->> ->> Your source was ->> the Familysecuritymatters
website. They cited
->> the Sun.

 EC>> Actually that particular essay by Christopher Holton cited
 EC>> the 9/11 Commission and a number of news reports.  The ONLY
 EC>> reference he made to the New York Sun was to a story
 EC>> reported in the Sun concerning documents that were captured
 EC>> by US forces in Iraq.

->> Which has nothing to do with the fact that I did not look at the
->> story in the Sun because it was a source for your source.

 EC> Look at the funny bob spinning around and around.  You
 EC> ignore the Jake Tapper column because he refers to an
 EC> article in the New York Sun.

 Now that's a new lie from Earl. I don't even much recall the
 Tapper blog, but I do know it was not because of the NY Sun that
 I ignored it. Well, not really ignored, I read it, and I believe
 I found it empty of material of interest.

 EC> You ignore the New York Sun
 EC> news stories because you don't like the Daily News.  Then,

 Wow! When you go stupid you go all the way.

 Oh, and how could I ignore the NY Sun when *IT WASN'T ONE OF THE
 SOURCES YOU CITED*?

 EC> when you find out it was a different New York newspaper,
 EC> you announce that you don't like it either.  And you decide

 Another lie from Earl. I do believe I said there was some things
 I found interesting there. And that is wasn't as bad as the Sun.
 I haven't read enough of it to make a judgement on it. Nor do I
 expect to, for that matter.

 EC> you are enjoying your blissful ignorance SO MUCH that you
 EC> ignore the facts reported in another article simply because
 EC> it makes one passing reference to the New York Sun!  (Or

 Uh... If I knew what you were referring to I would know exactly
 how you are lying now.

 EC> was it the Daily News?  Doesn't matter to Bob.)

 Not really, since neither were among your citations.

->> ->> Show where I misrepresented anything above.

 EC>> Done over and over again.  In this particular instance
 EC>> there was a report that Saad bin Laden had been given safe
 EC>> haven in Iran when he was fleeing capture by the US.  That
 EC>> did indeed happen. But you wanted to say something that
 EC>> would LOOK like refutation, so you misrepresented the
 EC>> report as saying that he was doing terrorist operations in
 EC>> Iran, and then you attacked that misrepresentation rather
 EC>> than the actual report.

->> I attacked what you later claimed was true.

 EC> What a pathetic non-response!  Notice that once again you
 EC> toss out empty and baseless accusations, and then you
 EC> ignore each substantive and well-based and substantiated
 EC> accusation against YOU!

 Oh, funny. Not one accusation against me had a bit of fact
 behind it. Hell, the accusation that I ignored a source you
 didn't cite tops the list of stupid.

 EC> I pointed out that you misrepresented the article in
 EC> question.  You said "show me" even though I already HAD!

 No, claiming something is not showing it.

 EC> One of the specific reports said: "In May 2007, as reported
 EC> by Bill Roggio, Coalition Forces captured a messenger
 EC> carrying messages from al Qaeda in Iraq leaders to senior
 EC> al Qaeda leaders who have long been in safe haven in Iran,

 Uh... you did not post that before. Score one more lie against
 Earl.

 EC> including Osama Bin Ladens son, Said Bin Laden."  You

 Oh, and it's Saad.

 EC> misrepresented it by ignoring the fact that he was indeed
 EC> given safe haven,

 Uh... where do you find anything to support the claim that he
 wsa given safe haven, other than one reporter? The CIA said he
 was being held.

 EC> claiming that THAT ARTICLE said he was
 EC> OPERATING out of Iran,

 If he's exchaning messages with Al Qaeda in Iraq, then he is
 opperating out of Iran. Unless the msgs are being smuggled past
 Iranian guards, in which case your whole case falls apart.

 EC> and then you tried ineffectually to
 EC> claim that he couldn't possibly be OPERATING out of Iran.

 Couldn't possibly? Where did I say that? You have nothing to
 show he is, and it is unlikely he is with permission of the
 Iranian govt. He could be doing so behind the govt, but you
 didn't show that.

 EC> Whether he was "operating" or not is not in question.  The

 Now you are saying he *IS* operating? Please make up your mind.

 EC> point was your misrepresentation, now on display a third

 I call you on lies all the time, and you keep trying to refer
 back to something else as a distraction. Now you make an absurd
 claim that your lack of clarity constitutes a misrepresentation
 on my part.

 If he is doing business by message with Al Qaeda in Iraq he is
 conducting operations. Show how that is not true.

 EC> time.  And for you to now claim that you were AT THAT TIME
 EC> attacking something I said LATER is so absurd that only you
 EC> would be able to type it.

 At that time you said he was getting messages from Al Qaeda in
 Iraq. Now, if you want to say they were birthday greetings or
 some such, you might have a point. Though that does blow the
 rest of your theory. Otherwise, that constitutes conducting
 operations. Is that clear? And I do believe that was the
 original point.

->> I do not believe that report said he had "safe haven",
but that Al
->> Qaeda was sending him dispatches in Iran. You said he was organizing
->> terror cells. If that isn't conducting operations, I
->> can't imagine what would fit your definition.

 EC> If you are trying to claim that RECEIVING a MESSAGE
 EC> constitutes conducting terrorist operations, you have

 If the message involves the business of Al Qaedo, which is
 terrorism, then yes, that is conducting operations. Or, at
 least, attempting to. If not, then clarify your point.

 EC> reduced yourself to a parody. When you say such obviously
 EC> stupid things, it isn't even entertaining. It is just sad.

 Uh... if you cannot understand that top leaders do conduct their
 operations through messages, you are the one saying stupid
 things.

 How do you think Osama conducts operations?

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a