"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet."
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being flushed with it, apparently...
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a> detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused> American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet.">
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being flushed with
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that> a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had> accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet.">
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being flushed> with it, apparently...
A detainee accusing jailers of something does not equal proof.
Stoneco864 wrote:>> What I do not understand is how a whole koran would fit in a craper??>
Do the koran come in mini pocket size?
There are smaller-sized editions - I've seen someone in my unit carrying one, as most religious texts are available in smaller versions for military use.
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message news:4294fab5$0$79457$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> news:_qmdneO_9NVrZQnfRVn-vQ@buckeye-express.com...> >
"Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo!.com> wrote in message> > news:d72r73$7cd8$1@news3.infoave.net...> > >
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a> > > detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had> accused> > > American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet."> > >
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being flushed
with> > it,> > > apparently...> >
How does an accusation equal proof?>
The Iraq War and WMDs says hi.>
If that was the only justification leading up to the war and only the people who were on the side that wanted to invade believed it to be true, you might have had a point. As it is you have posted nothing more than a "But Clinton did something or other!" defense that you profess to dislike.
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message news:429500f7$0$79466$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> news:5tSdnR3UuMpsYAnfRVn-gQ@buckeye-express.com...> >
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message> > news:4294fab5$0$79457$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> > > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> > > news:_qmdneO_9NVrZQnfRVn-vQ@buckeye-express.com...> > > >
"Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo!.com> wrote in message> > > > news:d72r73$7cd8$1@news3.infoave.net...> > > > >
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday
that> a> > > > > detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had> > > accused> > > > > American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet."> > > > >
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being flushed> > with> > > > it,> > > > > apparently...> > > >
How does an accusation equal proof?> > >
The Iraq War and WMDs says hi.> >
If that was the only justification leading up to the war and only the> people> > who were on the side that wanted to invade believed it to be true, you> might> > have had a point.>
The irony of this is laughable. WMDs was the #1A with a bullet reason why
invaded Iraq. The American people were sold the lie that Hussien was a> threat that could materialize in the United States "in the form of a> Mushroom Cloud". Do you just block out proven historical facts from your> memory as a defense mechanism for your failed ideals?>
WMD's were a major rational for the war, not the only one. The fact of the matter was that every intelligence agency in the world believed there were WMD's in Iraq and as such, it was the primary rational used to sell the war to the UN. It was never the only rational no matter how much you want it to have been.
Besides, if they had found WMD's you and you ilk of radical leftists would still have opposed the war. That simple fact takes the wind out of the sails of your faux 'outrage'.
"Krusty" <krusty@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:Wa7le.538$az3.93540@twister.southeast.rr.com...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> > How does an accusation equal proof?>
Newsweek didn't make the story up.>
No, they rushed to print a story whose only source was an 'anonomouse government employee' who had never seen any documentation but thought he had overheard 'something like that'.
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message news:4295070d$0$79454$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> news:UeednZE17JuImwjfRVn-rQ@buckeye-express.com...> >
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message> > news:429500f7$0$79466$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> > > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> > > news:5tSdnR3UuMpsYAnfRVn-gQ@buckeye-express.com...> > > >
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in> message> > > > news:4294fab5$0$79457$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> > > > > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> > > > > news:_qmdneO_9NVrZQnfRVn-vQ@buckeye-express.com...> > > > > >
"Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo!.com> wrote in message> > > > > > news:d72r73$7cd8$1@news3.infoave.net...> > > > > > >
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on
Wednesday> > that> > > a> > > > > > > detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,> had> > > > > accused> > > > > > > American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet."> > > > > > >
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being> flushed> > > > with> > > > > > it,> > > > > > > apparently...> > > > > >
How does an accusation equal proof?> > > > >
The Iraq War and WMDs says hi.> > > >
If that was the only justification leading up to the war and only
people> > > > who were on the side that wanted to invade believed it to be true,
might> > > > have had a point.> > >
The irony of this is laughable. WMDs was the #1A with a bullet reason> why> > we> > > invaded Iraq. The American people were sold the lie that Hussien was a> > > threat that could materialize in the United States "in the form of a> > > Mushroom Cloud". Do you just block out proven historical facts from
your> > > memory as a defense mechanism for your failed ideals?> > >
WMD's were a major rational for the war, not the only one. The fact of> the> > matter was that every intelligence agency in the world believed there
were> > WMD's in Iraq and as such, it was the primary rational used to sell the> war> > to the UN. It was never the only rational no matter how much you want
have been.> >
Besides, if they had found WMD's you and you ilk of radical leftists
would> > still have opposed the war. That simple fact takes the wind out of the> > sails of your faux 'outrage'.>
"My ilk of radical leftists".>
That was "you and you ilk of radical leftists". The second you should have been "your" but if you are going to use quotation marks when quoting something you should not paraphrase the quotation.
