Farenheit 9/11 now free... What do you peps think?

Just so that the facts are straight:

You're confused. My post was directed at the post you wrote "Some people just make up their on facts as they go along. Obviously it's a 'conspiracy.'" And just for the record it indeed was a personal observation, since you seem to need to have the differences between a personal observation of mine (just as I was commenting on your personal observation which I also understood to be one) and a stated fact explained to you.

I hope that clears the matter up for you.

 

Cognitive dissonance

 

First and foremost you are twisting the story.

It's not that OBL wasnt listed on FBI's most wanted list. The actual accusation is 9/11 attack wasnt listed on OBL's most wanted Page on FBI's Website.

And I have a feeling you are going to quote "Ed Haas" Where he was supposedly told by FBI that - “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's most wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,"

Correct?

 

Nice. While having discourse, you resort to the victim card by imagining you are the victim and using it as a shield to not present evidence of your opinion. Then you turn around and call me names.

I accept your concession on the issue, that you have nothing other than opinion to offer. Thank you for your attempt.

 

Keep squirming.

Why was 9/11 not added to OBL's crimes?

It's a simple question, and I just know that none of you sheeple are going to come up with an answer.

 

Only to your observation, and for the record, stating that one's opponent in a debate is using passive/aggressive tactics isn't considered by skilled practitioners of the form of debate to be "playing the victim card."

My concession was never offered; again, you are confusing your personal observations with what was actually said by me.

I never offered a claim that bin Laden was employed by the CIA.. Prove to me that I said otherwise. Perhaps your reading/observations skills aren't as good as you like to think they are.

 

Again you seem to be confused. Saying your opinion that someone is "confused" isn't calling that person a name; it's stating a belief. I doubt that you would find a judge in the country that would classify calling someone confused the same as slandering them.

Perhaps a night course in Debating 101 would fill in your perceived incongruities about this subject matter?

 

My apologies, AGS. I was interrupted by another.

Just read through your post. So you are confirming you have nothing to source the validity of your presumed question? Just claiming it's fact doesn't make it so. Personally, I'd like to learn about the issue, but based upon your history, I'm unable to accept questions you present in a manner that pre-determines they are accurate.

If you cannot source your claim, how you can you reasonably expect someone to answer it?

For example, If I were to say:

"Answer this question? Can anyone tell me why alex jones ate jumbo shrimp with bin laden in 1997?"

Wouldn't you expect me to actually prove that alex jones did in fact eat jumbo shrimp with bin laden in 1997? And if I retorted "this is fact, AGS." with no source to verify, wouldn't you be a bit suspicious?

Please tell me that is not unreasonable?

 

So you accept you were wrong or misinformed when you said OBL wasnt listed on FBI's site?

Quit Name calling on me, I'm the one who refrains from name calling. And I am trying hard to not to act at your the same level as yours, so dont push me with your kiddish name calling.

And I have given the reason that you can think of, Are you going to quote Ed Hass? straight answer - Yes/No?

 

My only interest is sources to verify your opinions. Since apparently that is not going to be forthcoming, I'll conclude they are nothing more than opinions and again, accept your concession on the issue.

 

Thanks for the link, I didn't even see Farenheit 9/11 yet (somehow I didn't want to pay money to see all that horrific shit -- I'm weird, no? )

But as for who is responsible for 9/11, it's clear... It was the CANADIANS, of course!

 

I've already accepted your concession. Unless, of course, you'd like to source your opinions? Or are you doing what you previously accused others of doing...arguing for the sake or arguing? One standard for thee, another standard for others?

Actually, bin laden did admit to his crimes of 9/11.

 

Since there is nothing from you in this post verifying that you found proof of me stating bin Laden was ever funded by the CIA I take it that this is your concession that you made a false statement about me?

 

As I've said earlier, I will not debate this thread's subject matter or it's spinoffs until you stop with your passive/aggressive swipe tactics. The subject matter I speak of now has to do with a) debating style; b) pointing out that you are claiming that I stated something that I did not say and that can be easily fact-checked by all reading this thread. Smearing my name with false accusations of claims that I did not utter will not be tolerated by me.

And no matter how many times you like to believe that I'm offering a concession the fact remains that I have not offered one.

I never said that he didn't accept responsibility for 9/11 so I don't know what this does to advance our discussion.

 

That is because I never said you stated that bin laden was ever funded by the CIA.

You are confused

What I said was:

Again, you are confusing your personal observations with what was actually said by me. Perhaps a night course in Debating 101 would fill in your perceived incongruities about this subject matter?

 

But in reality, despite using the victim card as your shield when cornered, you've persued on. Personally, I do not care what you "think" the topic currently is. You've made assertions, I've countered them. If playing the victim role is the only strategy you have, I once again thank you for your concession.

By repeatedly refusing to source your opinions, you have automatically done so.

I agree. Nor did I ever say you said such. What I did, was point out your own words asserting such and corrected your incorrect assertion.

Next?

 

One standard for thee, another standard for everyone else.

 

Say goodnight, chant. Next time, you might want to be a little more prepared when attempting to dismiss critical evidence presented by others before dismissing it. You might also consider holding yourself to the same standard that you hold others to.

Thank you for not countering the notion that a cia/bin laden connection is nothing more than a myth. I appreciate the effort you took to keep those facts at the forefront of the discussion.

 

Since there is nothing from you in subsequent posts verifying that you found proof of me stating bin Laden was ever funded by the CIA I take it that no retraction is forthcoming from you? Surely one such as yourself that claims to be interested in facts and evidence should defend their reputation if I am making a false statement....oddly there is onle silence from you on this issue.

I asked for respect from you first to adhere to true debate style and not rely upon passive/aggressive comments; you chose to ignore my request. Now you try to turn the tables around and ask for the respect and adherence to classical debating style from me yet you offer none back. Clearly your actions speak louder than your words.

 

That was covered here. I'm left with two choices. You were being deliberately dishonest, or you browser cache did not pick up the post. Can I presume it was a browser cache problem?