How long before we hear the claims?

[Modbert]

There is no burden of support on anyone but you and/or rdean. Your claim that the administration told us Iraq is responsible for 9/11.

Any attempts of yours to shift that burden is a fallacy. That's just the way it is.

You have dodged my question concern troll. That much is quite obvious. The Administration is responsible for the American people believing that Iraq was behind the attacks.

Did you bother to watch the video I put up with Bush putting Al Qaeda and Saddam together? It was dishonest of him. Just like it's dishonest of you now.

Just because he didn't directly say it, doesn't mean it wasn't implied.

Looking over some statistics. About 25% of the U.S. population are 9/11 truthers, not sure if that was true in 2003, but I'm sure it was around that number then. 69% believed that Iraq was behind the attacks on 9/11.

Now leaving out those two, only around 6-10% give or take did not believe that Bush was behind 9/11 or that Iraq was. ONLY 6-10% believed in the truth.

I am willing to bet that you were not one of those 6-10%. I understand you don't want to admit it because you would look like a fool, but it's dishonest of you. The right was in almost full belief that Iraq was behind the attacks with even some on the Left also believing it. So tell me, why did they believe this?

 

[Modbert]

OMG. What a temper tantrum.

You made a claim and/or cheered it along.

The burden of support is on you.

If you do NOT support it, your claim stands as bullshit.

That's just the way it is.

No amount of childish temper tantrums on your part changes that.

None. It's just the way it is in logic.

When you understand that simple concept, you might not find yourself wetting your pants so often with hissy fits.

You say I'm having a temper tantrum while saying OMG in the sentence beforehand. That's rich.

I'm not having a temper tantrum, I'm calling out concern trolls like you. I have supported my claims with facts. You may have some twisted view of logic, but you are dishonest. At least DiveCon has always had the balls to answer my questions, that's why I respect him. You on the other hand are dishonest as they come, no better than a politician and I have no respect for you concern troll.

 

[hvacjones]

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This doesn't exactly support my claim, but be patient. I'M ONLY ONE MAN

 

[DiveCon]

So in other words, anything that disputes your point of view will be "unreliable"

no, just be sure they are reliable sources, not BLOGS or known crackpot sites

 

[garyd]

NOpe not anything All I want is the actual memos not just claims from some leftist hack that they exist.

One can make any damn claim one wishes. But if one can't prove the claim being made then one is just flinging shit for effect.

And you appear to have skipped the part in the wiki entry that said both the articles neutrality and factual accuracy are debateable at best. So yeah if that's the best you can do you are in a real deep hole.

 

[Si modo]

There is no burden of support on anyone but you and/or rdean. Your claim that the administration told us Iraq is responsible for 9/11.

Any attempts of yours to shift that burden is a fallacy. That's just the way it is.

You have dodged my question concern troll. That much is quite obvious. The Administration is responsible for the American people believing that Iraq was behind the attacks.

Did you bother to watch the video I put up with Bush putting Al Qaeda and Saddam together? It was dishonest of him. Just like it's dishonest of you now.

Just because he didn't directly say it, doesn't mean it wasn't implied.

Looking over some statistics. About 25% of the U.S. population are 9/11 truthers, not sure if that was true in 2003, but I'm sure it was around that number then. 69% believed that Iraq was behind the attacks on 9/11.

Now leaving out those two, only around 6-10% give or take did not believe that Bush was behind 9/11 or that Iraq was. ONLY 6-10% believed in the truth.

I am willing to bet that you were not one of those 6-10%. I understand you don't want to admit it because you would look like a fool, but it's dishonest of you. The right was in almost full belief that Iraq was behind the attacks with even some on the Left also believing it. So tell me, why did they believe this?

There you go again, lying.

How very dishonest of you.

Your claim stands as bullshit.

There is no burden on me to do a damn thing.

As I said, the sooner you understand that simple concept, the less we'll have to watch your meltdowns into temper tantrums.

 

[Modbert]

NOpe not anything All I want is the actual memos not just claims from some leftist hack that they exist.

One can make any damn claim one wishes. But if one can't prove the claim being made then one is just flinging shit for effect.

I think even Divecon will admit that's outrageous to ask for. Considering you're talking about non-existent meetings, not sure if we should use your standard.

 

[DiveCon]

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This doesn't exactly support my claim, but be patient. I'M ONLY ONE MAN

Wiki can sometimes be an ok source
however, in this case even they question that one
look at the warnings at the top

 

[DiveCon]

NOpe not anything All I want is the actual memos not just claims from some leftist hack that they exist.

One can make any damn claim one wishes. But if one can't prove the claim being made then one is just flinging shit for effect.

I think even Divecon will admit that's outrageous to ask for. Considering you're talking about non-existent meetings, not sure if we should use your standard.

again, watch your own videos
Cheney did not say what you are claiming he said

 

[Modbert]

There you go again, lying.

How very dishonest of you.

Your claim stands as bullshit.

There is no burden on me to do a damn thing.

As I said, the sooner you understand that simple concept, the less we'll have to watch your meltdowns into temper tantrums.

Show me where I'm lying, point out specifically where so I can prove you wrong. Just because you cry "You Lie" like Joe Wilson doesn't make it true. When you say there is no burden, you mean you rather not address a question you know you can't answer.

 

[Si modo]

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This doesn't exactly support my claim, but be patient. I'M ONLY ONE MAN

I'm very patient with those who are honest and don't go into emotional meltdowns because logic doesn't get them what they want.

 

[DiveCon]

There is no burden of support on anyone but you and/or rdean. Your claim that the administration told us Iraq is responsible for 9/11.

Any attempts of yours to shift that burden is a fallacy. That's just the way it is.

You have dodged my question concern troll. That much is quite obvious. The Administration is responsible for the American people believing that Iraq was behind the attacks.

Did you bother to watch the video I put up with Bush putting Al Qaeda and Saddam together? It was dishonest of him. Just like it's dishonest of you now.

Just because he didn't directly say it, doesn't mean it wasn't implied.

Looking over some statistics. About 25% of the U.S. population are 9/11 truthers, not sure if that was true in 2003, but I'm sure it was around that number then. 69% believed that Iraq was behind the attacks on 9/11.

Now leaving out those two, only around 6-10% give or take did not believe that Bush was behind 9/11 or that Iraq was. ONLY 6-10% believed in the truth.

I am willing to bet that you were not one of those 6-10%. I understand you don't want to admit it because you would look like a fool, but it's dishonest of you. The right was in almost full belief that Iraq was behind the attacks with even some on the Left also believing it. So tell me, why did they believe this?

There you go again, lying.

How very dishonest of you.

Your claim stands as bullshit.

There is no burden on me to do a damn thing.

As I said, the sooner you understand that simple concept, the less we'll have to watch your meltdowns into temper tantrums.

hes not lying, that i know of, but he is believing some things that are lies, he just doesnt realize it


and Dog, thats not calling you a liar, just what you are repeating are lies
you just dont understand that they are, in fact, lies

 

[Si modo]

There you go again, lying.

How very dishonest of you.

Your claim stands as bullshit.

There is no burden on me to do a damn thing.

As I said, the sooner you understand that simple concept, the less we'll have to watch your meltdowns into temper tantrums.

Show me where I'm lying, point out specifically where so I can prove you wrong. Just because you cry "You Lie" like Joe Wilson doesn't make it true. When you say there is no burden, you mean you rather not address a question you know you can't answer.

I have no burden to support your claims at all. I have no burden to answer any questions with respect to your claims at all. That's just the way it is in logic.

Just curious, did anyone ever teach you critical thought or did you ever take the initiative to learn it on your own? I recommend you do. You look foolish so often.

No need to answer, just ponder it if you are at all interested in improving your argument.

 

[Modbert]

again, watch your own videos
Cheney did not say what you are claiming he said

I listened to the video a couple more times while comparing the text, a couple words are in different places. So I'll assume you are correct and move on from that. However, the fact still remains is that he is citing it. If he didn't have any real belief in that, he wouldn't of cited it.

 

[garyd]

Why is it outrageous? Because you don't think it can be done? Maybe it can't but anyone can allege memos probing they actually exist is another matter.

By the way there is also no evidence to speak of the Saddam hated Al qeada and vice versa. Given that Both were Sunni Muslims there is far more reason to suspect that they might, given time, have made common cause against a common enemy, to wit us.

 

[Modbert]

I have no burden to support your claims at all. I have no burden to answer any questions with respect to your claims at all. That's just the way it is in logic.

Just curious, did anyone ever teach you critical thought or did you ever take the initiative to learn it on your own? I recommend you do. You look foolish so often.

No need to answer, just ponder it if you are at all interested in improving your argument.

This isn't debate Modo, this is where you either put up or shut up. Right now you're hemming and hawwing and not answering my questions. If you're so confident in your answer, why not give it?

Your deflections by moving into personal insults doesn't change the situation or help you. Concern troll you are looking mighty desperate.

 

[KittenKoder]

How many of Obama's actions are good when he does them ... but bad when Bush does? This is yet another example of the Obama borg.

 

[Modbert]

Why is it outrageous? Because you don't think it can be done? Maybe it can't but anyone can allege memos probing they actually exist is another matter.

By the way there is also no evidence to speak of the Saddam hated Al qeada and vice versa. Given that Both were Sunni Muslims there is far more reason to suspect that they might, given time, have made common cause against a common enemy, to wit us.

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(2003) 4 February, London, UK: Saddam Hussein gives an interview with former Labour MP Tony Benn for Channel 4 News where he flatly denies supporting al-Qaeda. "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda and we believed in that relationship," he said, "we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it."[170]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saddam denies links to terrorists

 

[Modbert]

How many of Obama's actions are good when he does them ... but bad when Bush does? This is yet another example of the Obama borg.

Who here is saying Obama's actions are good when he does them but bad when bush does them? Just wondering.

 

[DiveCon]

again, watch your own videos
Cheney did not say what you are claiming he said

I listened to the video a couple more times while comparing the text, a couple words are in different places. So I'll assume you are correct and move on from that. However, the fact still remains is that he is citing it. If he didn't have any real belief in that, he wouldn't of cited it.

because he was ASKED about it and was responding to the question