Wow. Just.... wow.>
</sarcasm> Because everything you have posted about politics has shown you to be a moderate. </sarcasm>
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message news:42950b35$0$79459$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> news:6YGdnfAegI9plQjfRVn-qg@buckeye-express.com...> >
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message> > news:4295070d$0$79454$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> > > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> > > news:UeednZE17JuImwjfRVn-rQ@buckeye-express.com...> > > >
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in> message> > > > news:429500f7$0$79466$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> > > > > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> > > > > news:5tSdnR3UuMpsYAnfRVn-gQ@buckeye-express.com...> > > > > >
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in> > > message> > > > > > news:4294fab5$0$79457$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...> > > > > > > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message> > > > > > > news:_qmdneO_9NVrZQnfRVn-vQ@buckeye-express.com...> > > > > > > >
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on> > Wednesday> > > > that> > > > > a> > > > > > > > > detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay,> Cuba,> > > had> > > > > > > accused> > > > > > > > > American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a
If that was the only justification leading up to the war and
only> > the> > > > > people> > > > > > who were on the side that wanted to invade believed it to be true,> > you> > > > > might> > > > > > have had a point.> > > > >
The irony of this is laughable. WMDs was the #1A with a bullet> reason> > > why> > > > we> > > > > invaded Iraq. The American people were sold the lie that Hussien
threat that could materialize in the United States "in the form of
Mushroom Cloud". Do you just block out proven historical facts
from> > your> > > > > memory as a defense mechanism for your failed ideals?> > > > >
WMD's were a major rational for the war, not the only one. The fact> of> > > the> > > > matter was that every intelligence agency in the world believed
there> > were> > > > WMD's in Iraq and as such, it was the primary rational used to sell> the> > > war> > > > to the UN. It was never the only rational no matter how much you want> > it> > > to> > > > have been.> > > >
Besides, if they had found WMD's you and you ilk of radical leftists> > would> > > > still have opposed the war. That simple fact takes the wind out of> the> > > > sails of your faux 'outrage'.> > >
"My ilk of radical leftists".> >
That was "you and you ilk of radical leftists". The second you should> have> > been "your" but if you are going to use quotation marks when quoting> > something you should not paraphrase the quotation.> >
Wow. Just.... wow.> > >
</sarcasm> Because everything you have posted about politics has shown
to be a moderate. </sarcasm>>
If you weren't just a braindead troll, I might waste the time to explain
you why I *AM* a political moderate. But why bother? You aren't worth it.>
Keep telling yourself that and some day you might convince yourself. You have given absolutly no indication of anything moderate about your political leanings. Most of your political postings could have been copied and pasted from the "Democratic Underground" web board.
"Krusty" <krusty@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:HY7le.540$az3.98744@twister.southeast.rr.com...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> > Hypocrisy, thy name is Krusty.>
Still doesn't change the fact that it was reported by the FBI, no matter
thick the tinfoil in your hat is.>
Please explain how an accusation equals proof. Especially an accusation which was not used as the basis (or even cooberation) of the actual story which was printed in Newsweek.
Still doesn't change the fact that it was reported by the FBI, no> matter how thick the tinfoil in your hat is.
Ok, I get it, the point you're trying to make is that Nesweek didn't pull the story out of thin air. I originally thought you were addressing the credibility of the story itself. Obviously nobody would hang their hat on "A detainee accused his jailers of. . .". I guess it's good for Newsweek that they didn't make up the story completely but running with it when their sources were so shaky is a little more important.
"Krusty" <krusty@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:jQ8le.550$az3.104993@twister.southeast.rr.com...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> > What part of "credible and specific" are you failing to understand?>
So now you're saying the FBI isn't "credible". Check.>
The FBI reported than a detainee made an accusation. Nowhere in their report do they claim that the accusation is "credible".
"hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> Do you know what "credible and specific allegation" means? I see you can> spell the words, but you have yet to display any knowldge of what they> actually mean. The FBI reported an allegation.
I'll go out on a limb. If it made it into an official report, filed by the FBI, I'll call it both "credible" and "specific". You can argue all you want. If it was in an *official* FBI report, that *makes* it credible. You want to argue whether or not it happened, fine. I'm merely saying it was officially reported by the FBI. That meets both criteria in my book.
Squirm all you want. The FBI reported it. It's credible. It's an allegation. And it's a *specific* one. And it was filed in 2002.
"Krusty" <krusty@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:fS8le.551$az3.105401@twister.southeast.rr.com...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> > You are> > claiming that McClellan claimed sominthing that McClellan never claimed>
Oh, and by the way. No, I'm not. Lawrence Di Rita is the chief Pentagon> spokesman. I never said McClellan, "oh-he-who-can't-read".>
Did you even read your first post? You specifically attacked McClellan's credibility. You're not very good at the whole debate thing are you?
"hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> The FBI reported an allegation.
Actually, they reported a LOT of them.
"The documents (Krusty Note: plural) -- FBI summaries (Krusty Note: plural) of interviews (Krusty Note: plural) with detainees (Krusty Note: plural) at the military-run prison in 2002 and 2003 (Krusty Note: multiple years) -- show that the treatment of the Koran was a key point of contention between detainees and their guards, one that prompted hunger strikes and threats of mass suicide. "
Okay, so now it's not just *an* allegation...it's *multiple* allegations, filed in *multiple* reports, after *multiple* interviews with *multiple* prisoners. But hey, they're just the FBI. They're not credible.
Your wiggle room gets smaller and smaller...but keep trying. It's amusing.
"hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> Now please go back and explain how this justifies Newsweek printing a > story> which only had an "anonymous government employee who, while he had never> actually seen a document which alleged such a thing, thought he might have> heard someone talking about something like that" as the source.
I never said it "justified" anything. Now you're just making things up. Kinda sad.
"hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> Did you even read your first post? You specifically attacked McClellan's> credibility. You're not very good at the whole debate thing are you?
Lawrence Di Rita is the one who says the pentagon "no credible and specific allegations".
I'm attacking *his* credibility in that post. Come on, you're making this too easy.
"Krusty" <krusty@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:Rp9le.556$az3.112161@twister.southeast.rr.com...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> > Now please go back and explain how this justifies Newsweek printing a> > story> > which only had an "anonymous government employee who, while he had never> > actually seen a document which alleged such a thing, thought he might have> > heard someone talking about something like that" as the source.>
I never said it "justified" anything. Now you're just making things up.> Kinda sad.>
So you are claiming that Newsweek was "right" but not justified in printing the story?
"hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote:>> "An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday>> that a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay,>> Cuba, had accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran>> down a toilet." >
How does an accusation equal proof?
All the Newsweek article said was that there were accusations.
"Poot Rootbeer" <poot@dork.com> wrote in message news:Xns9661DA99C5E31pootrootbeer@216.196.97.136...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote:> >> "An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday> >> that a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay,> >> Cuba, had accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran> >> down a toilet."> >
How does an accusation equal proof?>
All the Newsweek article said was that there were accusations.>
Therefore, Newsweek = vindicated.>
Newsweek had admitted that the only source they used to cooberate their story was "an anonymous government employee who, while not actually having seen a document that stated such accusations, ,ight have heard someone talking about something which might have been simmilar to such accusations". You seem to have a Krusty level of word interpretation with respect to "vindicated".
