Author Topic: for 10bears and MT while I'm at it. (Read 653 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #15 on:** October 18, 2003, 09:41:14 AM »

Both links reveal that there was unquestionably no doubt at all in anyones mind without the slightest bit of hesitation for even an instant

that you didn't read what you linked.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #16 on:** October 18, 2003, 09:52:20 AM »

your first link is to the editorial page in the portsmouth herald. did you really have to dig that hard to find someone who agreed with you? I'm sure there are a couple of others on the board who could have wrote you a suporting opinion and saved you the search.

editorials are opinions not facts.

AKIron · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2003, 02:14:46 PM »

He didn't say there was doubt about a conviction, he said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DiabloTX · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2003, 07:42:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Both links reveal that there was unquestionably no doubt at all in anyones mind without the slightest bit of hesitation for even an instant that you didn't read what you linked.

Sigh...no, I did read. They both revealed a link to Al Qaeda. If you link to Al Qaeda then you link OSL. Only because YOU didn't make that link let me know YOU didn't read it, you only looked for what you thought was there.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #19 on:** October 18, 2003, 07:59:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
your first link is to the editorial page in the portsmouth herald. did you really have to dig that hard to find someone who agreed with you? I'm sure there are a couple of others on the board who could have wrote you a suporting opinion and saved you the search.

editorials are opinions not facts.

Uh, no. It was the first hit I had on a search engine. He used facts to back up his opinion. And as you can see, I have had A LOT of support from this board.

Quote

Despite questions concerning Yousef’s connections to the Iraqi military and bin Laden,

I guess this isn't enough 'fact' for you to believe then? Well, choose to believe what you want, it seems that's all you are capable of doing.

majic · « **Reply #20 on:** October 19, 2003, 12:05:46 AM »

...with gravy and mashed potatoes....mmmm...

DiabloTX · « **Reply #21 on:** October 19, 2003, 06:01:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
More importantly, both attacks were failures in that neither Gadaffi nor OBL seized their terrorist activities, but rather intensified them.

Which is exactly why, IMHO, no single Presidency up to and including Clinton did more to stop terrorism than the other. I felt Clinton through the 90's had the best opportunity to do something but chose to do something that was politically safe.

I would characterize the 1986 attack not as a failure, but as incomplete. Gaddifi's verbal attacks on the US quieted down quite a bit but unfortunately, as GS said, his involvement in terrorist attacks didn't.

As for GW, he had an opportunity to do a lot as well and chose to be safe. But to say Clinton did more than any other administration is an out and out falsehood.