Replies

LOL.

You ARE off your meds aren't you?

No proof? Oh, you mean to your constantly changing standard. So many people have replied to you I've lost count. You just move the goalpost.

Your idiocy is showing in every post you make. But, by all means, keep it up and ruin what shred of a reputation you have.

Peach - if you are capable of debating a point instead of invective, you would know that everything you are posting towards me is simply spew.

Moving goalposts? Is this a catchphrase that you think allows you to avoid the point? My goalpost is in the same place it was in my first post: The evidence in THIS article does not prove the link "beyond all doubt." I DARE you to show any "goalpost" of mine that is different from this. I DARE YOU. PUT UP OR STFU.

Come on. Try it. Or can you just hurl invective? Are your skills that limited?

Let's just go back 100 or so posts. Looks like the goalpost is in exactly the same place.

Look, Peach - I don't know why you are trying so hard to argue with a position I'm not taking. Must be easier than arguing with one that I am.

If there is proof - not association - of SH running the Ansar camp, fine. People have been asserting that for two years, but they haven't proven it yet. My position is that the "information" in the posted article - that the Jordan terrorist got training or hooked up with Zarqawi in Iraq - does not constitute proof of Baghdad's involvement because Baghdad did not control the area where Ansar was HQ'd. That's it. I'm not arguing about other proof, and you aren't presenting any. But the posted article at the top of the thread does not even begin to provide the kind of "vindication" you are crowing about.

Of course, you'll run from this like you do everything else.

lugs really is cute when whe gets mad, Peach.

I suppose you caught his wonderful #327 ... I'm supposing by that initial quote combined with his increasingly vile rhetoric that he misunderstands (or misread) my analogy, and that I intended to imply he agrees with JGault and categorically does not support the BASH when I was only implying I find sufficient "proof" of the SH connections to say "guilty" on that point, but I'm not even intending to comment further to him, so I'll probably never know.

As for JGault, I categorically support President Bush and any war against terrorists wherever they are, and will pledge my treasure, as I have previously pledged my life, to do service for my country in its defense. His fear of deficit spending is honorable, and I share that, but instead of worrying about our spending that treasure on social engineering, his solution is to dismantle the mechanisms which are essential for protecting the generation of that treasure. Terrorism is a complex problem, and best answers are difficult, but unilateral disengagement and disarmament and creating a 100ft wall around the country and an internal gestapo is clearly not the answer.