"Poot Rootbeer" <poot@dork.com> wrote in message news:Xns9661DCF08C2A6pootrootbeer@216.196.97.136...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote:> > Newsweek had admitted that the only source they used to cooberate>
LOL @ "cooberate">
"It is through cooberation, rather than conflict, that your greatest> successes will be derived.">
"He is still in the hospital, recooberating from his injuries.">
"I had to replace my car's entire engine after the cooberator broke> down.">
-Poot> Hangin' with Mr. Coober
Wow, your spelling flame has magically made your false claim of Newsweek's "vindication" not a load of crap!
"Okay, so now it's not just *an* allegation...it's *multiple* allegations,> filed in *multiple* reports, after *multiple* interviews with *multiple*> prisoners. But hey, they're just the FBI. They're not credible."
I made the argument that the fact that the *Federal Bureau of Investigation* filed *multiple* reports made it credible. Like I've said previously. Not that there were multiple allegations. That there were multiple *reports filed*. That makes them both credible AND specific. Exactly like I said previously.
Jesus, you really can't read, can you? Seriously. What's up with the reading comprehension level there, buddy?
You try to twist words, put words in people's mouths, make up things.
I'm saying this again, for the last time.
The Pentagon said there were "no credible or specific allegations".
There were.
There were MULTIPLE allegations filed in MULTIPLE reports filed by the FBI.
You can kook out all you want and bring up aliens, and whatever else you want that you think supports some wacky theory that multiple allegations filed in multiple reports by the FBI doesn't mean anything.
But it doens't change the fact that there WERE multiple allegations. And they WERE specific.
So twist all you want. You can't change the facts. Newsweek was vindicated. You lose.
That's all you're getting out of me. Seriously, at this point you're just being retarded. I've said my piece, and any more going back and forth at this point just drags me into whatever tin foil hat wearing world you're living in.
"Krusty" <krusty@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:9V9le.568$az3.117205@twister.southeast.rr.com...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote> > Yes you did:> >
"Okay, so now it's not just *an* allegation...it's *multiple*
allegations,> > filed in *multiple* reports, after *multiple* interviews with *multiple*> > prisoners. But hey, they're just the FBI. They're not credible.">
I made the argument that the fact that the *Federal Bureau of
Investigation*> filed *multiple* reports made it credible. Like I've said previously. Not> that there were multiple allegations. That there were multiple *reports> filed*. That makes them both credible AND specific. Exactly like I said> previously.>
Jesus, you really can't read, can you? Seriously. What's up with the
reading> comprehension level there, buddy?>
You try to twist words, put words in people's mouths, make up things.>
I'm saying this again, for the last time.>
The Pentagon said there were "no credible or specific allegations".>
There were.>
There were MULTIPLE allegations filed in MULTIPLE reports filed by the
FBI.>
You can kook out all you want and bring up aliens, and whatever else you> want that you think supports some wacky theory that multiple allegations> filed in multiple reports by the FBI doesn't mean anything.>
But it doens't change the fact that there WERE multiple allegations. And> they WERE specific.>
So twist all you want. You can't change the facts. Newsweek was
vindicated.> You lose.>
That's all you're getting out of me. Seriously, at this point you're just> being retarded. I've said my piece, and any more going back and forth at> this point just drags me into whatever tin foil hat wearing world you're> living in.>
Alien abductions...good lord.>
You can tap out if you wish, but your "credible" allegations were investigated and found to not be credible:
"Di Rita said the U.S. military questioned the detainee on May 14, and that the man was "very cooperative and answered the questions but did not corroborate the allegation recorded on Aug. 1, 2002." Di Rita said he did not know whether the man actually recanted the allegation."
Remember, "multiple" and "specific" does not equal "credible and specific". The only words I put in your mouth were words that you posted:
"Okay, so now it's not just *an* allegation...it's *multiple* allegations, filed in *multiple* reports, after *multiple* interviews with *multiple* prisoners. But hey, they're just the FBI. They're not credible."
I agree that the charges were multiple and possibly (because neither you or I have seen the actual accusations) specific. The fact remains that the allegations were not "credible".
"hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote/> You can tap out if you wish, but your "credible" allegations were> investigated and found to not be credible:
(Note: You're saying allegations...note the "S"...multiple)
"Di Rita said the U.S. military questioned the detainee on May 14, and > that> the man was "very cooperative and answered the questions but did not> corroborate the allegation recorded on Aug. 1, 2002." Di Rita said he did> not know whether the man actually recanted the allegation."
(Note: He says allegation...note NO "S"...singular)
Remember, "multiple" and "specific" does not equal "credible and > specific".
Exactly. Then why did they only investigate one? Thank you.
"Okay, so now it's not just *an* allegation...it's *multiple* allegations,> filed in *multiple* reports, after *multiple* interviews with *multiple*> prisoners. But hey, they're just the FBI. They're not credible."
Exactly. Notice the plural use of the word allegations. "S"...plural. Multiple. More than one. Not singular.
I agree that the charges were multiple and possibly (because neither you > or> I have seen the actual accusations) specific. The fact remains that the> allegations were not "credible".
(Note: You switched again...now it's multiple allegations...)
See the pattern? They investigated ONE SINGULAR allegation.
There are multiple ones. MULTIPLE. That were NOT investigated.
"hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message news:FK2dnY55edsOkgjfRVn-vA@buckeye-express.com...>
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message> news:42950b35$0$79459$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...>> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message>> news:6YGdnfAegI9plQjfRVn-qg@buckeye-express.com...>> >
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message>> > news:4295070d$0$79454$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...>> > > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message>> > > news:UeednZE17JuImwjfRVn-rQ@buckeye-express.com...>> > > >
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in>> message>> > > > news:429500f7$0$79466$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...>> > > > > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message>> > > > > news:5tSdnR3UuMpsYAnfRVn-gQ@buckeye-express.com...>> > > > > >
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in>> > > message>> > > > > > news:4294fab5$0$79457$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...>> > > > > > > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message>> > > > > > > news:_qmdneO_9NVrZQnfRVn-vQ@buckeye-express.com...>> > > > > > > >
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on>> > Wednesday>> > > > that>> > > > > a>> > > > > > > > > detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay,>> Cuba,>> > > had>> > > > > > > accused>> > > > > > > > > American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a> toilet.">> > > > > > > > >
If that was the only justification leading up to the war and> only>> > the>> > > > > people>> > > > > > who were on the side that wanted to invade believed it to be> true,>> > you>> > > > > might>> > > > > > have had a point.>> > > > >
The irony of this is laughable. WMDs was the #1A with a bullet>> reason>> > > why>> > > > we>> > > > > invaded Iraq. The American people were sold the lie that Hussien> was>> a>> > > > > threat that could materialize in the United States "in the form >> > > > > of> a>> > > > > Mushroom Cloud". Do you just block out proven historical facts> from>> > your>> > > > > memory as a defense mechanism for your failed ideals?>> > > > >
WMD's were a major rational for the war, not the only one. The >> > > > fact>> of>> > > the>> > > > matter was that every intelligence agency in the world believed> there>> > were>> > > > WMD's in Iraq and as such, it was the primary rational used to sell>> the>> > > war>> > > > to the UN. It was never the only rational no matter how much you> want>> > it>> > > to>> > > > have been.>> > > >
Besides, if they had found WMD's you and you ilk of radical >> > > > leftists>> > would>> > > > still have opposed the war. That simple fact takes the wind out of>> the>> > > > sails of your faux 'outrage'.>> > >
"My ilk of radical leftists".>> >
That was "you and you ilk of radical leftists". The second you should>> have>> > been "your" but if you are going to use quotation marks when quoting>> > something you should not paraphrase the quotation.>> >
Wow. Just.... wow.>> > >
</sarcasm> Because everything you have posted about politics has shown> you>> > to be a moderate. </sarcasm>>>
If you weren't just a braindead troll, I might waste the time to explain> to>> you why I *AM* a political moderate. But why bother? You aren't worth it.>>
Keep telling yourself that and some day you might convince yourself. You> have given absolutly no indication of anything moderate about your > political> leanings. Most of your political postings could have been copied and > pasted> from the "Democratic Underground" web board.
