Your penchant: muddying the waters with nonsense and falsehoods.
You wrote:
"Yet you bastardize my quote and parenthetically add information that was not there:
Re: "He took no action with respect to that suggestion (to help attack inside Saudi Arabia/elsewhere) by bin Laden.""
That which follows the "Re" above, is what I quoted you as writing in order to note the falsity of it. Your complaint lies in the parenthesis written by me, wherein you claim lies something which wasn't there. Let's have a look at a link to what was there:
"At the same time bin Laden was beckoning Saddam into action against the troops in Saudi Arabia. He took no action with respect to that suggestion by bin Laden."
Message 22301291
In parenthesis I wrote "to help attack inside Saudi Arabia/elsewhere." Do you see the similarity? Do you think it odd that I fail to see your complaint? Clearly, I accurately represented your words and intent.
Now you've just said "I guess that the parenthetical injection here suggests that I or you believe that Saddam assisted UBL in attacking "Saudi Arabia/elsewhere"?"
No. The parenthetical injection accurately suggests that your lead-in sentence might well have said "bin Laden was beckoning Saddam into action against the troops in Saudi Arabia," nothing more. In no way, shape, or form does it indicate you believe Saddam helped, nor that I do. You said Osama asked for help, and my "injection" says you did too, just as you did, nothing more.
Since you stated Saddam "took no action with respect to that suggestion (What suggestion? You know, the bin Laden suggestion I accurately enough described in my other parenthesis) by bin Laden", I objected, because we simply don't know that Saddam took no action. In this discussion you've denied making such a statement.
Re: "And lie some more about me saying that I have evidence about Saddam not being involved in attacking Saudi Arabia."
Poppycock. I never claimed you claimed to have such evidence. On the contrary, I've consistently insisted that you do not have such evidence, and hence that you do not know Saddam "took no action" as claimed. You certainly do not have any evidence to support making that claim you at least twice have made.
Re: "If you cannot see how you supported the notion of Saddam assisting UBL in attacking Saudi Arabia in your posts..."
Whatever would give you that idea? I can't imagine. My post was clear enough on this, and I've not backed down one iota throughout this conversation. Of course I supported the notion of Saddam assisting UBL in my post. I see that it is very plausible, as I surely suggested in the first place. I've not intended for anyone think anything other of my thoughts. I also, despite your false claims to the contrary, never said I know, we know, or even that I believe, that Saddam did help Osama in the Saudi Arabian massacre. Circumstancial evidence does suggest that Saddam may well have helped Osama attack S.A., that is all.
Re: "For I have made it clear in this post, and many before, that my evidence that he did not assist rests on the lack of evidence that he did assist."
That's no evicence at all. As the old maxim states: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." So you of course have no evidence that Saddam did not assist, just as you now say, and as I've said all along. Therefore, you should never have stated that he did not assist.
But you did worse. After stating that Saddam "took no action" to help Osama, you followed it up by adding: "That should tell you far more about Saddam then you have been able to ascertain to this point." So I ask you as an aside, how can something you/we do not know about Saddam, and which noone should simply accept because you say so, tell anyone anything about him at all?
Re: "So continue on with your trickery..."
Since I never said Saddam helped Osama with the attack in S.A., yet you repeatedly claimed I did while demanding a link from me to "prove" this assertion which I did not make, the trickery is all yours. Since you repeatedly claimed Saddam did not help Osama, yet denied saying it, the trickery is all yours. It's funny, in a sense, you STILL deny having said this, but your quoted words are clear).
Re: "I can not provide any link. But you must know that! Yet keep asking for one like a child asking for the moon."
Again, I've been saying you can't provide a link to substantiate your forthright claim that Saddam didn't help, all along. You never should have made that claim. But you did. Truly, the trickery here is all yours.
Dan B. |
