Exhaustive review sponsored by the Pentagon finds NO link between Saddam, al Qaida (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
Keep saying "non sequituer" and Reb's going to start charging a lcensing fees. :)

Oh, well I guess it's the new "ad hominem."

The report hasn't been published yet.

Forgive "us"? You've got a mouse in your pocket or are you the queen of England? :hihi:
 
DadsDream said:
Keep saying "non sequituer" and Reb's going to start charging a lcensing fees. :)

Oh, well I guess it's the new "ad hominem."
Click to expand...

iRAny? Because well........nevermind.

DadsDream said:
The report hasn't been published yet.

Forgive "us"? You've got a mouse in your pocket or are you the queen of England? :hihi:
Click to expand...

But I'm willing to bet the store that it'll contain more of this kind of information, which you've obviously chosen to completely ignore:

Saint by the Bay said:
There have been numerous reports, Pentagon and otherwise, saying the exact same thing in the exact same words. If anything this is "non-news" because it's nothing new. The CIA report said. The 9-11 Commission said it. The Senate report on Iraq said it. An independent British intelligence report said it. The U.N. report said it. They all use the same terminology because, in this context, it means providing "material support"
Click to expand...


There you have it, I seriously doubt there will be anything ground-breaking--information that numerous posters have been saying for years on this board, many like BA made these points from the outset. The invasion was premeditated. In large measure, the number and degree of AQ links is irrelevent anyway because we now know the administration had no intention of invading to eliminate any vestiges of AQ, if there were any in Iraq. :shrug:
 
DadsDream said:
Keep saying "non sequituer" and Reb's going to start charging a lcensing fees. :)
Click to expand...
Forgive "us"? You've got a mouse in your pocket or are you the queen of England? :hihi:[/QUOTE]

Actually if you go back I first used that phrase referring to your "response" to BullDawg. Care to elaborate? Latin for "does not follow" Your "response" doesn't address his post. In a believable way, at least.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one whose has found your tedious dissection of the language in the report distracting (purposely?), meaningless, and detrimental to keeping the discussion focused on something other than minutiae.

But I have to hand it to you, you've at least partially succeeded in derailing a post that could have centered around real ideas and issues.

Instead of addressing the crux of my last post, you AGAIN focused on semantics.
Maybe you could start a "Semantics " thread and we could crash it and start talking politics?
 
Mr. Littlejeans said:
???????? Your point being......
Click to expand...

The point is that this is a bulletinboard in which people express their own opinions.

When an individual person expresses their opinion by using plural personal pronouns, it gives the impression that they're speaking on behalf of a group of people.

On the other hand, a person who habitually expresses their own individual opinion by use of plural personal pronouns...well, there's a lot of things that can indicate. Look it up.

In short, when I post, I try to speak for myself, not others.
 
DadsDream said:
The point is that this is a bulletinboard in which people express their own opinions.

When an individual person expresses their opinion by using plural personal pronouns, it gives the impression that they're speaking on behalf of a group of people.

On the other hand, a person who habitually expresses their own individual opinion by use of plural personal pronouns...well, there's a lot of things that can indicate. Look it up.

In short, when I post, I try to speak for myself, not others.
Click to expand...

It's brilliant how you can zero in on the most insignificant detail of anything and try to make it the focus. I've stated my OWN opinions and tried to clarify things others have posted that you seemed to have misunderstood. I don't think I've misrepresented anyone, if so they speak up and I'll gladly apologize. As far as my pronoun use indicating something , if anything can be learned from this administration, it's that it we (OOOOPSS!!) I mean, you, get in big trouble when you make assumptions.

("You" as used above is of course in the general sense, of course not "you" specifically Dad!)
How was that?
 
Mr. Littlejeans said:
It's brilliant how you can zero in on the most insignificant detail of anything and try to make it the focus. I've stated my OWN opinions and tried to clarify things others have posted that you seemed to have misunderstood. I don't think I've misrepresented anyone, if so they speak up and I'll gladly apologize. As far as my pronoun use indicating something , if anything can be learned from this administration, it's that it we (OOOOPSS!!) I mean, you, get in big trouble when you make assumptions.

("You" as used above is of course in the general sense, of course not "you" specifically Dad!)
How was that?
Click to expand...

It's cool. I appreciate your effort to try to help me understand.

But, long, long before you joined this board, there's a number of folks who discussed most all of the topics in this thread at great length.

I did not misunderstand anything they were saying. Instead, I was focusing on the article, and the upcoming report, because it's something new.

There were various efforts in this thread to move the topic off of the article, off of the report and on to the "broader issue." To me, that's just an opportunity to rehash all the stuff that's been hashed out here before.

Instead of fighting it, I guess I should have gone with the flow, pulled up a bunch of the same old threads with the same old "broader issue" and responses and just copied and pasted it all over again.

The topic was an article about a report that hasn't been released. An article with a flawed headline and a key direct quote with a double-meaning phrase in it.

Ahhh, well, a new day dawns come November.
 
dads-
I really don't think speaking about the report in its obvious context is "broadening" the issue.
Far be it from me to speak for others (!!!!!), but if you read Adder's follow-up posts it's clear that he started the thread with the broader issue in mind.
In fact, without the broader issue, the report wouldn't even be worth mentioning. It's just a bunch of ink on paper without broader issues.
For Instance:
If I start a thread about Deuce's injury, how that injury affects the offense is a logical and expected point of reference. I wouldn't expect other posters to limit themselves to talking only specifically about the injury itself.
And definitely not quibbling over the definition of "injury."
 
Remember that one little word? Rememeber the direct quote was "no operational link"?

Well...overseas...

SABAH (English edition)
The connection between Saddam and Osama is sham

The thesis of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda which was one of the reasons for the US' occupying Iraq could not be proven. Pentagon investigated 600 thousand official documents and wrote a report saying "there is no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam regime."

READ MORE
http://english.sabah.com.tr/50C074580596473EBEBADEC67EC53D16.html

You know, sometimes in the course of our own discourse and expanding something into the broader perspective, we lose track of facts.

The fact is, what Sabah is reporting is not what was quoted.
 
Where I come from 'link' means "a unit of length equal to 1/100 of a chain".

"If the chain is naught, it shan't be fought"
 
There has been many findings and much evidence supporting this from the very beggining. I am neither Republican or Democrat. I have lost faith in our government and election process long ago. I have become disgusted with everything I learned in grade school and high school, only to have it revealed as fiction in college. I view news and multimedia as the biggest weapon and propaganda machine out there. I have seen evidence years ago stating just what the findings were, and have seen the sheep or John Q. Public refuse to believe it and ostracize the people who spoke the truth. They would rather discredit the source than reevalute their beliefs concerning our government and our lifestyles and the results of both. I am not anti government or anti american, just simply stating that we should all stop buying the mantra, hook line and sinker, and wake up and take this country back, stop dumbing down our education system, and start a revolution of truth and accountability, starting with ourselves, our lifestyles, and the cost and compromises we have made in order to have instant gratification and remain passive rather than go through the mental sweat and take a stand for the beliefs we were founded on that have become so perversed over the years. We are not number 1 in anything except consumption. We have become lazy and self centered, and no longer question very much and give up the fight quickly becuase we have been conditioned to think it is an uphill battle that can not be won. The point is, we have been bold faced lied to, by this administration and many others, yet we refuse to do much about it in proportion to the crimes committed against our sovriengty both by the government and corporate America in the name of money. That is what this war was about, that is what every tax cut is about, that is what almost every peice of legislature is about, and as long as we can go to walmart and buy crap we really don't need, we don't care or even consider what we have given up to have that "freedom".
 
pjgaryjr said:
There has been many findings and much evidence supporting this from the very beggining. I am neither Republican or Democrat. I have lost faith in our government and election process long ago. I have become disgusted with everything I learned in grade school and high school, only to have it revealed as fiction in college. I view news and multimedia as the biggest weapon and propaganda machine out there. I have seen evidence years ago stating just what the findings were, and have seen the sheep or John Q. Public refuse to believe it and ostracize the people who spoke the truth. They would rather discredit the source than reevalute their beliefs concerning our government and our lifestyles and the results of both. I am not anti government or anti american, just simply stating that we should all stop buying the mantra, hook line and sinker, and wake up and take this country back, stop dumbing down our education system, and start a revolution of truth and accountability, starting with ourselves, our lifestyles, and the cost and compromises we have made in order to have instant gratification and remain passive rather than go through the mental sweat and take a stand for the beliefs we were founded on that have become so perversed over the years. We are not number 1 in anything except consumption. We have become lazy and self centered, and no longer question very much and give up the fight quickly becuase we have been conditioned to think it is an uphill battle that can not be won. The point is, we have been bold faced lied to, by this administration and many others, yet we refuse to do much about it in proportion to the crimes committed against our sovriengty both by the government and corporate America in the name of money. That is what this war was about, that is what every tax cut is about, that is what almost every peice of legislature is about, and as long as we can go to walmart and buy crap we really don't need, we don't care or even consider what we have given up to have that "freedom".
Click to expand...

First you have to get mad:

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dib2-HBsF08&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>
<object height="355" width="425">
<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M4szU19bQVE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object></object>
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom