Definitive Proof of an Iraq-Al Queda Link

[Darius871]

NOBODY said this is ironclad proof of an Al-Qaeda-Iraq alliance. It's merely petty scraps which when considered together are intriguing (at least to me). Cut this **** about 'mindless Bush supporters' when you have no idea what I'm thinking. You a ****ing mind reader, or just a prejudiced little ****?

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't even bother, Darius. They could find bin Laden in Baghdad tomorrow and it wouldn't convince any of the Bush haters out there that this war might have been fought for good reasons.

[kmad]

I know what this article is supposed to instill in the minds of its readers. We both know what was intended when this was written.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by kmad

We both know what was intended when this was written.

No, apparently only you do. Give me a detailed analysis of David Ensor's mindset at the time.

Yours would apparently be "How many mindless right-wingers can I brainwash today by exaggerating this?"

Mine would be "Boy, a lot of people will read this, so I'll get lots of green. Yay."

[kmad]

Originally posted by Darius871


No, apparently only you do. Give me a detailed analysis of David Ensor's mindset at the time.

Yours would apparently be "How many mindless right-wingers can I brainwash today by exaggerating this?"

Mine would be "Boy, a lot of people will read this, so I'll get lots of green. Yay."

That's another thing I've noticed with the pro-war crowd, they tend to generalize anti-war people as not only pro-saddam by default, but also as right-wingers. No less, they tell themselves that this hasty generalization demeans my stance!

And in what way am I exaggerating anything?? I'm just extrapolating the main point that the article intended to get across, doing so with nothing close to conclusive proof.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by kmad

they tend to generalize anti-war people as not only pro-saddam by default

Ehrm, when did I EVER say you were pro-Saddam? Of course you can be both anti-war and anti-Saddam. You sit here and talk about generalizing, and then you yourself hypocritically generalize and put words in my mouth. Good work making an *** of yourself.

Originally posted by kmad

but also as right-wingers.

I think you mean left-wingers. And no, I don't make that generalization either. I know a right-wing fascist who is against the war, so obviously any such generalizations are false. Again, you yourself hypocritically generalize and put words in my mouth. Good work making an *** of yourself.

Originally posted by kmad

And in what way am I exaggerating anything??

I didn't say you were exaggerating anything, I said that you are extrapolating that the article's author is exaggerating the story in order to brainwash Americans. I ask on what deep understanding of David Ensor's psyche you base this conclusion.

[TCO]

Darius, he's not worth your time. He lacks the capability to understand or discuss subtleties.

[Darius871]

I've read the OT long enough to know when not to dignify someone with response, but I can't help it. Someone has to tell him the truth for once in his life.

[kmad]

Originally posted by Darius871


Ehrm, when did I EVER say you were pro-Saddam? Of course you can be both anti-war and anti-Saddam. You sit here and talk about generalizing, and then you yourself hypocritically generalize and put words in my mouth. Good work making an *** of yourself.

Did I say that about you? No, I said that about most people in the pro-war crowd. Talk about putting words in my mouth!

Originally posted by Darius871
I think you mean left-wingers. And no, I don't make that generalization either. I know a right-wing fascist who is against the war, so obviously any such generalizations are false. Again, you yourself hypocritically generalize and put words in my mouth. Good work making an *** of yourself.

Again, did I say this about you? No!
And yes, mind slipped, I'm actually moving right now so I'm preoccupied, but I did mean left-wingers. Thanks for the correction!

Originally posted by Darius871
I didn't say you were exaggerating anything, I said that you are extrapolating that the article's author is exaggerating the story in order to brainwash Americans. I ask on what deep understanding of David Ensor's psyche you base this conclusion.

I didn't say anything about this brainwashing Americans. I can notice the very subtle bias in the article, however. It's not much but it can change the reader's mood on the subject if only slightly.

[kmad]

Originally posted by Darius871
I've read the OT long enough to know when not to dignify someone with response, but I can't help it. Someone has to tell him the truth for once in his life.

