Author Topic: al-Qaeda Link? (Read 1882 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #30 on:** December 17, 2003, 12:22:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, the "guilty until proven innocent" ploy, or rather the "true until proven false" ploy US right-wingers are so fond of these days.

If you commit a wrong you are guilty as soon as you do it, not as soon as a judge says you did it. Innocent until proven guilty is a legality.

Interesting that you basically said righties are fond of true (innocent) until proven false (guilty). Which is it?

Thrawn · « **Reply #31 on:** December 17, 2003, 12:32:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Come to think of it, who elected you topic sheriff?

Crap, don't tell me you didn't get the memo.

AKIron · « **Reply #32 on:** December 17, 2003, 12:34:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Are you saying that anything is true until proven false? Your logic is flawed in the extreme, you cannot prove a negative. True is not synonymous with innocent, neither is false synonymous with guilty, learn your own whoopee language.

Nowhere did I say or allude to anything being true until proven false. Are you intentionally putting words in my mouth or do you really have that much of a problem understanding my simple point? You are the one that tied innocent until proven guilty to true until proven false. It seemed to me you were making a comparison. If not I stand corrected, if you were then you are being deceitful and small.

AKIron · « **Reply #33 on:** December 17, 2003, 12:55:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I tied "guilty until proven innocent" to "true until proven false", can't you for once get things in the right order?

So I typed to fast, sue me. I got it right the first time.

AKIron · « **Reply #34 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:07:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
NO YOU DIDN'T! Look again.

You're not getting it. Maybe I shouldn't attempt subtlty.

You said the right believed:

"Guilty until proven innocent"

and

"True until proven false"

I thought I already admitted to equating true/innocent and false/gulty. My post was an attempt to show you your error.

AKIron · « **Reply #35 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:10:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Sure you did ... liar.

Sure I did what? Sack of ****.

AKIron · « **Reply #36 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:20:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
You must be drunk.

I respond negatively to name calling, drunk or sober.

AKIron · « **Reply #37 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:28:41 AM »

Pointless to continue this conversation, have it your way.

Hortlund · « **Reply #38 on:** December 17, 2003, 01:45:44 AM »

Its kinda hard to have discussions about Iraq-Al Queida connections, when all the anti-war types react with "that is just a fabrication" to whatever source one presents.

Heck, even if old Saddy himself would hold a press conference tomorrow detailing the cooperation, some guys would still go "that is just a lie, he is lying because of [insert whatever looney reason here, preferably one involving Oil, Haliburton, the Florida recounts, US mid-east policy in 1980 or even better, all four]".

We could have video images of Atta handing out t-shirts to his fellow hijackers on 9-10 with the text "Our terrorist leader went to Iraq and got to stay in Saddams palace, but all I got was this lousy t-shirt" and it wouldnt matter to some of you.

The debate becomes pointless when the knee jerk reaction from the loony left is "you are just making that up".

The WMD's are in Syria btw. And when they show up, you guys will be going with either option a) The US planted them there, or b) those are not the WMD's from Iraq, those are Syrian WMD's.

Thrawn · « **Reply #39 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:07:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
The debate becomes pointless when the knee jerk reaction from the loony left is "you are just making that up".

Quote

The WMD's are in Syria btw.

Wow, you must be party to some pretty hot intelligence. Or are you making a guess and presenting it as a fact. That's also know as lying.

You're wrong btw. An arguement becomes pointless when you post nothing more than illogical assumptions and insults.

Hortlund · « **Reply #40 on:** December 17, 2003, 02:32:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow, you must be party to some pretty hot intelligence. Or are you making a guess and presenting it as a fact. That's also know as lying.

Nice strawman. So tell me, do you want me to take part in the discussion at all, or would you prefer to sit alone and first make stuff up and then critizising it?

Torque · « **Reply #41 on:** December 17, 2003, 04:07:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
BBS Political Discussion - A one Act Play

Lib - "This might not be true you know"
Con - "So you're a terrorist lover?"
Lib - "No, I'm just saying..."
Con - "And a communist too huh?"
Lib - "But if you use some logic...."
Con - "Then you conclude that Bush is Hitler!"
Lib - " I never.."
Con - "Why don't you move to the Middle East you commie Bush hater!"

The End

Roll credits......

Thrawn · « **Reply #42 on:** December 17, 2003, 08:01:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Nice strawman.

That's not a strawman arguement. There's nothing to argue regarding your "fact". It was completely unsupported.

Quote

So tell me, do you want me to take part in the discussion at all, or would you prefer to sit alone and first make stuff up and then critizising it?

Heads you win, tails I lose? I don't think I'll play. I would prefer if you presented reasonable logical arguements that are backed up with data when necessary. If that vast bulk of your posts are going to be hate towards the other people discussing with you, rhetoric and poor reason then you don't need to stop posting, I can exercise my free choice to ignore it. Your signal to noise ratio has gotten pretty bad Hortlund, at least in my opinion.

Hortlund · « **Reply #43 on:** December 17, 2003, 08:26:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
That's not a strawman arguement. There's nothing to argue regarding your "fact". It was completely unsupported.

[/b]
Since there are other alternatives than the two you offered, then you are indeed making a strawman argument. "Either you are stupid, or you are making stuff up" is a type of strawman...just like "Either you are a party to some very hot (?) intelligence. Or you are making a guess and presenting it as a fact."

Either way, you have contributed precious little to this argument yourself. Pot kettle black...and all that.

midnight Target · « **Reply #44 on:** December 17, 2003, 10:25:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Its kinda hard to have discussions about Iraq-Al Queida connections, when all the anti-war types react with "that is just a fabrication" to whatever source one presents.

Heck, even if old Saddy himself would hold a press conference tomorrow detailing the cooperation, some guys would still go "that is just a lie, he is lying because of [insert whatever looney reason here, preferably one involving Oil, Haliburton, the Florida recounts, US mid-east policy in 1980 or even better, all four]".

We could have video images of Atta handing out t-shirts to his fellow hijackers on 9-10 with the text "Our terrorist leader went to Iraq and got to stay in Saddams palace, but all I got was this lousy t-shirt" and it wouldnt matter to some of you.

The debate becomes pointless when the knee jerk reaction from the loony left is "you are just making that up".

The WMD's are in Syria btw. And when they show up, you guys will be going with either option a) The US planted them there, or b) those are not the WMD's from Iraq, those are Syrian WMD's.

Look up "Straw Man" in the dictionary and this post should be there.

"Straw Man Argument - "Straw Man Argument" is a misrepresentation of the opposing view, set up in such a way that it is easy to demolish. This "set-up" is meant to bring the opponent's position into disrepute, in the hope of avoiding having to address the real arguments. "