I thought it was the Democratic Manifesto?
LG (plinking) -- Working Man's PHD from Aaron Tippin University B.S. in C.Y.A. from S.H.K. Enrolled part time at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
"Krusty" <krusty@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:r8ale.571$az3.118742@twister.southeast.rr.com...> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote/> > You can tap out if you wish, but your "credible" allegations were> > investigated and found to not be credible:>
(Note: You're saying allegations...note the "S"...multiple)>
"Di Rita said the U.S. military questioned the detainee on May 14, and> > that> > the man was "very cooperative and answered the questions but did not> > corroborate the allegation recorded on Aug. 1, 2002." Di Rita said he
not know whether the man actually recanted the allegation.">
(Note: He says allegation...note NO "S"...singular)>
Remember, "multiple" and "specific" does not equal "credible and> > specific".>
Exactly. Then why did they only investigate one? Thank you.>
"Okay, so now it's not just *an* allegation...it's *multiple*
allegations,> > filed in *multiple* reports, after *multiple* interviews with *multiple*> > prisoners. But hey, they're just the FBI. They're not credible.">
Exactly. Notice the plural use of the word allegations. "S"...plural.> Multiple. More than one. Not singular.>
I agree that the charges were multiple and possibly (because neither you> > or> > I have seen the actual accusations) specific. The fact remains that the> > allegations were not "credible".>
(Note: You switched again...now it's multiple allegations...)>
See the pattern? They investigated ONE SINGULAR allegation.>
There are multiple ones. MULTIPLE. That were NOT investigated.>
Thank you for playing.>
So you are going to stick by the whole "Multiple = credible" arguement?
Myself, after having read the new news story again, am going to backtrack and revise "multiple" to one since that is what the article reports.
The newly released document, dated Aug. 1, 2002, contained a summary of statements made days earlier by a detainee, whose name was redacted, in two interviews with an FBI special agent, whose name also was withheld, at the Guantanamo prison for foreign terrorism suspects.
He did make multiple statements, I'll let you have that one, but we only have a report of one detainee making such accusations.
So you no longer have the multiple accusations canard to use as a crutch. The fact that multiple detainees made accusations that the Koran was mishandled (the instance mentioned the book being dropped, THE HORROR!) does not mean that multiple accusations of the Koran being flushed down a toilet.
"So you no longer have the multiple accusations canard to use as a crutch. The fact that multiple detainees made accusations that the Koran was mishandled (the instance mentioned the book being dropped, THE HORROR!) does not mean that multiple accusations of the Koran being flushed down a toilet."
You should really read before responding and save yourself the embarassment.
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on>> > > > > Wednesday > that>> a>> > > > > detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,>> > > > > had >> > > accused>> > > > > American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet.">> > > > >
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being>> > > > > flushed >> > with>> > > > it,>> > > > > apparently...>> > > >
How does an accusation equal proof?>> > >
The Iraq War and WMDs says hi.>> >
If that was the only justification leading up to the war and only>> > the >> people>> > who were on the side that wanted to invade believed it to be true,>> > you >> might>> > have had a point.>>
The irony of this is laughable. WMDs was the #1A with a bullet reason>> why > we>> invaded Iraq. The American people were sold the lie that Hussien was>> a threat that could materialize in the United States "in the form of>> a Mushroom Cloud". Do you just block out proven historical facts from>> your memory as a defense mechanism for your failed ideals?>>
WMD's were a major rational for the war, not the only one. The fact> of the matter was that every intelligence agency in the world believed> there were WMD's in Iraq and as such, it was the primary rational used> to sell the war to the UN. It was never the only rational no matter> how much you want it to have been.
