOTING that certain documents are forgeries does NOT establish, however, that the conclusion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake was itself disproved.

Now try to move on.

You have won the internets. The documents are forgeries (even if they aren't I'm gonna just say "fine, they were").

MOVING to the next part, I have repeatedly demanded of you that you support your major claim: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

All of your ducking and evasion maneuvers don't conceal what you cannot accomplish. You cannot support that claim.

And you will not admit that you can't support it.

By contrast, I have demonstrated the likelihood that the conversations about "business" WERE about uranium.

 

[Faun]

No. YOU are lying (I'd have to highlight every word you post which defeats the point of highlighting).

YOU made the grand claim. You can deny it, but it's quoted for posterity.

YOU cannot back it up. And you have not done so.

And you never will.

To clarify things for your weak mind and to rebut your dishonest deflection efforts let us note again: I don't care that the documents were Italian forgeries. They probably were. But that's not the claim you made which I have repeatedly tried to get you to support. The claim YOU made (yet again) was: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

Get it this time? Good. Now prove that there was NO effort.

Go.

Holy shit! I even quoted you. That's still not good enough to show what you actually said???



You specifically said you wanted me to first prove the documents were forged before you would accept my challenge for you to prove

Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."

IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

Faun: "Prove it."

IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"​

Now you lie and claim something different.

And again, you still avoid proving they even discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Niger.

You can't, because you have no proof of what you claim.

Holy shit. You are dense. Listen you pygmy. I already conceded (three times already unless I've lost count) that the documents are probable forgeries. NOTING that certain documents are forgeries does NOT establish, however, that the conclusion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake was itself disproved.

Now try to move on.

You have won the internets. The documents are forgeries (even if they aren't I'm gonna just say "fine, they were").

MOVING to the next part, I have repeatedly demanded of you that you support your major claim: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

All of your ducking and evasion maneuvers don't conceal what you cannot accomplish. You cannot support that claim.

And you will not admit that you can't support it.

By contrast, I have demonstrated the likelihood that the conversations about "business" WERE about uranium.

Game, set, match.

"likelihood" (I highlighted) ≠ proof

As far as me not supporting my claim that "there was no effort to purchase yellowcake." First of all, that's a negative which can only be proved by the absense of proof to the contrary, which I did when I identified the two sources which could have provided proof that I am wrong. Documents showing a purchase of Uranium and a meeting between Iraqis and Niger to purchase Uranium. The former was proved to be a forged document of sale and the latter was proved that no one knows for sure what was discussed, other than the PM saying they didn't discuss selling Uranium to Iraq.

G'head, this is where you throw another tantrum and hurl more invective because you can't prove your claim: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Holy shit! I even quoted you. That's still not good enough to show what you actually said???



You specifically said you wanted me to first prove the documents were forged before you would accept my challenge for you to prove

Faun: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake. That was based on a forged document and a meeting between Iraqis and the Nigerian PM, who said he thought the Iraqis wanted to meet with him to inquire about purchasing yellowcake, but that it was never actually discussed."

IlarMeilyr: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

Faun: "Prove it."

IlarMeilyr: "I will. But let's do this first. Since YOU made the original claim ("it was a forged document"), why don't YOU prove that, to get us rolling?"​

Now you lie and claim something different.

And again, you still avoid proving they even discussed importing resources into Iraq and not exporting them to Niger.

You can't, because you have no proof of what you claim.

Holy shit. You are dense. Listen you pygmy. I already conceded (three times already unless I've lost count) that the documents are probable forgeries. NOTING that certain documents are forgeries does NOT establish, however, that the conclusion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake was itself disproved.

Now try to move on.

You have won the internets. The documents are forgeries (even if they aren't I'm gonna just say "fine, they were").

MOVING to the next part, I have repeatedly demanded of you that you support your major claim: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

All of your ducking and evasion maneuvers don't conceal what you cannot accomplish. You cannot support that claim.

And you will not admit that you can't support it.

