EC> Repeating things seems to be your only skill.  You ignored
 EC> the news reports in the Daily News (which, by the way, were
 EC> actually in the NEW YORK SUN, not the Daily News!) based on
 EC> you rejecting out of hand anything printed in the paper.

 EC> Now that you know you got the wrong paper, of course, you
 EC> will choose to ignore what was reported in the Sun, because
 EC> now THAT paper will be in your eyes "a right wing
 EC> mouthpiece."

-> Oh wow. I owe the NY Daily News. Confusing them with the right wing
-> rag, the NY Sun, is truly hurtful.

Your response was not only predictable but predicted.  You reject out of
hand anything in the Daily News.  You reject out of hand anything in the
New York Sun.  You reject anything written by Eli Lake, based on the
fact that he works for one of those papers.  You ignore everything said
by the various sources cited in the story, based on the fact that they
were sources used by a news reporter for one of those papers.  Since the
references to the Sun articles came from Jake Tapper on the ABC News
website, you are just an easy step away from calling ABC and Tapper
"rightwing mouthpieces" as well.  Since you are going whole-hog on
fallacies of composition, fallacies of division, and ad hominem
fallacies, why stop there?  The story was on the internet, so you can
call it a rightwing mouthpiece as well.

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

Actually that particular essay by Christopher Holton cited the 9/11
Commission and a number of news reports.  The ONLY reference he made to
the New York Sun was to a story reported in the Sun concerning documents
that were captured by US forces in Iraq.  Let's see, that gives you two
choice: you can call captured documents rightwing mouthpieces, or you
can call US forces in Iraq rightwing mouthpieces.  Either way, it
wouldn't mean anything, since it came from you.  But go ahead and
entertain.

-> Show where I misrepresented anything above.

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

-> In Feb 2007 the *CIA* sent Bush a report saying Saad Bin Laden was
-> being *HELD* in Iraq.

I have no reason to believe that the CIA said any such thing, given your
history of making stuff up or falsely paraphrasing things.  But as far
as I know he is STILL being held in Iran (not Iraq).  For a while he was
under house arrest, but apparently he was released from that in 2006 so
that he could assist terrorist operations and training.  This is old
news, Bob.  Were you going to stumble toward a point?

-> Then explain how and why anyone in Al Qaeda would be supposedly
-> sending messages to Saad Bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda leaders

Gee, Bob, that is a TOUGH one.  Why would Al Qaeda try to communicate
with leaders of Al Qaeda?  Gosh, why don't you ponder that?

-> and why Iran would allow that

Wow, Bob, that would almost make it sound like Iran and Al Qaeda might
have some COMMON ENEMY?  Do you think it POSSIBLE?

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