Quote:I'm worried about you.

Of course you are. The thought of me being on this board to humiliate you at every turn can't be good for your emotional state, as pathetic as it is.

Quote:I forgive you,  I'm not your enemy niner.

I'm glad you forgive me for embarrassing you. And you're right, you're not my enemy, your my whipping boy. Enemies would be worthy and somewhat of a challenge. You are neither.

Quote:What town and state do you live in?

Like I'd tell someone as unbalanced as you where I live.
:roflol:

Sleep tight Doggy. I'm glad you have your hatred to keep you warm. It's all you have.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:wellsir, i responded to a question about defining the term "wmd,"  which also included a suggestion that box cutters might be wmd's because they were used to hijack aircraft.

It was a sarcastic response to the (strange) idea that the missing explosives could be considered WMDs.

really? who'd a thunk it? well, thank goodness we have you here to translate liberal sarcasm for us.

Quote:Tell me again Doggy how Bin Laden and Saddam NEVER would have worked together. Goodness knows you know more the the 9/11 commission who stated otherwise. 

O.K. it took about two minutes to find that the 9/11 commission stated EXACTLY what I said. UBL even financed anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kudistan. Niner is about as sharp as a bowling ball. Here's the link Maestro.

<a href='http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040620/news_mz1e20joyner.html' target='_blank'>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...1e20joyner.html</a>

It's like beating up a mouthy guy with no arms. You get no sense of accomplishment and you feel worse about even debating someone with sub standard intelligence.


Oh by the way...
I was reading up on Narcissim niner. People layer themselves in lies so they don't have to face reality. It has become evident to me that you suffer from some form of this personality disorder. When one shows the error of your ways you lash out violently to that person. I was researching it because that is what Saddam suffered from. Your in great company niner!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:O.K.&nbsp; it took about two minutes to find that the&nbsp; 9/11 commission stated EXACTLY what I said.&nbsp; UBL even financed anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kudistan.&nbsp; Niner is about as sharp as a bowling ball.&nbsp; Here's the link Maestro.

:laugh: :laugh:

You know Doggy this isn't even fair, beating you down like this.

I've never said that UBL didn't fund anti-Saddam efforts but your effort to try and reframe the debate around that is quite funny but it shows the depth of the desperation with which you are trying to spin out of the fact that you're flat out wrong. Heck I even cited what you just said in my initial post.

Let's come back to what it was really about, which is this statement by you.

Quote:Most people knew that UBL was a threat to Saddam and that is why there were no connections between Iraq and Al-Queada.

Now, let me repost for you, since clearly you are too learning impaired to grasp it the first time, what the 9/11 commission report said.

Quote:Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Let me repost for you what the chair of the 9/11 commission said.

Quote:"There were connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's government," said commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton. "We don't disagree with that. What we have said is that we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al-Qaida operatives with regard to attacks on the United States . So it seems to me that the sharp differences that the press has drawn, that the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."

In fact the article you just cited was arguing there was probably MORE of a connection between the two than the 9/11 commission report talked about.

From the article.

Quote:Given the nature of counter-terrorist intelligence, critics might argue that the commission's apparent search for proof that meets the reasonable doubt standard of the U.S. criminal justice system is unreasonable.

Saddam's government was never the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism. Iran and Saudi Arabia far outstripped him in that regard. Nonetheless, that Saddam Hussein actively supported Islamic terrorists has been an article of faith since the Carter administration. Indeed, Iraq was one of the original five states (along with Iran, Libya, Syria and Cuba) on the original "Patterns of Global Terrorism" list compiled by the State Department in 1979. Saddam was a major sponsor of various terrorist groups.

The paper trail for the al-Qaeda connection is more difficult to establish given the cellular nature of that organization and its recent provenance. Writing in TCS last September, Richard Minter outlines – with 23 bullet points – details of proven contacts between senior al-Qaeda leaders and Saddam Hussein or his representatives.

Quote: Nonetheless, we know that Saddam funded Islamist terrorists. We know that his government had significant and repeated contact with al-Qaeda.

So just to dumb it down, in deference to you Doggy, the 9/11 commission AND the article you just posted in an effort to support your claims BOTH validate that you are wrong.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

All doubt has now been eliminated. I own you Doggy, and it kills you. :roflol: :roflol:

Do me a favor. Tell me what it's like to be destroyed on this board the way I just destroyed you. I'm very interested to learn. When you get done sobbing please tell me.

:ownd:

Quote: When one shows the error of your ways you lash out violently to that person. I was researching it because that is what Saddam suffered from.&nbsp; Your in great company niner!!!!!!!!!!!