By contrast, I have demonstrated the likelihood that the conversations about "business" WERE about uranium.

Game, set, match.

"likelihood" (I highlighted) ≠ proof

As far as me not supporting my claim that "there was no effort to purchase yellowcake." First of all, that's a negative which can only be proved by the absense of proof to the contrary, which I did when I identified the two sources which could have provided proof that I am wrong. Documents showing a purchase of Uranium and a meeting between Iraqis and Niger to purchase Uranium. The former was proved to be a forged document of sale and the latter was proved that no one knows for sure what was discussed, other than the PM saying they didn't discuss selling Uranium to Iraq.

G'head, this is where you throw another tantrum and hurl more invective because you can't prove your claim: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

So you can claim victory because I can't "prove" to a 100% certainty that it was about uranium.

But YOU have claimed (without qualification) that it was NOT about uranium.

YOU haven't had ANY ability to support that absurdly over-stated assumption AT ALL. Not by probablity and not in ANY other way.

So, by your "standards," I must declare you an abject complete bombastic FAIL. You really are a Fauny.

Your loss stands recorded.

Next?

 

[Faun]

Holy shit. You are dense. Listen you pygmy. I already conceded (three times already unless I've lost count) that the documents are probable forgeries. NOTING that certain documents are forgeries does NOT establish, however, that the conclusion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake was itself disproved.

Now try to move on.

You have won the internets. The documents are forgeries (even if they aren't I'm gonna just say "fine, they were").

MOVING to the next part, I have repeatedly demanded of you that you support your major claim: "There was no effort to purchase yellowcake."

All of your ducking and evasion maneuvers don't conceal what you cannot accomplish. You cannot support that claim.

And you will not admit that you can't support it.

By contrast, I have demonstrated the likelihood that the conversations about "business" WERE about uranium.

Game, set, match.

"likelihood" (I highlighted) ≠ proof

As far as me not supporting my claim that "there was no effort to purchase yellowcake." First of all, that's a negative which can only be proved by the absense of proof to the contrary, which I did when I identified the two sources which could have provided proof that I am wrong. Documents showing a purchase of Uranium and a meeting between Iraqis and Niger to purchase Uranium. The former was proved to be a forged document of sale and the latter was proved that no one knows for sure what was discussed, other than the PM saying they didn't discuss selling Uranium to Iraq.

G'head, this is where you throw another tantrum and hurl more invective because you can't prove your claim: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

So you can claim victory because I can't "prove" to a 100% certainty that it was about uranium.

But YOU have claimed (without qualification) that it was NOT about uranium.

YOU haven't had ANY ability to support that absurdly over-stated assumption AT ALL. Not by probablity and not in ANY other way.

So, by your "standards," I must declare you an abject complete bombastic FAIL. You really are a Fauny.

Your loss stands recorded.

Next?

Your false claim of victory is sad. As I said, my comment was a negative, which of course, as a negative, can't be proven, only disproven. If there is no proof to the contrary, my comment stands.

You have offered nothing to disprove it other than your own hyper imagination. Your final confession that you were basing this comment of yours...

"There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."​

... on a "likelihood" is all the proof needed that you were full of shit when made that comment.

Again, "likelihood" ≠ proof; and it most certainly refutes your claim that there was "no question" about it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Game, set, match.

"likelihood" (I highlighted) ≠ proof

As far as me not supporting my claim that "there was no effort to purchase yellowcake." First of all, that's a negative which can only be proved by the absense of proof to the contrary, which I did when I identified the two sources which could have provided proof that I am wrong. Documents showing a purchase of Uranium and a meeting between Iraqis and Niger to purchase Uranium. The former was proved to be a forged document of sale and the latter was proved that no one knows for sure what was discussed, other than the PM saying they didn't discuss selling Uranium to Iraq.

G'head, this is where you throw another tantrum and hurl more invective because you can't prove your claim: "There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."

So you can claim victory because I can't "prove" to a 100% certainty that it was about uranium.

But YOU have claimed (without qualification) that it was NOT about uranium.

YOU haven't had ANY ability to support that absurdly over-stated assumption AT ALL. Not by probablity and not in ANY other way.

So, by your "standards," I must declare you an abject complete bombastic FAIL. You really are a Fauny.

Your loss stands recorded.

Next?

Your false claim of victory is sad. As I said, my comment was a negative, which of course, as a negative, can't be proven, only disproven. If there is no proof to the contrary, my comment stands.

You have offered nothing to disprove it other than your own hyper imagination. Your final confession that you were basing this comment of yours...

"There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."​

... on a "likelihood" is all the proof needed that you were full of shit when made that comment.

Again, "likelihood" ≠ proof; and it most certainly refutes your claim that there was "no question" about it.

My claim of victory over you is 100% accurate. And we all know it, too.

I knew full well that you'd never rise to that challenge I threw down for you.

You made a grand claim but have zero ability to back it up.

You are such a complete Fauny, you'd prefer to run away from it and hope nobody notes your Brave Sir Robin routine.

If you had any honesty or integrity, you'd just simply admit that you cannot support what you claimed.

 

[Faun]

But YOU have claimed (without qualification) that it was NOT about uranium.

YOU haven't had ANY ability to support that absurdly over-stated assumption AT ALL. Not by probablity and not in ANY other way.

This too is a lie by you. I have absolutely supported my position on that, despite your lie to the contrary.

I did so when I pointed out that the report on the matter included the Nigerian PM claiming that they did not discuss Iraq purchasing Uranium in the meeting with the Iraqi delegation.

So there remains no proof that Iraq sought to purchase more Uranium than they already had.

 

[Faun]

So you can claim victory because I can't "prove" to a 100% certainty that it was about uranium.

But YOU have claimed (without qualification) that it was NOT about uranium.

YOU haven't had ANY ability to support that absurdly over-stated assumption AT ALL. Not by probablity and not in ANY other way.

So, by your "standards," I must declare you an abject complete bombastic FAIL. You really are a Fauny.

Your loss stands recorded.

Next?

Your false claim of victory is sad. As I said, my comment was a negative, which of course, as a negative, can't be proven, only disproven. If there is no proof to the contrary, my comment stands.

You have offered nothing to disprove it other than your own hyper imagination. Your final confession that you were basing this comment of yours...

"There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."​

... on a "likelihood" is all the proof needed that you were full of shit when made that comment.

Again, "likelihood" ≠ proof; and it most certainly refutes your claim that there was "no question" about it.

My claim of victory over you is 100% accurate. And we all know it, too.

I knew full well that you'd never rise to that challenge I threw down for you.

You made a grand claim but have zero ability to back it up.

You are such a complete Fauny, you'd prefer to run away from it and hope nobody notes your Brave Sir Robin routine.

If you had any honesty or integrity, you'd just simply admit that you cannot support what you claimed.

And yet, my claim that Iraq did not make any effort to purchase yellowcake remains untarnished.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Your false claim of victory is sad. As I said, my comment was a negative, which of course, as a negative, can't be proven, only disproven. If there is no proof to the contrary, my comment stands.

You have offered nothing to disprove it other than your own hyper imagination. Your final confession that you were basing this comment of yours...

"There is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake."​

... on a "likelihood" is all the proof needed that you were full of shit when made that comment.

Again, "likelihood" ≠ proof; and it most certainly refutes your claim that there was "no question" about it.

My claim of victory over you is 100% accurate. And we all know it, too.

I knew full well that you'd never rise to that challenge I threw down for you.

You made a grand claim but have zero ability to back it up.

You are such a complete Fauny, you'd prefer to run away from it and hope nobody notes your Brave Sir Robin routine.

If you had any honesty or integrity, you'd just simply admit that you cannot support what you claimed.

And yet, my claim that Iraq did not make any effort to purchase yellowcake remains untarnished.

It was and remains entirely tarnished.

You cannot back it up.

And you certainly haven't. You haven't even attempted to.

PROVE that Iraq made NO such effort.