Liar Liar Pants On Fire Dept: Moller

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Here you go,

If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis

While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.

Yeah, right. Figured you would say that.

Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
proximity to each other:

"On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an unprovoked
fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
Pakistan."

Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.

And, BTW, it was picked up by CNN.
and I'm sure most people didn;t watch it or anything else that might
offer a point of view that might upset the apple cart.
Which would go a long way towards explaining why a dip**** like that got
elected in the first place.

Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie... what'll everyone
think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
midget like me?

Mark "I guess it's all relative" Hickey

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On Sep 6, 2:36 pm, Mark Hickey wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
So far, no one's been able to
show a single quote. I'm guessing you won't do any better
(though you seem to be VERY certain of your position - I'm
not
sure how big a number "umpteum" is, but all you need is one
quote - should be a piece of cake, right?).

Yep

http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html

Is it a reading comprehension problem, or do you think "WMD" is
an acronym that has something to do with flying airplanes into
buildings?

Nope, I read jjust fine.

What WMDs, btw?

The ones that the link you referenced above was talking about
(rather than the 9/11 attack, which is the subject of the
question).

No, it isn't. It's what you're trying to make the question.

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Here you go,

If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis

While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.

C'mon Bertie... it can't be THAT hard to actually type out the actual
WORDS that prove your point, now can it? Even W could do that with
ease. Errrr, if they actually existed. I know you're hoping that we
won't have the time to watch a boring 11 minute interview (I don't) to
see that you're STILL wrong.


Oh, and BTW, how many world leaders are wimpy enough to komplain to the
embassy of a reporter's nation after an interview?

Talk about yer tinpot...





Bertie

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Here you go,

If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis

While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL),
you're
only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.

Yeah, right. Figured you would say that.

Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
proximity to each other:

"On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an unprovoked
fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
Pakistan."

Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.


But you said you dind't look at it.

And that you wouldn't


A

And, BTW, it was picked up by CNN.
and I'm sure most people didn;t watch it or anything else that might
offer a point of view that might upset the apple cart.
Which would go a long way towards explaining why a dip**** like that
got
elected in the first place.

Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie...


Yep.


what'll everyone
think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
midget like me?


Don't actually care. They can make their own mind up.


Gotta have one first, of course..


Mark "I guess it's all relative" Hickey

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
proximity to each other:

"On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an unprovoked
fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
Pakistan."

Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.


But you said you dind't look at it.

And that you wouldn't

Got a reading comprehension issue, Bertie?

Here's the totality of what I said on THAT subject:

"I know you're hoping that we won't have the time to watch a
boring 11 minute interview (I don't) to see that you're STILL
wrong."

Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie...

Yep.

LOL. Of COURSE you do (rolling eyes). You're just keeping it a
secret from the rest of the world, right?

what'll everyone
think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
midget like me?

Don't actually care. They can make their own mind up.

Y'see, history doesn't actually work that way (contrary to what you
and many others contend - repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it
true). Either a historical fact / quote happened, or it didn't. I
challenged you (and anyone else who thinks I'm wrong) to come up with
ONE quote... yet you (and everyone else) haven't been able to do so.

If someone can "make their own mind up" to come to a conclusion other
than that "it never happened", then they can also convince themselves
of virtually anything (the 9/11 "truthers" spring to mind).
Convenient, but sad.

Gotta have one first, of course..

True enough. The mind is what keeps us from believing in things that
cause cognitive dissonance (like firmly believing in things that never
actually happened even in the face of overwhelming lack of evidence).

Enjoy that!

Mark "I prefer the real world" Hickey

Mark Hickey wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
m:

Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
proximity to each other:

"On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an
unprovoked
fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
Pakistan."

Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.


But you said you dind't look at it.

And that you wouldn't

Got a reading comprehension issue, Bertie?

Nope.



Here's the totality of what I said on THAT subject:

"I know you're hoping that we won't have the time to watch a
boring 11 minute interview (I don't) to see that you're STILL
wrong."


Yep, that's what you said.


Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie...

Yep.

LOL. Of COURSE you do (rolling eyes). You're just keeping it a
secret from the rest of the world, right?


It's not a secret, 'cept from you maybe.



what'll everyone
think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
midget like me?

Don't actually care. They can make their own mind up.

Y'see, history doesn't actually work that way (contrary to what you
and many others contend - repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it
true). Either a historical fact / quote happened, or it didn't. I
challenged you (and anyone else who thinks I'm wrong) to come up with
ONE quote... yet you (and everyone else) haven't been able to do so.


So, he didn't invade Iraq, eh?


they're going to hav a **** of a time hiding that one.



If someone can "make their own mind up"


Yeh, I know that's anathema to you, but many people do.


Bertie

It is hard to be absolutely sure of a point. Siegfried and Roy proved that
before your eyes and not just before your ears.
Someone in history, Anatole France? said "The trouble with the world is that
the fools are cocksure and the intelligent people full of doubt". Quote may
not be exact but I think the meaning is there.


"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in
m:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On 7 sep, 07:35, Mark Hickey wrote:

Ummm... look above. I am asking for a SINGLE quote to prove your
assertion that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Here you go,

If you deny this you're as big an idiot or bigger than Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vefD3WSiis

While I'm sure that virtually everyone in the US watched and was
influenced by an 11 minute interview on Irish television (LOL), you're
only proving my point by not being able to produce a single quote.

Yeah, right. Figured you would say that.

Why wouldn't I? There's nothing in that interview even REMOTELY
connecting Iraq and 9/11 other than the fact they are both mentioned
during the course of the interview... (I couldn't help myself and
watched it). The only segment in which both were mentioned in any
proximity to each other:

"On September the eleventh 2001 we were attacked in an unprovoked
fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm. And then there
had been bombings since then. Not because of my response to
Iraq... there were bombings in Madrid, there were bombings in
Istanbul, there were bombings in Bali, there were killings in
Pakistan."

Is THAT supposed to be your "smoking gun"??? LOL.

And, BTW, it was picked up by CNN.
and I'm sure most people didn;t watch it or anything else that might
offer a point of view that might upset the apple cart.
Which would go a long way towards explaining why a dip**** like that got
elected in the first place.

Speaking of which - have you found a quote that backs up your "slam
dunk" position yet? Just one? C'mon, Bertie... what'll everyone
think if you come off so convinced of your point, and then totally
fall flat on your face when it comes to backing it up to a mental
midget like me?

Mark "I guess it's all relative" Hickey

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in
:

It is hard to be absolutely sure of a point. Siegfried and Roy proved
that before your eyes and not just before your ears.
Someone in history, Anatole France? said "The trouble with the world
is that the fools are cocksure and the intelligent people full of
doubt". Quote may not be exact but I think the meaning is there.




Then you can't PROVE that they said it therefore it's not true


Bertie