Lash out violently? You call me ripping you to shreds on this board violent? Well, it could viewed that way I guess. However remember, I didn't ask you were you lived Doggy, you asked me. I'm actually quite fearful you may show up at my house with your machine gun before you head to Bush's. I think I need to call the secret service on you now.

You are truly the most oblivious person I have ever come across. I show you an article that proves UBL funded anti-Saddam loyalists and you cite back things the article says is conjecture. There are plenty of other articles that state UBL was a threat to Saddam. Now onto the layers upon layers of lies. When the truth hits you in the face you cite conjecture. You can't stand to be proven wrong even when the facts show you that you are. Here's something you should look up

<a href='http://www.crescentlife.com/disorders/narcissitic_personality_disorder.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.crescentlife.com/disorders/narc...ty_disorder.htm</a>

Quote:You are truly the most oblivious person I have ever come across.

Pot, meet kettle.

Quote:I show you an article that proves UBL funded anti-Saddam loyalists and you cite back things the article says is conjecture.

Doggy you really should just shut up and take your whipping like a man.

Show me ONE TIME where I said UBL didn't fund anti-Saddam activities. YOU CAN'T because I DIDN'T. So you citing an article that says such MEANS NOTHING because I never asserted different. In fact, I posted that same fact in my initial response about this.

I'll say it one more time since you continue to try and change the subject. YOU SAID that because of UBL's activities in the past this meant THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QUEDA. I posted the fact that was WRONG and cited the 9/11 commission. The article YOU posted said that there were connections.

It's simple math Doggy, which explains why you can't seem to grasp it.

You saying "There was no connection between Saddam and Al Queda" + the 9/11 commission report, a 1998 federal indictment, the chair of the 9/11 commission and the article you posted ALL saying there were, IN FACT, connections between Saddam and Al Queda = <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>YOU ARE WRONG</span>

Doggy it's really starting to get pathetic that you're still trying to argue that you were right when you KNOW you're not. That's why you're trying to deflect from your wrongness by throwing out the red herring that UBL funded anti-saddam activities when I never claimed otherwise and in fact cited myself.

Stay down Doggy, you're just hurting yourself. :chair: :laugh:

Niner,

Read the article, it's conjecture. There is no proof that there were connections between the two. Your voting for the right guy though. You two have ALOT in common.

There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."


No relationship NO RELATIONSHIP

DENIED ANY TIES EXISTED

go ahead with your beat down nonsense though.

Dogger Wrote:Niner,

Read the article, it's conjecture. There is no proof that there were connections between the two. Your voting for the right guy though. You two have ALOT in common.

So just so we're clear Doggy, you are right and the 9/11 commission is wrong? That's what you want us to believe?

I think Doggy is auditioning for the role of the Black Knight in the stage version of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. :laugh:

Dogger Wrote:No relationship NO RELATIONSHIP

DENIED ANY TIES EXISTED

go ahead with your beat down nonsense though.

That's not what you said Doggy, you said NO CONNECTION.

YOu are wrong, you know it, and you're desperate now because it's killing you that I exposed you for how wrong you are.

I love your pain. :laugh: :laugh:

the answer to the question in the old song "how much is that doggy in the window?" can now be provided ny ninerfan1, as ninerfan1 clearly owns doggy.

It's not pain niner, kinda of like going to a dentist dealing with you. A pain but it needs to be done. That's it... your like a cavity that needs fixed.

I like the black night reference though!!! funny movie

I think the whole thing is sketchy at best. Things that I have read is that Saddam viewed UBL as a threat. Now by no way can you take that article as a way to prove your argument that there were connections. IT"S conjecture at best. Maybe in your world conjecture goes far but in the real world it doesn't. I don't see how you can say the things you say. The article clearly states there was no collaboration or connection with regards to the US which is all I'm concerned about. CAPICHE

Now I need to get some work done!

See your argument tommorrow!!!
Have a good night

Quote:Now by no way can you take that article as a way to prove your argument that there were connections.

I don't need that article junior, I have the 9/11 Commission. You know, the one you think is wrong and that you are right?

Quote:I don't see how you can say the things you say.&nbsp; The article clearly states there was no collaboration or connection with regards to the US which is all I'm concerned about.&nbsp; CAPICHE

Ladies and gentlemen this is what is called a back track, a retreat, a concession. Doggy has gone from there was no connection between Al Queda and Saddam PERIOD (an assertion contradicted by the 9/11 commission) to there was no connection with regards to the US.

I guess this is your round about away of admitting you are wrong. Good job.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:You saying "There was no connection between Saddam and Al Queda" + the 9/11 commission report, a 1998 federal indictment, the chair of the 9/11 commission and the article you posted ALL saying there were, IN FACT, connections between Saddam and Al Queda = <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>YOU ARE WRONG</span>

You are selectively quoting the 9/11 chair to give the wrong impression.

