I thought you were an engineer. You of all people should know how you prove things are true. Simply making a statement, then claiming lack of evidence to the contrary doesn't make your statement true. I can claim that elves live in the center of the earth. Do you have facts stating the oppsite?
All wishful thinking aside, this article contains nothing but quotes from Allawi claiming a bunch of stuff. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not willing to just take his word for it. I want some actual, you know, evidence before I claim a connection. Maybe one does exist, but like anyone with half a brain (and no motivation to see what I want to see), I'm going to assume there isn't one until I see evidence saying otherwise.
You guys bitch and bitch about the "MSM" (grow up, please) jumping on the bandwagon over less than credible stories, yet here you are doing the exact same thing. You want a connection so badly that you ignore facts and see what you want to see. How is this any better than what you're complaining about?
Here's how you disprove this. All we have is Allawi's claims in one article from one source. That isn't proof unless you trust Allawi quite a bit. I see no reason to. So in the absense of any proof, I, like most normal people, assume it isn't true. I don't have to prove it isn't true, you have to prove it is. That's how these things work.
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Actually this claim is more of a quantum claim at this point. It's neither true nor untrue. It needs to be substantiated.
I mainly posted this story because of those in here, and we all know who they are, who would take the word of avowed enemies of the US and believe what they claim as "true" yet will instantaneously reject the claims of one of our allies. Their hypocrisy in the matter is rather telling.
I'll agree with that first part. I'm not willing to agree it is true, but since the claim has been made, I'm not willing to say it's untrue either. I didn't make it clear before I guess, when I say I assume it's not true, I mean I'm not willing to say that it is. That doesn't mean I'm willing to strongly claim it isn't. Like you said, it needs to be substantiated. Of course as reasonble people we can guess as to how likely something is to be true or not, but we need to remember it's just a guess.
I also agree that forming a strong opinion based off of unsubstantiated claims made by people isn't a good idea. Obviously some people are more credible than others, and there is a certain credibility when a number of people make the same claim. But people lie and get things wrong, I don't think anyone should form a strong, firm opinion based off of nothing more than words.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Right, so all these claims from you leftists that there was no connection - were just claims and not "fact"? Good to see you finally figured that out
That's all that is necessary CsG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
No where did I make the claim that this was "fact". However you and others have been chanting about "no connection" and attempting claim it as fact since the start of the war.
Again, I have never been a freeper - nor would I ever be one.
CsG
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
So I suppose you being a tool and extension of the left invalidates anything you might say in here and that it precludes you from the remote possibility of ever telling any sort of truth?
Is that how it works?
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Right, so all these claims from you leftists that there was no connection - were just claims and not "fact"? Good to see you finally figured that out
CsG
Of course. Claiming with absolute certainty that there is no connection is just as silly at this point as claiming with absolute certainly that there IS a connection. The only thing we can logically say right now is that there isn't enough information to conclude that a connection existed. Or, if you prefer it phrased the other way, it is possible that a connection did exist. It's like the WMDs. It is possible that the were/are in Iraq, there is just no evidence to back that up.
More of the same- tidbits offered up to maintain the faithful. Funny how they show up, almost like a schedule...
The whole thing is mere speculation and innuendo, furnished by yet another extremely suspect source. And more of the usual bogus logic whereby the accusers demand that the disbelievers prove the allegation isn't true, rather than rightfully assuming the burden of proof for themselves. Accusations are cheap- anybody can make them. Substantiating them is another matter entirely, something that simply hasn't occurred.
So far as the whole "no connection" slur is concerned- the accusers have failed to make one, plain and simple, which means, for the purposes at hand, that there remains no substantiated connection, which is pretty much what the 9/11 commission had to say about it, as well.
File the whole thing as another sasquatch sighting...
Nice rhetorical flipflop, CsG. Twice demanding that posters disprove the allegation in the OP, then offering you never claimed it was factual. If you're not representing it as factual, then why demand anybody offer any evidence to the contrary?
The whole thing is mere speculation and innuendo, furnished by yet another extremely suspect source. And more of the usual bogus logic whereby the accusers demand that the disbelievers prove the allegation isn't true, rather than rightfully assuming the burden of proof for themselves. Accusations are cheap- anybody can make them. Substantiating them is another matter entirely, something that simply hasn't occurred.
So far as the whole "no connection" slur is concerned- the accusers have failed to make one, plain and simple, which means, for the purposes at hand, that there remains no substantiated connection, which is pretty much what the 9/11 commission had to say about it, as well.
File the whole thing as another sasquatch sighting...
Nice rhetorical flipflop, CsG. Twice demanding that posters disprove the allegation in the OP, then offering you never claimed it was factual. If you're not representing it as factual, then why demand anybody offer any evidence to the contrary?
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
:roll:
Tell me, what kind of STUPID FVCKING IDIOT that has followed the events of the world for the last 20 years doesn't entertain the notion that Saddams Iraq flirted with terrorists and embraced the part of the ideology of Militant Islam that uses terrorism as a weapon?
Tell me, what kind of STUPID FVCKING IDIOT that has followed the events of the world for the last 20 years doesn't entertain the notion that Saddams Iraq flirted with terrorists and embraced the part of the ideology of Militant Islam that uses terrorism as a weapon?
Uhh....none.
You see...Saddam was a *bad* Muslim. bin Laden even said so himself. bin Laden wanted to protect the Saudi holy cities of Mecca and Medina *from* Saddam. Saddam didn't give two sh*ts about Muslim extremists...they threatened his stability at being a dictator.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Conjur came in suggesting it was false yet all he offered was character assassination - nothing of substance. The challenge was for him to attack the statement - but ofcourse both you and he didn't seem to understand that. Oh well - it's not like I figured you would...but there is always hope...
CsG
In reviewing the thread, CsG, I discovered that I've made a mistake- you actually demanded that conjur provide evidence against a statement you don't represent as factual a total of three times, not twice. We both know full well that he can't prove a negative, can't provide any "evidence" that Saddam didn't support Al Qaeda in a collaborative way- but you persist, and now claim that such tactics are a reasonable method of proceeding, because all Conjur did was "character assassination"- which is merely what Allawi did, and what TLC insisted was the truth wrt Saddam. Either you're being extremely disingenuous, or you suffer from a partisan failure of the analytical faculties.
As we've seem many times over, just because a statement comes from your team doesn't mean it's true, at all. That's particularly true wrt justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Despite the lack of any real proof whatsoever, and the leaking of rather damning documentation from the British govt, some rather lame attempts are still being made to obfuscate the obvious, and you're a participant in those attempts. The obvious being that a decision was made to invade Iraq, rational or not, and that so called "evidence" was then gathered to support and sell that undertaking, which was really pretty easy in the wake of 9/11, and the even more obvious exploitation of that tragedy. First make a decision, the justify it later.
As much heat as the Bush Admin has taken over the whole thing, if there were any real pre-invasion evidence, they would have released it. Instead, they bob and weave, call on their allies to release "statements" in support, and on a compliant media to spin them properly.
Which is not to say that there was no support of Al Q by Saddam, simply that such has never really been proven- merely alleged, as if mere repetition from a variety of mouths will make a statement truthful. Suspicion, innuendo, and accusation are NOT proof, no matter how many times they're repeated, or by whom. You know it, I know it, Conjur knows it, too. You are, I believe, entirely too smart to actually believe such agitprop yourself, but still defend it while denying you claimed it was the truth... you protest too much, CsG, entirely too much...
As we've seem many times over, just because a statement comes from your team doesn't mean it's true, at all. That's particularly true wrt justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Despite the lack of any real proof whatsoever, and the leaking of rather damning documentation from the British govt, some rather lame attempts are still being made to obfuscate the obvious, and you're a participant in those attempts. The obvious being that a decision was made to invade Iraq, rational or not, and that so called "evidence" was then gathered to support and sell that undertaking, which was really pretty easy in the wake of 9/11, and the even more obvious exploitation of that tragedy. First make a decision, the justify it later.
As much heat as the Bush Admin has taken over the whole thing, if there were any real pre-invasion evidence, they would have released it. Instead, they bob and weave, call on their allies to release "statements" in support, and on a compliant media to spin them properly.
Which is not to say that there was no support of Al Q by Saddam, simply that such has never really been proven- merely alleged, as if mere repetition from a variety of mouths will make a statement truthful. Suspicion, innuendo, and accusation are NOT proof, no matter how many times they're repeated, or by whom. You know it, I know it, Conjur knows it, too. You are, I believe, entirely too smart to actually believe such agitprop yourself, but still defend it while denying you claimed it was the truth... you protest too much, CsG, entirely too much...
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
So again, conjur can't provide anything of substance and only provides character assassination. That's all that's necessary for you to say.
Oh, and FYI - you are dead wrong about what I posted 3 times. Here they are for you. Not one of them "demanded that conjur provide evidence", but I'm sure you'll continue to ignore reality and claim they did.
1: You have facts stating the opposite?
2: Again, do you have anything that disproves the OP?
3: Find anything that disproves the OP yet?
Now those 3 questions are doing what again? Is the answer to them not "yes" or "no"? That's all that was required by those questions, a simple yes or no. Ofcourse conjur couldn't stand admitting he has no proof that Allawi is lying(as he seems to claim) so he resorted to his old stand-by - character assassination.
Meh, it's not really that surprising...
CsG
Something I found absolutely telling was when Newsweek was melting down over this story and they interviewed some other journalist hack about the chances of this story being true and his reply was "It could have been!"
That was his justification for the false reporting. Since when is it the new media job to write stories for things that COULD BE TRUE???? Anyone see the disconnect here? He actually thought it was ok to report it because it could have been true. Well Nancy Pelosi could be have sex with a female intern but should we report it just because it COULD BE TRUE?
So to follow this logic we can report anything because it COULD BE TRUE...yea, that's it, in a distant parallel universe it is true so therefore we can report it if it serves are biased agenda!
That was his justification for the false reporting. Since when is it the new media job to write stories for things that COULD BE TRUE???? Anyone see the disconnect here? He actually thought it was ok to report it because it could have been true. Well Nancy Pelosi could be have sex with a female intern but should we report it just because it COULD BE TRUE?
So to follow this logic we can report anything because it COULD BE TRUE...yea, that's it, in a distant parallel universe it is true so therefore we can report it if it serves are biased agenda!
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Gee, CsG. Aren't you the one who used the counterargument, "It's only an allegation" in another thread, and then proceeded to assume the allegation was false for the remainder of your post? How convenient that your, er, principles are so, er, flexible.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
To take this a little further:
Just look at the tactics being used by the right. First they present "evidence" (pre-invasion) justifying the invasion. When REAL evidence was presented post-invasion that the pre-invasion justifications were false, the right claims the invasion was justified anyway, because "We're bringing freedom to the Middle East."
Yet here they go again, presenting "evidence" to support the original, pre-invasion assertions.
Why would we even bother to argue against this latest information? If we were to somehow prove they're groundless (or if there's no verifiable evidence to back up Allawi's statements), the righties will just go back to the "We're bringing freedom to the Middle East" justification, which can't possibly be "refuted" - it's solely a matter of faith.
The real question to ask of CSG and TLC and their ilk is, "If these allegations can't be backed up, if no firm evidence in support of them can be produced, will you THEN agree that the invasion was a big mistake?"
If the answer is "no" (and of course, it IS "no"), then why continue with this thread? Why waste our time when the outcome is irrelevant.
These are from the OP's linked article...
[*] "...former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat."
[*] "He also said that..."
[*] "...Allawi said."
[*] "According to Allawi,..."
[*] "...Allawi affirmed..."
[*] "On this question Allawi said: ..."
[*] "In Allawi's view, ..."
[*] "...he said."
[*] "The former prime minister claims that ..."
[*] "He added that..."
I won't be holding my breath for ANY of the "they're just allegations" crowd (CAD being the biggest, but many of his followers piped in also in various threads) to say anthing about 'allegations' here.
Those 3 questions, CsG, are a dishonest attempt to move the burden of proof away from the accusers, where that burden rightfully resides.
Being called on that, you now attempt "the splitting of the hairs", as Poirot might put it, to weasel your way out of it, claiming that repeated demands for "facts" aren't a demand for "evidence". I suppose, that in the realm of rightwing framing and spin, that "facts" aren't really "evidence"- given that the "evidence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq in the first place was, indeed, not "fact" at all.
They'll never agree that the invasion was a mistake, shira. They have an emotional investment in the propaganda constructs used to achieve the invasion, the same propaganda constructs used to justify all Rightwing Bush policy, foreign and domestic. If any part of it were false, in their eyes, they'd have to question the very basis for their entire fervent belief structure, which would be utterly beyond the capabilities of their psychology. First, Believe- then intellectually justify such beliefs, rather than vice-versa. And, even if you don't believe it, as CsG basically admitted with the denial of representing this allegation as fact, defend the party line, anyway, avoiding cognitive dissonance... Attack, always attack, since there is, as you've pointed out, no point in attempting to defend the indefensible...
Being called on that, you now attempt "the splitting of the hairs", as Poirot might put it, to weasel your way out of it, claiming that repeated demands for "facts" aren't a demand for "evidence". I suppose, that in the realm of rightwing framing and spin, that "facts" aren't really "evidence"- given that the "evidence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq in the first place was, indeed, not "fact" at all.
They'll never agree that the invasion was a mistake, shira. They have an emotional investment in the propaganda constructs used to achieve the invasion, the same propaganda constructs used to justify all Rightwing Bush policy, foreign and domestic. If any part of it were false, in their eyes, they'd have to question the very basis for their entire fervent belief structure, which would be utterly beyond the capabilities of their psychology. First, Believe- then intellectually justify such beliefs, rather than vice-versa. And, even if you don't believe it, as CsG basically admitted with the denial of representing this allegation as fact, defend the party line, anyway, avoiding cognitive dissonance... Attack, always attack, since there is, as you've pointed out, no point in attempting to defend the indefensible...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter