Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11

What was believed to be true, in the late 90's about Iraq and what was later discovered to be untrue are two different issues.....
 
Grind said:
"This doesn't automatically mean that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks, just that we have no evidence to prove he did."

This also means that we can't say you weren't involved with the 9/11 attacks, only that we don't have evidence to prove it. See how dumb it is to say something like that? You are either insinuating something or you aren't.
Click to expand...


No, that is a true statement, you don't know for certain that I didn't have something to do with 9/11, just as I don't know that you didn't. It's not dumb, it's a statement of fact, we don't know. He very well could have been involved, he was certainly involved in the first attack, which puts him ahead of you and I as potential suspects, don't you agree?

To clarify, I am not posing the argument that Saddam DID have something to do with 9/11, I am simply pointing out that we do not know, which is a far cry from "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11!" I think it's safe to say, we see far more people from the left trying to argue Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, than people from the right arguing he did. The truth is, we don't know either way, but that truth tends to get a little muddy when talking to liberals.
 
Grind said:
I know for a fact you had nothing to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...


No, you don't believe I did and can't prove I did, and it may shock the hell out of you to find out that I did, but you do not know this for a fact, it is impossible. That doesn't mean I did, and it doesn't mean I didn't. Do you not see the point? We can say that we don't believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, we can also say that we have some valid reasons to believe he may have had something to do with 9/11, but we can't answer the question definitively, it is impossible.
 
Dixie said:
No, you don't believe I did and can't prove I did, and it may shock the hell out of you to find out that I did, but you do not know this for a fact, it is impossible. That doesn't mean I did, and it doesn't mean I didn't. Do you not see the point? We can say that we don't believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, we can also say that we have some valid reasons to believe he may have had something to do with 9/11, but we can't answer the question definitively, it is impossible.
Click to expand...

You have a rather large repetoire of deceipt, but of all the various spin & BS you spew out there, this is about the worst of what you do...
 
Dixie said:
No, you don't believe I did and can't prove I did, and it may shock the hell out of you to find out that I did, but you do not know this for a fact, it is impossible. That doesn't mean I did, and it doesn't mean I didn't. Do you not see the point? We can say that we don't believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, we can also say that we have some valid reasons to believe he may have had something to do with 9/11, but we can't answer the question definitively, it is impossible.
Click to expand...

The evidence is your posts here. You are a redneck and too stupid to help pull something like that off.

Evidence. Fact. Case closed.
 
Onceler said:
You have a rather large repetoire of deceipt, but of all the various spin & BS you spew out there, this is about the worst of what you do...
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, interjecting logic has that effect on pinheads. Too often, a good does of truth and logic completely destroys the liberal message and arguments, and it is just devastating to your cause. So, I completely understand why this upsets you. Still, nothing I said was untrue, it is factual and accurate and comports with basic logic and reasoning. You may not like it, but so what?
 
Dixie said:
Yes, I know, interjecting logic has that effect on pinheads. Too often, a good does of truth and logic completely destroys the liberal message and arguments, and it is just devastating to your cause. So, I completely understand why this upsets you. Still, nothing I said was untrue, it is factual and accurate and comports with basic logic and reasoning. You may not like it, but so what?
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. The idea that Saddam, like billions of others in the world, hasn't been 100% ruled out as a suspect in the 9/11 attacks, is truly devastating to me & my cause.
 
Onceler said:
Uh-huh. The idea that Saddam, like billions of others in the world, hasn't been 100% ruled out as a suspect in the 9/11 attacks, is truly devastating to me & my cause.
Click to expand...

No, the fact that Saddam can't be ruled out means you can't definitively say he didn't or did. When something is unknown, it can't also be known. This simple logic and reasoning is apparently beyond your ability to understand, but it is true. You can factually say, "we have no evidence Saddam played a role in the 9/11 attacks", and I have agreed with this, you just can't say for a fact that he didn't, because we don't know. Now, opinion plays a role here, but it doesn't change the facts, for instance, I can have the opinion, based on the fact that he was involved in the '93 attacks, that it is also possible he played some role in 9/11 as well. That is my opinion, and I have no evidence to prove it, and it is not a fact. You can have the opinion that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, based on the fact there is no evidence, but again... it is not something you can prove, it is not a fact, it is only your opinion.
 
Dixie said:
No, the fact that Saddam can't be ruled out means you can't definitively say he didn't or did. When something is unknown, it can't also be known. This simple logic and reasoning is apparently beyond your ability to understand, but it is true. You can factually say, "we have no evidence Saddam played a role in the 9/11 attacks", and I have agreed with this, you just can't say for a fact that he didn't, because we don't know. Now, opinion plays a role here, but it doesn't change the facts, for instance, I can have the opinion, based on the fact that he was involved in the '93 attacks, that it is also possible he played some role in 9/11 as well. That is my opinion, and I have no evidence to prove it, and it is not a fact. You can have the opinion that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, based on the fact there is no evidence, but again... it is not something you can prove, it is not a fact, it is only your opinion.
Click to expand...

I can't get over what a retarded backwoods lunatic you are.

We know who attacked us on 9/11. It wasn't George Bush, and it wasn't Iraq. They are able to trace the perpetrators, their financiers, they're organizers and the timeline. We know what happened, and it's been widely reported for anyone who isn't a retarded backwoods lunatic to see.

Based on this reporting & what we know, I can start a thread titled "Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11" with plenty of confidence.
 
Onceller, only right lugnut opinions are facts, anything else is just spin or opinions.
to the right side lugnuts at least.
 
Lorax how does banging your head against a wall feel.
This is why I mostly pick on fellow turbo-libs as there's a chance to change them. The right wing Nazi's aren't changing
 
Topspin said:
Lorax how does banging your head against a wall feel.
This is why I mostly pick on fellow turbo-libs as there's a chance to change them. The right wing Nazi's aren't changing
Click to expand...

This might just be the smartest post the tennis twinkie has ever made :clink:
 
Dixie said:
No right-wing or moderate American political leader has ever said Iraq attacked us on 9/11. The only people I have ever hear make that argument, are liberals who think that was the message from something they misconstrued from Bush. It is probably the reason the Bush Administration made the case for war on basis of WMD's instead of a connection to Islamic terror, because they feared just this sort of criticism. In retrospect, it is probably the single biggest mistake the Bush Administration made, not connecting Saddam to alQaeda, as our intelligence reports indicate.

Let's be clear, "Iraq" has never attacked the US, the people of Iraq are very cordial toward the people of the US, and always have been. The tyrant dictator who once ruled Iraq, Saddam Hussein, is a different matter. He certainly did wage attacks on the US and on US interests in the middle east. He was connected to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers, and actually provided safe haven (and a pay check) to one of the bombers. Members of his regime, acting on his behalf, met with representatives of alQaeda on eight different occasions, and he sent his deputy prime minister to Afghanistan to meet personally with Osama Bin Laden. He made facilities available in Salman Pak, for the training of terrorists, including members of alQaeda. Three independent reports said that he did indeed have a WMD program, the evidence of facilities and equipment were there, although no stockpiles were ever found. As late as 1996, he had 80,000 liters of chemical weapons, which had not been accounted for, and remain unaccounted for... and we KNOW FOR CERTAIN these existed, because the UN verified and confirmed it.

So, you are absolutely right, Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11, but that was never in question.
Click to expand...

So we are there because of the support Saddam gave to the terrorists??

Funny, but the support given to the terrorists from Saddam was not even a drop in the bucket compared to the support that came from Saudi Arabia.

So why haven't we done anything to Saudi Arabia? If the point was to punish people for supporting Al Qaeda, why not hit the biggest supporters? They are all in Saudi Arabia, not in Iraq or Iran.
 
Onceler said:
I can't get over what a retarded backwoods lunatic you are.

We know who attacked us on 9/11. It wasn't George Bush, and it wasn't Iraq. They are able to trace the perpetrators, their financiers, they're organizers and the timeline. We know what happened, and it's been widely reported for anyone who isn't a retarded backwoods lunatic to see.

Based on this reporting & what we know, I can start a thread titled "Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11" with plenty of confidence.
Click to expand...


And I have agreed with that statement, the nation of Iraq never declared war on us, and didn't attack us on 9/11. Hitler didn't attack Pearl Harbor either, did he?

Based on what we KNOW, we do not know if Saddam may have played a role in helping to plan or coordinate the attacks on 9/11. We don't have any evidence he did, but it is still possible he did and we just didn't find evidence. It wouldn't be the first time someone concealed evidence in a crime of that proportion, would it?

So, you can live in your little split-from-reality world, and make statements that are factually untrue, but when you spew them here, I am going to call you on your stupidity. You don't really KNOW anything, for certain! You may have a good opinion, based on facts, and you may think you know for certain, but the truth and the fact is, you don't know for certain something you don't know, it is impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top