There was no signficant connection. An al Qaeda rep had lunch with a Saddam rep somewhere. They had an understanding that they wouldn't attack either other.

We can assume India and Pakistan communicate more frequently -- and to talk of the two as having "links" would be absurd.

The report makes all this clear, that any "link" between Iraq and Qaeda was not operational and, thus, not significant.

A fuller selection of quotes from the commission co-chairs would also make that clear.

Finally, although I'm less sure about this, I believe the indictment was withdrawn and/or amended.

I have an opinion on who is wrong here. It isn't Dogger.

Quote:You are selectively quoting the 9/11 chair to give the wrong impression.

Ah SF, I figured it was only a matter of time before you jumped in and tried to deflect, twist and spin this somehow. You don't disappoint.

I'm not giving any impression. I'm not saying there was collaboration between Al Queda and Saddam, I'm not saying that Saddam aided in 9/11. What I'm saying is Doggy said there was NO CONNECTION between Saddam and Al Queda. The 9/11 chair said,

Quote:"There were connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's government," said commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton. "We don't disagree with that.

See SF I know in your liberal fantasy world outright contradictions to a liberal's statement like that of the 9/11 commission chair is labled as selective quoting or taking out of context. However those of us in the world of logic and reason recognize it for what it is.

Quote:The report makes all this clear, that any "link" between Iraq and Qaeda was not operational and, thus, not significant.

I'm not arguing significance, that is objective. I'm saying there were connections. The 9/11 commissioner said there were connections. Doggy said there weren't. He is wrong.

Like I said in my previous response to you on this thread, spare us your 3 page dissertation that addresses everything except what the actual subject is. You got half of it right, you are under 3 pages.

So I'll ask one more time. Please spare us your attempts to twist this by trying to argue significance, degree and all other diversions from what the actual topic is in an attempt to satisfy some mindless need you seem to have to do so. You will simply embarrass yourself as Doggy did and I simply don't think my sides can take laughing at you the way I have at him.

Quote:I have an opinion on who is wrong here. It isn't Dogger.

You can feel free to join him on the wrong side of the discussion, your a frequent resident there as it is.

Only niner can spin conjecture into fact.

And what I originally said is there was no real connection because UBL was a threat to Saddam. Islamic fundamentalism was a threat to his power.


RinGGGGGGGGG

RinGGGGGGGGGGG

hey niner reality on line 1. You need to take this one.

I just read last night that Al-Zaquarwi, the Jordaninan insurgent leader in Fallujah, has publicly announced his allegience with Al-Quiada. Many of his people are Arab militants, who I wouldn't be surprised had Al-Quiada ties. While Saddam may not have been directly involved with Al-Quiada, he certainly didn't stop them from operating.

Quote:Only niner can spin conjecture into fact.

What the 9/11 chair said:

Quote:"There were connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's government," said commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton. "We don't disagree with that.

That's not a conjecture Doggy, it's a statement of fact.

Ring Ring Doggy, basic grammar and reading comprehension on line 1.

Quote:And what I originally said is there was no real connection because UBL was a threat to Saddam.  Islamic fundamentalism was a threat to his power.

Doggy you need to make it point to go back and edit your previous statements before lying about them.

Here is what you said word for word:

Quote:Most people knew that UBL was a threat to Saddam and that is why there were no connections between Iraq and Al-Queada.

Notice the absence of the word "real" Doggy?

You know I really thought you couldn't dig your hole any deeper. I'll have to say you've surprised even me with your ability to humiliate yourself. :laugh:

So UBL sending out feelers is your definition of connections, but the reality is Islamic fundamentalism was a threat to Saddam's power. PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!!!! That is the reason why analyst's doubted any connection between the two. YOUR WRONG!! The truth doesn't hurt in your case because your oblivious to the truth. Ignorance is bliss!!!!!! Ignorance is bliss!!!!!

Quote:So UBL sending out feelers is your definition of connections, but the reality is Islamic fundamentalism was a threat to Saddam's power.  PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!!!! 

You know I can't understand how you can be this obtuse. My feeling is you can't, you're just desperate not to admit you're wrong so you're hoping if you ignore the facts that prove you're wrong they'll go away.

Once again, since you clearly have issue with reading comprehension, here is what the 9/11 commission report said. Pay special attention to what is in bold.

Quote:Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda.

So just so we're clear and can wrap this up, cause to be honest I've grown bored with humiliating you on this subject.

What you want us to believe is that you are right and the 9/11 commission and it's chair are wrong. Of course no one except SF will believe that, but you go right ahead and try and perpetuate that myth. I'll just keep laughing at you while you do it. :laugh: