- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Lie #1...They will not "control our ports"...danarhea said:The Bush administration has been pushing the point very hard in recent days that the United Arab Emirates is a close ally in the war on terror, and how we ought to let them control our ports,
Lie #2..."Facts come to light"...An article from over three years ago...real enlightening...danarhea said:through their state-owned company Ports World. However, facts have come to light which shows that the UAE cannot be trusted, either with our security, or as an ally.
Possible lie #3..."He was also a guest"...Please explain where in the article this is mentioned...danarhea said:In July of 2001, Osama bin Laden was a wanted man and a known terrorist. He was also a guest of the UAE, where he was being treated for his kidney disease.
See above...show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...danarhea said:Thats right. Instead of arresting bin Laden for the Cole bombing and other atrocities, the government of that nation gave him VIP treatment.
Possible lie #4..."Pakistan...gave their blessing"...show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...danarhea said:2 months later, 911 happened. If our so-called ally had acted like an ally, do you think that 911 might not have happened?
Nobody can answer that, but it does appear to be a possibility. And how about Pakistan, the nation which, instead of arresting bin Laden, gave him their blessing to go to the UAE?
Third time you push this..."harbored"...danarhea said:So why does our government now treat the nation which harbored bin Laden as a trusted ally?
No...It's a LOT better...I read things and distuinguish facts from baseless accusations...danarhea said:Why does our government see those who harbor terrorists as allies? Your guess is as good as mine,
Which has to do with this HOW?...danarhea said:but this sheds new light on why our lawmakers are up in arms about the port deal. And dont forget Saudi Arabia, where most of the 911 hijackers came from.
I read it...At some point, you should too...danarhea said:
Wowwie!!!!....An "alledged" followed by a "claim"..article said:CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July
French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital
So this comes from people with admitted political motives...How sweet...article said:The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.
I don't even need to read on...speculation...article said:Bin Laden is reported...
Funny way how that word pops up again...article said:The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact.
say...Later on, others say otherwise...article said:Intelligence sources say that another CIA agent was also present;
Why didn't you mention this?...Oh yeah...Because when it comes to America saying one thing and foreign intelligence says another, you go against America every time...article said:The American hospital in Dubai emphatically denied that Bin Laden was a patient there.
Washington last night also denied the story.
OK. I see where this is heading. I respond by calling you a liar, then we spend the rest of the thread acting like children, and derail any meaningful discussion. So I am going to pre-empt that course at this point. I will ask you a few questions. Please try to answer them in a civil manner.cnredd said:Lie #1...They will not "control our ports"...
At not time will they have any more than 30% of managing the removal of containers from ships onto trucks...They have NO AUTHORITY on any security matters...
Lie #2..."Facts come to light"...An article from over three years ago...real enlightening...
Possible lie #3..."He was also a guest"...Please explain where in the article this is mentioned...
Are you under the impression that every single person in a country is a "guest" of their country?...Has the UAE ever acknowledged this?...Is there any proof that Bin Laden was there and the UAE officials knew about it?...Or is this one of those, "Well they MUST'VE knew, so I'll write it up as fact."?...
See above...show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...
Possible lie #4..."Pakistan...gave their blessing"...show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...
Third time you push this..."harbored"...
Show me ANYWHERE in that article that states this...You can't...You have no idea...
No...It's a LOT better...I read things and distuinguish facts from baseless accusations...
Which has to do with this HOW?...
I read it...At some point, you should too...
Wowwie!!!!....An "alledged" followed by a "claim"..
It MUST be true!...:roll:
So this comes from people with admitted political motives...How sweet...
I don't even need to read on...speculation...
Funny way how that word pops up again...
say...Later on, others say otherwise...
Why didn't you mention this?...Oh yeah...Because when it comes to America saying one thing and foreign intelligence says another, you go against America every time...
Ladies and gentlemen...robin Jr....
danarhea said:OK. I see where this is heading. I respond by calling you a liar, then we spend the rest of the thread acting like children, and derail any meaningful discussion. So I am going to pre-empt that course at this point.
NO...danarhea said:OK. I see where this is heading. I respond by calling you a liar, then we spend the rest of the thread acting like children, and derail any meaningful discussion. So I am going to pre-empt that course at this point. I will ask you a few questions. Please try to answer them in a civil manner.
Anyone here can call someone a "liar"...But there's a big difference between just saying it and providing evidnce, which I have done through the use of their very own source...aps said:You are a classy guy. I am proud of you. I don't know how cnredd enjoys himself on this message board. He likes to call people liars and tear apart almost every word of their post. I wonder if he does this in real life. :shrug:
Tips for debate" said:LYING - Although there is no official rule against lying, doing so will kill your credibility and respect. If you make a statement that you say is documented, you'd better have the goods to back it up.
cnredd said:NO...
This is not how debate works...
YOU don't come onto a public forum, throw lies out, then when confronted on these lies, put the onus on me to answer your questions...
"What I think" cannot be relevant until the lies I've shown are defended or agreed upon...Why would I comment on an issue that is chock full of innuendo and inconsistancies?"
No sir...Your article even shows that what you wrote are lies...I debunked it...Now it's your turn to make the case where your assessment is correct or admit your accusations are baseless...since you won't do that, you attempt to distract and get me to provide answers...
Not happening...
Notice how your posts end up like this?...Maybe you can get it through your dome that this forum has legitimate and intelligent debators, and you can't get this pile of rubbish over on everyone...
Unless you don't care, and just want to play to this forum's lowest denominators...
In that case...Good job!...:2wave:
danarhea said:The Bush administration has been pushing the point very hard in recent days that the United Arab Emirates is a close ally in the war on terror, and how we ought to let them control our ports, through their state-owned company Ports World. However, facts have come to light which shows that the UAE cannot be trusted, either with our security, or as an ally.
In July of 2001, Osama bin Laden was a wanted man and a known terrorist. He was also a guest of the UAE, where he was being treated for his kidney disease. Thats right. Instead of arresting bin Laden for the Cole bombing and other atrocities, the government of that nation gave him VIP treatment. 2 months later, 911 happened. If our so-called ally had acted like an ally, do you think that 911 might not have happened? Nobody can answer that, but it does appear to be a possibility. And how about Pakistan, the nation which, instead of arresting bin Laden, gave him their blessing to go to the UAE?
So why does our government now treat the nation which harbored bin Laden as a trusted ally? Why does our government see those who harbor terrorists as allies? Your guess is as good as mine, but this sheds new light on why our lawmakers are up in arms about the port deal. And dont forget Saudi Arabia, where most of the 911 hijackers came from.
Article is here.
A) Proceeding with pesumptions...That's nothing new for you...danarhea said:Since you dont want to answer the question, I will proceed from the presumptions you based your namecalling on.
The namecalling again...already refuted..."Acting like a child" would be to call you a liar and NOT prove it...I did the opposite...danarhea said:Lets choose point number one for starters.
You pointed to a place in the article where the UAE and the US both deny this occured, based on their intelligence, and take that as gospel, and the right to act like a child and call me names. OK, this is as good a place as any to start.
But you have provided no evidence that suggests that they DID allow this to happen, whether or not they would publicly declare it...If 100 nations deny having rogue elements in their government, does that mean that they all DO?...You have to PROVE they do...Your source, nor you, have done so...danarhea said:Of course, it stands to reason that the UAE would deny if they had any rogue elements in their government that would allow this to happen.
Don't forget Americans John Walker Lyndh and Jose Padilla either...danarhea said:And dont forget that 2 of the 911 hijackers were from the UAE.
But the safety of the ports is NOT at stake...You are wallowing in the panic...danarhea said:Would you trust this source? I wouldnt. Not if the safety of our ports is at stake.
Right...so EVERYTHING they ever say from now on is 100% wrong...danarhea said:As for the American intelligence, dont forget that this came from the same government which has admitted that the intelligence used to justify going to war in Iraq was faulty.
Third time is not a charm...danarhea said:Whether the French intel is any better is open to debate, but you choose instead to just call names. And you, a mod, too. Tsk, tsk.
cnredd said:Anyone here can call someone a "liar"...But there's a big difference between just saying it and providing evidnce, which I have done through the use of their very own source...
From the "Tips for debate" thread...
aps said:I wasn't saying that you could not call someone a liar. Whether you back up that word with facts does not matter to me. It shows hostility, if you ask me. If you were at a party and someone said something that you knew was a lie, would you look them in the eye and say, "Liar." I would not expect to see any self-respecting person saying that. You can say, "Your facts are wrong." Anyway, you do as you see fit. You feel it's your duty to attack people's credibility. Why? Does that make you feel better about yourself? Does it prove that you're more credible and command respect from others as a result? I don't get it.
You exude hostility in my eyes. For that, I feel sad for you.
I understand where you're coming from, but I am not laughing at all...I'm very dissappointed...Deegan said:I would almost bet he his laughing his behind off, not because he is rude, hostile, or angry, but because I have yet to hear anyone debunk his factual response to these theories.
Deegan said:Is this not the purpose of this forum, to debate the facts, and to hopefully win arguments with those who refuse to see those facts? I can understand you people more if you actually play the same game cnredd does, but you choose to resort to emotional pleas of "he called me names" or "he's rude" and finally, "he's just too hostile"
I would almost bet he his laughing his behind off, not because he is rude, hostile, or angry, but because I have yet to hear anyone debunk his factual response to these theories. In this world, and this is unfortunate, if you repeat something enough, it becomes truth, and some of us just can't sit idle while that happens. I suggest picking apart his retorts, as he does yours, and injecting the same facts that he so often does. Until you do this, you just look as if you're whining, and that is not very becoming, or attractive.
danarhea said:Of course. If you dont agree with cnredd, he is going to call you a liar.
Personally, I think he is just trying to get a rise out of me, and maybe get me mad enough so I lose my temper and say something that will get me banned. It's an old trick, which people try and pull on just about every board in the universe, and its not too clever either. It is also interesting that, in this case, the tactic is being used by a mod.
But back to the issue. I disagreed with him, he slams me. When I point out through logic just why I did not trust the intel of Dubai and the US. His response was just to childishly start calling me a liar again. Its kind of like this......
cnredd: You are a liar
then later on.....
cnredd: I never called you names.
Silly tricks are for kids. cnredd just went on my ignore list.
debate_junkie said:I have to step in here for a minute. I've not agreed with cnredd on a few issues, but I've never been called a liar by him. That is an untrue, and unfair allegation, danarhea. . . . :roll:
aps said:debate_junkie, so because YOU have not been called a liar by cnredd, danarhea's statement is unfair? LOL Yeah right. He's called me a liar (among other things), and I would never intentionally state incorrect facts. What are we in elementary school on the playground during recess? Look at yourself in the mirror when you roll your eyes.
debate_junkie said:Look at his post, again.. aps. He stated what he believed to be lies, and refuted them with his own arguments. Wouldn't it have stood to reason then his arguments be refuted? Nope, instead dana chose to whine about being called a liar, when all cnredd did was refute what HE believed to be lies. Imagine that!
Guess who Osama bin Laden's hunting partner was between 1995 and 2001?aps said:You and I see this issue differently.
1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with bin Laden in Afghanistan Complete 911 Timeline
After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.” [MSNBC, 9/5/03] While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries' outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he's falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family (see February 1999).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?