Bring our troops home!!!!!

Lithium, how absurd is it that you ask someone to provide evidence that something did not occur.

suppose I have had no money stolen - I know that but you dont-
now suppose I say to you, prove to me that you did not steal some money from me !

Well the fact that I have had no money stolen would be the proof wouldnt it?
so really the question reflects back to me and the only way to resolve it is to say "show me that you have had money stolen, and prove itt was me.
You can never prove that you did not steal the money becaue my claims can become more and more absurd and you would have to refute every one.

Its the reason why in criminal courts only proof of a positive action can be made, not a negative action.

so prove that saddam hussein did sponsor terrorism at the time of the invasion

you ar saying prove saddam did not sponsor terrorism.

No you prove that he did

 

Sentient

You misunderstand. 'mbworkrelated' is suggesting that Saddam facilitated al-qaeda type "global terrorism" despite no evidence for such a claim and plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest it is incredibly unlikely. (Of course you cannot prove that something did not happen.) I'm suggesting he present a single solitary scrap of evidence to support his claim that such a relationship between Saddam and Wahhabi type Islamist groups occurred, since the burden of proof lies with those who make such a claim and there is simply no evidence to suggest it. He requested evidence from me that Saddam did NOT support "global terrorism" a page or so back, and I duly pointed out the logical fallacy of negative proof which you're trying to do there.

Interestingly you've got it totally the wrong way round. Might be an idea to read the thread properly before making comments like this, though I'm sure you can be forgiven for misunderstanding since there's a lot to trawl through, matthew's writing is impenetrably poorly written at the best of times, and most people probably stopped reading this thread a while back - matthew is a right-wing troll whose favourite activity is to derail threads like this with his ill-considered and terribly spelt conservative agenda.

 

now you sound like terry wogan man :tongue:

 

terribly sorry Lithium and workrelated, I totally misread the argument so far - where in the hell did I get the idea you were both arguing the opposite perspective?

I wouldnt get too wound up though. I must say that when MBworkrelated argues on politics I am half convinced it is someone who works in whitehall or at least some aspect of the government or related services.

Sorry if thats a misrepresentation workrelated but you do sometimes put forward this naive government position that the people accept that the powers that be know best and that they arent corrupt. Its as though you argue the straight-down-the-line labconlib policy - the mp's nearly all 600 and whatever are theives, liars, murderers and worse, they are armqaments and oil dealers.

You do have this quaint notion that somehow this is the Britain of the victorian era with a Brass band in every park, and everyone tells the truth and whistles a happy tune on the way to work.

The evidence is obvious, nothing in the government position is true. Saddam was a dictator but not sponsoring terrorism. If he was the evidence would have been clear. they have spy sattelite technology most people would think is science fiction but its true they can video people reading a newspaper from a sattelite AND READ THE STORY from the page. They got sattelites that use some kind of beam technology that reads glass vibrating. A few years ago I saw a demonstration of the technology on TV where glass vibrating could be read by having laser light bounced off it and all sorts of beams and radio wave3s.

The evidence wasnt there even thos the security forces concentrated on iraq like no other country existed. Their informers bullshitted to make money.

The USA and Britain is a dangerous laughingstock in the intelligence communities - they should have never involved Mossad !!!

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Matthew is straight down-the-line unquestioning official government version on pretty much every topic. Politically motivated speeches like Jack Straw's and Colin Powell's at the UN use doubt, spin, suggestion and half-truth to make a case relying on presentation and implication aimed at convincing the public on these issues more than making a robust factual case. The likes of Matty will lap this spin-politics up and you find them still holding steadfastly to these presented implications as if they were gospel years later, despite subsequent investigations having demonstrated much of it to be false and unsupported by any evidence (what the sceptical and well-informed among us suspected all along).

Political expediency dictates what goes into the official version most of the time, if you want to develop a more accurate understanding of these events you need to do as much of your own research as you can.

 

Ditto.

That was not difficult was it.

 

No - just i do not hold the commonly held opinion that is believed here.

When and where ?

No way - OK quite possibly Lab not Con or Lib. BUT Quite obviously i'm a Con war apologist though *cough*.
I try not too - but concede that it may appear that way. The trouble is [for e.g] Lithium says evrything is white when i say it is black - and pretty much vice versa. He has not responded to anything he may agree with - he just calls me a Troll for sharing a opinion. Even though i pretty much said said something like ''lets not get into any of this'' ''am i actually talking to you'' ''please do not reply''.

MMMM well i'm sure you and lithium could quite easily argue you are correct -
but in all honesty it is just a load of bollocks.

Whare are ''armqaments''

If only -
Clearly people do not tell the truth 100% but quite clearly they do not lie 100% - I COULD CALL you A LIAR - NOTHING THAT YOU SAY IS TRUE.
Is that fair ? NOPE.

I don't wish to drag this on any further - so if you could find anything in my FIRST post you agree with and respond - that would be cool.

I think what i do try and do is attempt to make people justify notions like that. I think you are a little bit more reasonable - but lithium well he just is not.

Well maybe you could respond to my question about the resolutions imposed on him [regarding terrorism] . Failing that there IS evidence he sponsored terroism - the point is - it seems the question is being narrowly defined as all ''Islamic terrorism'' when it is not.

More than the US and GB came to the same conclusions.

*gets coat*

 

The issue which sparked this rather pointless retread was Peace's comment that

To which you responded in your ineffably articulate and well-reasoned way

Later expanded to

No. It would be helpful if you attempted to familiarise yourself with the facts before trying to engage in discussion.

When we discuss the "war on terror" or "global terrorism" we are usually talking about Wahhabi type Islamism, or at least a comparable type of terrorism which is "global" (or "anti-Western") in its reach and its aims rather than limited IRA-type regional militant political activities. Ansar al-Islam is such a Wahhabi Islamist group, often referred to as an al-Qaeda affiliate or al-Qaeda type group, probably including Afghan fighters and other Arabs who were part of what is loosely termed "al-Qaeda" in Afghanistan following 2001.

We are not talking about regional militant political factions which have specific regional political and military agendas - when we talk about Saddam's supposed links with "global terrorism" we are in practice talking about Wahhabi Islamism. Saddam's involvement in ongoing regional political and military disputes and support for regional militant political factions is well known and long established. However, you sought to suggest that Saddam facilitated "global terrorism" or "encouraged" Islamic extremism when the evidence suggests the opposite. See your quotes above.

So again I ask - where is your "plenty of evidence" that Saddam facilitated global terrorism or encouraged Islamic extremism?

 

So, given that there is apparently no evidence supporting your claims do you feel it might be a good idea to stop repeating them on forums like this?

 

I'll discuss the issues with somebody who does not alter the goal posts - always assume we are talking from their premise - does not say things like ''What we have established... '' - aknowledges what i have and have not said.

Obviously i should have taken my own advice earlier on.

 

Alter the goal posts? I have been consistently asking you to justify your claims that Saddam "facilitated global terrorism" and your implication that in your view he encouraged Islamic extremism. That's the one issue I've been talking about since post #41. I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence for these claims. You have danced around the issue and not provided a single justification for these claims. The only possible way you can imagine I have "altered the goalposts" is if you simply did not read or did not understand what I've written.

 

In fact looking back, my posts in this thread have been incredibly focused towards this one single issue - I have deliberately avoided the topic sprawling to other matters because this is something I've been over so many times with you matthew. I have been consistently and repeatedly asking you to provide justification for your claims about Saddam facilitating global terrorism. Goal post is still there - provide one single shred of evidence.

 

Well lets not go over it again then - yeah.

 

To be honest if you start throwing around lies and half-truths in support of your pro-Iraq-war agenda again I will probably take you up on it. However, I have absolutely no desire to go over this old ground any more and would be glad if you stopped trolling on the issue...

 

But you will let everybody else throw around lies and half-truths [including yourself] ?.

I do not have a ''agenda'' i have a POV.

Well do not expect a response .

You should have thought that a few days ago - when i said something like ''lets not go around and around on this again.''.

 

Matthew you are becoming obsessive, if you don't want to read rigorous and robust challenges to the posts in which you put forward your pro-Iraq-war agenda then please put me on ignore. To inform me that I should not reply to you is absurd. As is making a reply to me telling me you are not going to reply to me...

If you don't want to read what I have to say then please don't, if you read it then expect me to point out your errors and the gaping holes in your knowledge in fairly strong terms.

 

Ok - i will
Why not do the same.

 

No I won't, I don't mind reading things which challenge my position...

 

Apologies to the OP and everyone else for helping to take this thread so horrendously off-topic I know I shouldn't feed the trolls...