[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I see you changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Typical.
What exactly are you refering to? For a bit over a page now, talk has been centered around your failure to provide evidence backing up the Iran arms Al-Qaeda claim. What prompted to say that I changed any rules?
However, I’m going to pin you down on this.
And I demand nothing less. If you can, I say more power to you sir.
First, I didn’t make any statement about ICU.
Yeah. But the article you linked to is centered around a UN report that does nothing more than confirm what we already knew for ages: That Iran arms Hezbollah and the ICU. So, while you might not have had the ICU in mind when accusing Iran of arming Al-Qaeda, the article’s premise is nothing more than that.
Second, I was extremely selective in the article I chose. Consider this a trial balloon. I wanted to see if you would do your usual weasel job.
Quit fooling around and let’s get down to business. For heaven’s sake, this is not a complex issue. Either you have proof that they are arming them, and in that case I demand to consult it. Or you don’t, in which case I’ll ask you and your fellows to stop making that accusation.
However, let’s assume you are correct and the ICU ISN’T linked to al qaeda.
Well, if you think I’m not, challenge it. You may have access to newer info than me or something…
I made sure I linked the article. In it, there are witnesses to smuggling in foreign fighters.
Excerpt from linked article: Significant numbers of foreigners went to Somalia, western intelligence officials have found, after the radical Islamic Courts Union (ICU) movement seized power from a weak UNbacked government, established links with Al-Qaeda and allowed Somalia to be used as an Al-Qaeda terrorist training ground like Afghanistan under Taliban rule
So…you just admitted (by caving with a “let’s assume”) that the ICU had no links to Al-Qaeda. There’s nothing more in the article besides what we’ve known for months: that Iran helps the ICU.
Further, it states quite clearly that iran was sending arms to al qaeda recruits in Somalia.
No. Read the damn UN report. The Al-Qaeda connection Mr. Swain implies in the article is based solely on the false assumption that the ICU is linked to Al-Qaeda.
YOU made the ICU inference. They said that after ICU expanded their sphere of influence, these foreign fighters flew in and established contact with al qaeda, started camps, and arms starting flowing in.
Back off a second. It’s because I’m more familiar with the whole deal that I can safely state that your article has nothing on Iran-Al-Qaeda besides thru the ICU. There’s nothing new in the article, so quit saying that I’m infering thing I’m not supposed to. The article conveniently links the ICU and Al-Qaeda, then proceeds to interchange the two terms, which is technically valid if you bought the first assumption. Guess what? I didn’t. I know he doesn’t have squat to prove it or else he would have presented it and it would have made headlines.
Clear?
Most reasonable people would deduce that the ICU (whatever their current cover story) is actually friendly to al qaeda and tolerated their presence.
We’re talking about a serious issue here, which if true, might cost many many lives. Let’s not dwell into what “most reasonable people would [or would not] deduce”. We’ve already seen that the only opinion of “reasonable people” that matters, is usually the one with the bigger guns.
However, I’m fully aware that I’m not debating a reasonable person. You will go to great lengths (see your previous response to varied, diverse, and very believable links) to discredit anything you disagree with.
I am being very reasonable. Is providing evidence of what you accuse them to do too much to ask? Don’t you think that if there was a shred of viable evidence, we would all heard it like a million times. Heck, they’ve even hammered us with “evidence” about the WMDs and the Saddam-Al-Qaeda connection in the past, didn’t they? How’d that turn out?
Therefore, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the ICU isn’t affiliated with al qaeda. Maybe (again, not very likely) al qaeda is there on their own for their own reasons.
Yeah, you said so already a few lines above…
IT DOESN’T IN ANY WAY NEGATE THE IMPORT OF THESE FINDINGS. iran is arming al qaeda.
Did you even read your article? Where does it say that Iran is arming Al-Qaeda? I’ll tell you: Where it says that the ICU is linked to Al-Qaeda!
Geez, do you seriously think that people are so stupid as to buy your point just because it’s typed in capitals?
Therefore, you asked for proof of iran arming al qaeda. Specifically you asked me to use specific links. I provided the united nations and the Times as sources.
Now, the usual pattern is for you to dodge, change the subject, accuse me of stupidity, bias, cheerleading, and attack my sources.
If you ask me about, say the US nuking of Japan, their support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, or their support for the Contras, I might flood you with irrefutable evidence. That’s what separates facts from allegations.
An allegation becomes fact only when proper proof is presented and scrutinized by the public. If there was any evidence linking Iran with Al-Qaeda we wouldn’t even be having this discussion and you know it.
However, this forum has helped me sharpen up my debating skills. When arguing with such as yourself, I must narrow the argument and take one or at the most, two, points on at once.
Glad to help out.
Therefore, the ball is in your court. Do you acknowledge that iran is arming al qaeda and discuss this with your hostile friends. Or, do you weasel?
The choice is yours,
You didn’t bring anything new. Your article is old and outdated. I read the UN report around the same time it came out.
Why do you think educated people and scholars refer to your allegation as what it is: an allegation? Because there is no proof!
If it wasn’t so, you’ll be hearing the BBC talk about “Iran’s association with Al-Qaeda” and not “American accusations of Iran’s association with Al-Qaeda”. We wouldn’t even be having this talk, and bombs would be raining on Tehran with the benediction of the whole world.
How hard is that to understand?[/quote]
Ok, lixy.
You couldn’t do it. Nothing more needs to be said.
I won’t waste any more time.
They didn’t say arming ICU. They said iran arming al qaeda.
Frankly, you lose again.
JeffR