The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War! Updated Info

Well Durden, it looks as if you need to answer the flip-flops of these people,

Changing Minds

[edit on 22-11-2004 by edsinger]


So how can Scheuer now say Iraq and al Qaeda did not collaborate? Tim Russert noted that Scheuer seems "to lay out a pretty strong case of connection between al Qaeda and Iraq," and asked him about the apparent contradiction on Meet the Press. Here is the entire exchange:


Russert: So you saw a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?

Scheuer: I certainly saw a link when I was writing the books in terms of the open-source literature, unclassified literature, but I had nothing to do with Iraq during my professional career until the run-up to the war. What I was talking about on "Hardball" was I was assigned the duty of going back about nine or 10 years in the classified archives of the CIA. I went through roughly 19,000 documents, probably totaling 50,000 to 60,000 pages, and within that corpus of material, there was absolutely no connection in the terms of a--in terms of a relationship--in the terms of a relationship . .


I guess this supports your view?


Scheuer Flips and Flops



[edit on 22-11-2004 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
Well Durden, it looks as if you need to answer the flip-flops of these people,

And why do I need to answer to that, exactly?

Well now they have a change of heart, when before they seemed sure of the connection, hell I thought you would jump on this as they now support your position.

Originally posted by edsinger
Well now they have a change of heart, when before they seemed sure of the connection, hell I thought you would jump on this as they now support your position.

Why exactly would I be jumping on this? You still haven't understood my position here?

Remember what I've said before...?

Originally posted by Durden
Like I said earlier, this isn't even close to a discussion. This is you running around finding links that you want me to read and give you my take on.

I guess you just couldn't wait to prove me right...


[edit on 22-11-2004 by Durden]

Ok whatever man, I give up .....you can believe what you wish, all the credible evidence.....at least what you have access to.


I fully understand one who refuses to explore the full gambit of information. got a mirror?

Originally posted by edsinger
I fully understand one who refuses to explore the full gambit of information. got a mirror?

Care to explain this comment - would you?

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by edsinger
I fully understand one who refuses to explore the full gambit of information. got a mirror?

Care to explain this comment - would you?

You choose to believe only information that YOU deem credible and absolutely REFUSE to consider information outside the box.

Originally posted by edsinger
You choose to believe only information that YOU deem credible and absolutely REFUSE to consider information outside the box.

That is false and if you've actually been reading my posts, it would even constitute as a blatant lie. Are you a liar, edsinger?

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by edsinger
You choose to believe only information that YOU deem credible and absolutely REFUSE to consider information outside the box.

That is false and if you've actually been reading my posts, it would even constitute as a blatant lie. Are you a liar, edsinger?

That is not a blantent lie GO BACK AND READ YOUR POSTS.

I have no need of lying...and I do read your posts credible and all

Originally posted by edsinger
That is not a blantent lie GO BACK AND READ YOUR POSTS.

I have no need of lying...and I do read your posts credible and all

Well if you had in fact read the content of my posts, you would realize that I absolutely do consider material from the sources provided by your person. However in cases where this information can't be substantiated nor supported by that which can be considered credible then I definetly base my own opinion on what's credible as opposed to that which isn't. You however, do the exact opposite (i.e. merely accept that which does support your already made up mind) and seem to feel perfectly happy with doing so. If you don't see the problem here, there's really very little that can be done for you. Indeed, old dogs can't learn new tricks. Damn shame.


[edit on 22-11-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden

If you don't see the problem here, there's really very little that can be done for you. Indeed, old dogs can't learn new tricks. Damn shame.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Durden]

Thats funny!

Goodnight Durden

Originally posted by edsinger
Thats funny!

Goodnight Durden

If the issue wasn't as serious as it is, then yes, I guess it would be pretty funny.

Goodnight, edsinger.

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by dhI think, Ed, you forget all this started with the Irgun and the Stern Gang, terrorists all,murdering many to enstate the nation of Israel, modelled on Franco's Spanish fascist fallangists, financed by the Rothschilds

I think not because before the Jews declared a state, the Brits handled both the arab and the Jewish insurguncy with equal brutality.

Buried with pigs! Both of them, VERY effective.

ooo, i don't know, ed. sounds like fascist fallangists to me.
'rothchild', ay? sounds like a good keyword search.
and it's nice to see you relish in the burying of jews with pigs. they have a thing about that, you know ed?
you might want to avoid the JDL, ed. POWERFUL lobby!
i thought you were 'with' them, but clearly, your blasphemy here shows you have zero respect for judaism.

god praise the brits for being equally brutal.

First I am pro-Israel......

I was just saying that the Brits handled the terror from both sides with equal effectiveness.

Yes both the Jews and the Muslims did not like being buried with pigs, that is what made it so EFFECTIVE. You kill innocents, then you condem yourself and your immediate family to hell.


I didnt say it was nice and proper, just damn effective.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by edsinger]