Are you equipped with the ability to understand english in plain text?
I don't want to debate any points with you. You have made yourself the expert and you will not allow rebuttals because you are the expert. You will not allow any one to question your expertise.
If you do not see that as a problem, then I really don't want to talk to you.
I will debate you on the terms you have pointed out time and time again is the only way anyone can debate you.
I refer you to my other posts to answer those claims. Read them carefully. I took the time to word them so they were concise, therefor be polite enough to read them carefully.
And what is with the use of those annoying icons?
Nope I think it's you who are the skipping record. Do you know what a blind spot is? Because you've clearly got one.
i don't worry too much about terrorists, as i am not a likely target, nor do i live in a location likely to be attacked. not that i don't care if someone is attacked, i'm just being realistic. i'm not concerned, but people like politicians, business people, ect. or people living in areas of interest to these supposed terrorists (the capitol, financial districts, refinerys, ect.) have reason to be concerned.
[The] entire case comes from a guy named Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who claims to have transmitted the offer as a middleman between the U.S. and Sudan. I got the story on Ijaz from former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and from Daniel Benjamin, past director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council and now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Berger only had to meet once with Ijaz to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake in Sudanese oil.
Ijaz had urged Berger to lift sanctions against Sudan. Why the sanctions? Because Sudan was and remains a notorious sponsor of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. Also, the Sudanese regime is the leading state sponsor of slavery and is considered by many to be genocidal. And totally untrustworthy. Ijaz, however, was arguing their case. As Benjamin said of Ijaz, 'Either he allowed himself to be manipulated, or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrorists.'
Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the U.S. talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The U.S. pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.
The story does have a happy ending. Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.
I need not even reply to this one. I seriously hope you do not expect to win any arguments based on Al's book. That thing is so far left that, even liberals are blushing.
That was the big post you told me about?
Look, once again, If you want to debate me get me some kind of list that you think will bring me up to speed with you and we can debate. otherwise don't bother with the Al Fanken quotes.
I need not even reply to this one. I seriously hope you do not expect to win any arguments based on Al's book. That thing is so far left that, even liberals are blushing.
That was the big post you told me about?
Look, once again, If you want to debate me get me some kind of list that you think will bring me up to speed with you and we can debate. otherwise don't bother with the Al Fanken quotes.
If you have a bone to pick, it's with berger and benjamin, not franken.
It's funny how conservatives can't accept anything Franken writes... even though it's all factually correct.
But they can listen to Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity for hours and not have a problem with anything they say. Even after they've been proven liars.
Even spinsanity that didn't like Franken's book couldn't come up with anything. Other than they didn't like the tone.
I am not a "conservative". So labeling me that does nothing.
I can accept facts, I am sure there are other sources for those things. Picking him as a source is like some republican quoting from Rush Limbaugh. It just highlights your bias IMO.
It's just odd that giant speaks all high and mighty of his exclusively comprehensive background, yet the best source he can come up with to hit a point home is an Al Franken book?!? Odd. Maybe giant is Al Franken testing the waters at some unassuming Mac user forum?...
His book was heavily researched despite what you think of his politics,
while he was a fellow at Harvard, by Harvard students.
Just sayin'.
Look, I really don't care about Al's politics. No-one can deny his vitriolic bias. He could be right. he may be wrong. Monsoor Ijaz from what I can read is a highly respected individual that has some special insights, and is sought after by many governments and entities, despite these accusations. Maybe he made some mistakes, who doesn't. But to say he is not credible because of his alleged mistake, would render no-one credible by that standard.
It's just odd that giant speaks all high and mighty of his exclusively comprehensive background, yet the best source he can come up with to hit a point home is an Al Franken book?!? Odd. Maybe giant is Al Franken testing the waters at some unassuming Mac user forum?...
Comments
I don't want to debate any points with you. You have made yourself the expert and you will not allow rebuttals because you are the expert. You will not allow any one to question your expertise.
If you do not see that as a problem, then I really don't want to talk to you.
I will debate you on the terms you have pointed out time and time again is the only way anyone can debate you.
The ball is in your court.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are like a skipping record.
I refer you to my other posts to answer those claims. Read them carefully. I took the time to word them so they were concise, therefor be polite enough to read them carefully.
And what is with the use of those annoying icons?
Nope I think it's you who are the skipping record. Do you know what a blind spot is? Because you've clearly got one.
I like the annoying icons.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I agree. with that wholeheartedly. Order of importance = human > family > country > personal affiliations.
if we referred to ourselves that way we WOULD have to look at things differently.
You missed the joke entirely. WOW! reffered to his mind expanding thought.
It's something people used to say back in the 60's and 70's when drug use was more socially acceptable.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Monsoor Ijaz
Regarding the Sudan/bin laden 'offer.'
[The] entire case comes from a guy named Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American who claims to have transmitted the offer as a middleman between the U.S. and Sudan. I got the story on Ijaz from former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and from Daniel Benjamin, past director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council and now senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Berger only had to meet once with Ijaz to determine that he was an unreliable freelancer, pursuing his own financial interests. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake in Sudanese oil.
Ijaz had urged Berger to lift sanctions against Sudan. Why the sanctions? Because Sudan was and remains a notorious sponsor of terrorism, harboring Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. Also, the Sudanese regime is the leading state sponsor of slavery and is considered by many to be genocidal. And totally untrustworthy. Ijaz, however, was arguing their case. As Benjamin said of Ijaz, 'Either he allowed himself to be manipulated, or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrorists.'
Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self-appointed private individuals. When the U.S. talked to Sudan, there was no such offer. The U.S. pursued every lead and tried to negotiate. Nothing.
The story does have a happy ending. Ijaz now has a job as foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel.
From franken's book.
Originally posted by giant
Regarding the Sudan/bin laden 'offer.'
From franken's book.
I need not even reply to this one. I seriously hope you do not expect to win any arguments based on Al's book. That thing is so far left that, even liberals are blushing.
That was the big post you told me about?
Look, once again, If you want to debate me get me some kind of list that you think will bring me up to speed with you and we can debate. otherwise don't bother with the Al Fanken quotes.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I need not even reply to this one. I seriously hope you do not expect to win any arguments based on Al's book. That thing is so far left that, even liberals are blushing.
That was the big post you told me about?
Look, once again, If you want to debate me get me some kind of list that you think will bring me up to speed with you and we can debate. otherwise don't bother with the Al Fanken quotes.
If you have a bone to pick, it's with berger and benjamin, not franken.
Just trying to keep it simple for you
But they can listen to Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity for hours and not have a problem with anything they say. Even after they've been proven liars.
Even spinsanity that didn't like Franken's book couldn't come up with anything. Other than they didn't like the tone.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's funny how conservatives can't accept anything Franken writes... even though it's all factually correct.
But they can listen to Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity for hours and not have a problem with anything they say. Even after they've been proven liars.
Even spinsanity that didn't like Franken's book couldn't come up with anything. Other than they didn't like the tone.
I am not a "conservative". So labeling me that does nothing.
I can accept facts, I am sure there are other sources for those things. Picking him as a source is like some republican quoting from Rush Limbaugh. It just highlights your bias IMO.
while he was a fellow at Harvard, by Harvard students.
Just sayin'.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
His book was heavily researched despite what you think of his politics,
while he was a fellow at Harvard, by Harvard students.
Just sayin'.
Look, I really don't care about Al's politics. No-one can deny his vitriolic bias. He could be right. he may be wrong. Monsoor Ijaz from what I can read is a highly respected individual that has some special insights, and is sought after by many governments and entities, despite these accusations. Maybe he made some mistakes, who doesn't. But to say he is not credible because of his alleged mistake, would render no-one credible by that standard.
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's just odd that giant speaks all high and mighty of his exclusively comprehensive background, yet the best source he can come up with to hit a point home is an Al Franken book?!? Odd. Maybe giant is Al Franken testing the waters at some unassuming Mac user forum?...
Now that would fit perfectly.
"If you have a bone to pick, it's with berger and benjamin, not franken."
That's Franken's sources... try looking into that.
See Gellman's article in the Oct.3, 2001 Washington Post.
Also see the Berger article on July 13, 2002.
And finally the book The Age of Sacred Terror by Benjamin and Simon.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Quoting Giant:
"If you have a bone to pick, it's with berger and benjamin, not franken."
That's Franken's sources... try looking into that.
See Gellman's article in the Oct.3, 2001 Washington Post.
Also see the Berger article on July 13, 2002.
And finally the book The Age of Sacred Terror by Benjamin and Simon.
Thanks, already found them though. I can scour the net with the best of 'em.