-> ->> 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.

Look at the funny bob spinning around and around.  You ignore the Jake
Tapper column because he refers to an article in the New York Sun.  You
ignore the New York Sun news stories because you don't like the Daily
News.  Then, when you find out it was a different New York newspaper,
you announce that you don't like it either.  And you decide you are
enjoying your blissful ignorance SO MUCH that you ignore the facts
reported in another article simply because it makes one passing
reference to the New York Sun!  (Or was it the Daily News?  Doesn't
matter to Bob.)


-> ->> 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.

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

I pointed out that you misrepresented the article in question.  You said
"show me" even though I already HAD!  One of the specific reports said:
"In May 2007, as reported by Bill Roggio, Coalition Forces captured a
messenger carrying messages from al Qaeda in Iraq leaders to senior al
Qaeda leaders who have long been in safe haven in Iran, including Osama
Bin Ladens son, Said Bin Laden."  You misrepresented it by ignoring the
fact that he was indeed given safe haven, claiming that THAT ARTICLE
said he was OPERATING out of Iran, and then you tried ineffectually to
claim that he couldn't possibly be OPERATING out of Iran.  Whether he
was "operating" or not is not in question.  The point was your
misrepresentation, now on display a third time.  And for you to now
claim that you were AT THAT TIME attacking something I said LATER is so
absurd that only you would be able to type it.

-> 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.

If you are trying to claim that RECEIVING a MESSAGE constitutes
conducting terrorist operations, you have reduced yourself to a parody.
When you say such obviously stupid things, it isn't even entertaining.
It is just sad.

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10