Hmm, asserting righteousness, is that not an argumentative fallacy? Do we remember 11th grade English class?

[kmad]

Originally posted by GP
Darius, he's not worth your time. He lacks the capability to understand or discuss subtleties.

Troll

Unless you're gonna add something stay out of it!

[Darius871]

Originally posted by kmad

Did I say that about you? No, I said that about most people in the pro-war crowd. Talk about putting words in my mouth!

When you say what you said directly in response to me, it can only sound like it's referring to me. If it wasn't, you should have indicated that.

Originally posted by kmad

Again, did I say this about you? No!

When you say what you said directly in response to me, it can only sound like it's referring to me. If it wasn't, you should have indicated that.

Originally posted by kmad

I didn't say anything about this brainwashing Americans.

Originally posted by kmad They really didn't even need to provide a source document to get the effect they wanted from the American people, just word on the street and a brief word on CNN is enough to give the mindless Bush supporters a new truckload of false confidence in their aristocratic leader.

[kmad]

How does that imply brainwashing? You can take it as brainwashing, in the same way that American readers can take this document at a suggestion that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are tied,

[Darius871]

Originally posted by kmad


Hmm, asserting righteousness, is that not an argumentative fallacy?

Only when directed at an opponent. When asserted in your own mind or whispered to a passer-by, it is more than proper.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by kmad
How does that imply brainwashing?

If it honestly didn't, then choose your words differently.

Originally posted by kmad
in the same way that American readers can take this document at a suggestion that Iraq and Al-Qaeda are tied

Anyone who draws that conclusion based on this document alone is an idiot. However, considering this and a half-dozen other 'hints', it should at least be intriguing, and make you think that more concrete links will eventually be found. This is ALL that I think when hearing these reports, and I'm guessing that most pro-war people have a similarly moderate response.

You're hypocritically generalizing by thinking we all draw any major conclusions from this.

[TCO]

Originally posted by kmad


Troll

Unless you're gonna add something stay out of it!

1. Yes. Guilty.

2. It's still true.

3. I added some stuff earlier.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Darius871
I've read the OT long enough to know when not to dignify someone with response, but I can't help it. Someone has to tell him the truth for once in his life.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Even the silliest types will start to think they are right if never confronted. BTW, it sounds like you implicitly agree with my characterization.

[kmad]

Originally posted by Darius871
Anyone who draws that conclusion based on this document alone is an idiot.

What other documentation is there? There is only speculation.. if there are other suggestive facts then I'd like to see them.

Originally posted by Darius871
You're hypocritically generalizing by thinking we all draw any major conclusions from this.

I'm stating what the author tried to get across by writing this article. That's the conclusion that was probably intended, if only subtlely.

[TCO]

Originally posted by kmad


What other documentation is there? There is only speculation.. if there are other suggestive facts then I'd like to see them.




I'm stating what the author tried to get across by writing this article. That's the conclusion that was probably intended, if only subtlely.

You're making the classic "Ramo mistake" of finding a certain argument in the "pro" to have flaws, be circumstantial, etc. And then, saying that this is definitive proof of the "con".

[kmad]

The onus of proof is on the pro-war crowd, since Bush is the guy saying that Saddam is linked to Al-Qaeda. My stance is similar to atheism; I can't prove that there aren't any links between them (or any God), because proving something doesn't exist is next to impossible, save examples like proving there is no ball in a certain box.

[TCO]

Originally posted by kmad
The onus of proof is on the pro-war crowd, since Bush is the guy saying that Saddam is linked to Al-Qaeda. My stance is similar to atheism; I can't prove that there aren't any links between them (or any God), because proving something doesn't exist is next to impossible, save examples like proving there is no ball in a certain box.

1. The onus of proof is on them if they make a definitive assertion.

2. Lack of defnitive proof is not proof of the contrary. You make a "Ramo flaw" if you say otherwise.

3. This is very different from an atheism debate. We are talking about the real world. About organizations which choose secrecy.

--------------------

Your attitude should be more wait and see...