<Kool Aid Man>
*CRASH* OHHHHH YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
</Kool Aid Man>
-- Chad Bryant - thinks you'd have been the first to die at Jonestown Annoying The Ignorant Online Since 1995 http://www.chadbryant.cjb.net/
"Krusty" <krusty@sc.rr.com> wrote in message> news:Wa7le.538$az3.93540@twister.southeast.rr.com...>> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote>> > How does an accusation equal proof?>>
Newsweek didn't make the story up.>>
No, they rushed to print a story whose only source was an 'anonomouse> government employee' who had never seen any documentation but thought> he had overheard 'something like that'.>
Keep drinking the Kool-aid.>
Hypocrisy, thy name is Krusty.
Even Randy Culley knows that Krummy The Klown is a hypocrite.
It doesn't explain why you continue to parrot the GOP groupspeak, though.
"Krusty" <krusty@sc.rr.com> wrote in message> news:Rp9le.556$az3.112161@twister.southeast.rr.com...>> "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote>> > Now please go back and explain how this justifies Newsweek printing>> > a story>> > which only had an "anonymous government employee who, while he had>> > never actually seen a document which alleged such a thing, thought>> > he might > have>> > heard someone talking about something like that" as the source.>>
I never said it "justified" anything. Now you're just making things>> up. Kinda sad.>>
So you are claiming that Newsweek was "right" but not justified in> printing the story?
Judas Fucking Priest, this is a battle of suck vs. blow.
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a >detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused >American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet.">
Pope Long Dong II 26 May 2005 07:03:09 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:31:35 GMT, Chad Bryant <webmaster@chadbryant.cjb.net> wrote:
"Mark Stringer" writes:>
Stoneco864 wrote:>>> What I do not understand is how a whole koran would fit in a craper??>>
Do the koran come in mini pocket size?>
There are smaller-sized editions - I've seen someone in my unit carrying >one, as most religious texts are available in smaller versions for military >use.
it's better to cut someones head off on the 'net..
to flush a koran... that's UNHEARD OF!!!
Why.. i think i'll go riot over just the mention of such things!!!
maybe they can go deface a church... OOPS.. TOO LATE!! they do that all the time pissing in the christian churches, on the altars, and shitting and wiping their asses with the bible.. but thats ok.. as long as it's not the word of a pedophile named mohammed..
Pope Long Dong II 26 May 2005 07:04:51 [ permanent link ]
On Wed, 25 May 2005 15:49:27 -0700, "C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote:
"hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message>news:5tSdnR3UuMpsYAnfRVn-gQ@buckeye-express.com...>>
"C The Shocker" <chrispdx@comcast.FUCKOFFSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message>> news:4294fab5$0$79457$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...>> > "hmph!" <hmph!@none.none> wrote in message>> > news:_qmdneO_9NVrZQnfRVn-vQ@buckeye-express.com...>> > >
"Krusty" <rspwkrusty@yahoo!.com> wrote in message>> > > news:d72r73$7cd8$1@news3.infoave.net...>> > > >
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that>a>> > > > detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had>> > accused>> > > > American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet.">> > > >
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being flushed>> with>> > > it,>> > > > apparently...>> > >
How does an accusation equal proof?>> >
The Iraq War and WMDs says hi.>>
If that was the only justification leading up to the war and only the>people>> who were on the side that wanted to invade believed it to be true, you>might>> have had a point.>
The irony of this is laughable. WMDs was the #1A with a bullet reason why we>invaded Iraq. The American people were sold the lie that Hussien was a>threat that could materialize in the United States "in the form of a>Mushroom Cloud". Do you just block out proven historical facts from your>memory as a defense mechanism for your failed ideals?
maybe he was getting a blowjob from an intern at the time.
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that a > detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had accused > American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet.">
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being flushed with it, > apparently...
Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, who cares? As long as we're making the world a better place one less religious book at a time.
-- Rockboy Everybody's all right Everything is automatic
"An FBI agent wrote in a 2002 document made public on Wednesday that>> a detainee held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had>> accused American jailers there of flushing the Koran down a toilet.">>
That sound you hear is Scott McClellan's credibility being flushed>> with it, apparently... >
Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, who cares? As long as we're making the > world a better place one less religious book at a time.
And you dare to call anyone else "intolerant"?
Your lack of faith & discipline does not put you on a pedestal above those who have them. Grow up, little boy.
