CIA: Al Qaeda is "Essentially Defeated" - Page 2

f0ca1 · #11 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

Why did you parse the quote?

Because it's an important qualifier missing from your title.

The part you left out to inflate your dumb case.

JLB · #12 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anikdote

The article was written by the Washington Post.

That would be the Liberal Washington Post, to be specific....

When even the leftist mouthpieces are admitting the truth, you know it's over.

f0ca1 · #13 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

That would be the Liberal Washington Post, to be specific....

That's so very stupid.

Is this a washington post editorial? Or are they just reporting?

Think hard.

Note that contrary to decade's long policy, hard intelligence, the NIE, has been kept completely secret.

A vigilant observer will take this with a grain of salt.

JLB · #14 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

Because it's an important qualifier missing from your title.

That important qualifier proves you wrong....

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

The part you left out to inflate your dumb case.

Which part?

Quote:

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.... That means we have won in Iraq.

On the defensive along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.... That means we are defeating them there.

Where is the part that shows that the leftist terrorist appeasers like Obama were right, eh?

f0ca1 · #15 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

That important qualifier proves you wrong....

No. For the logically impaired: Just because we've 'essentially defeated' al qaeda in Iraq, doesn't mean we've essentially defeated al qaeda.

Quote:

Which part?

The part that shows we haven't "essentially defeated" al qaeda, except in Saudi arabia, and the country we enabled al qaeda to enter.

Quote:

Defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.... That means we have won in Iraq.

So, if we won, we can pull out? Hardly. We haven't won.

Iraq continues to be a largely sectarian conflict, and al qaeda has long been described as having minimal impact.

Are you actually trying to say we've defeated al qaeda? Because you have yet to prove that. And that's because we have not defeated al qaeda.

Your title is misleading to inflate your case. You may have trouble understanding your abandonment of reason, but any observer will see through you.

This is just mission accomplished, 2008.

JLB · #16 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

That's so very stupid.

Are you trying to say that the Washing Post is not liberal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

Is this a washington post editorial? Or are they just reporting?

Think hard.

No, you think hard. If you had read the story you would know the answer to your question.

If it were a Washigton Post Editorial, it would read like this:

Quote:

Why I'm Backing Obama
By Susan Eisenhower
Saturday, February 2, 2008; Page A15

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

Note that contrary to decade's long policy, hard intelligence, the NIE, has been kept completely secret.

A vigilant observer will take this with a grain of salt.

A vigilant observer wouldn't be regurgitating two year old Al Qaeda propaganda written by some guy in a cave.

f0ca1 · #17 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

A vigilant observer wouldn't be regurgitating two year old Al Qaeda propaganda written by some guy in a cave.

A respectable debater wouldn't have misleading titles, and make false charges against his oponent.

But it's the internet, and I'm dealing with conservatives, so I know most of you won't extend respect, and don't deserve any.

JLB · #18 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

No. For the logically impaired: Just because we've 'essentially defeated' al qaeda in Iraq, doesn't mean we've essentially defeated al qaeda.

The part that shows we haven't "essentially defeated" al qaeda, except in Saudi arabia, and the country we enabled al qaeda to enter.

So, if we won, we can pull out? Hardly. We haven't won.

Iraq continues to be a largely sectarian conflict, and al qaeda has long been described as having minimal impact.

Are you actually trying to say we've defeated al qaeda? Because you have yet to prove that. And that's because we have not defeated al qaeda.

Your title is misleading to inflate your case. You may have trouble understanding your abandonment of reason, but any observer will see through you.

This is just mission accomplished, 2008.

Ahhh, so using Loony Left Logic, we didn't really defeat Japan in 1945, but actually defeated them when Hiro Onada surrendered in 1974....

WWII ends, according to Liberal History

Got it.

JLB · #19 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

A respectable debater wouldn't have misleading titles, and make false charges against his oponent.

Please decontruct this first paragraph from the article, and explain where the title differs.

Quote:

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Explain how this headline is different from mine in substance:

CIA: AL QAEDA NEAR DEFEAT...
http://www.drudgereport.com/

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

But it's the internet, and I'm dealing with conservatives, so I know most of you won't extend respect, and don't deserve any.

You have to earn respect, and as a liberal, that won't ever happen until you are right.

The problem is, when you finally are right, you will have evolved into a Conservative.

f0ca1 · #20 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

Please decontruct this first paragraph from the article, and explain where the title differs.

I have already done so, twice:

Quote:

we haven't "essentially defeated" al qaeda, except in Saudi arabia, and the country we enabled al qaeda to enter.

Quote:

Explain how this headline is different from mine in substance:

CIA: AL QAEDA NEAR DEFEAT...
http://www.drudgereport.com/

Drudge doesn't make the claim about Al qaeda in two countries, for the whole. It's still misleading, but not as misleading as saying "Al Qaeda is "essentially defeated" when that is only true, if you believe Hayden, in two countries.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Perhaps if Al Qaeda was on Steroids, then the House would want to do something about it..."	DiscerningBlog	Political Blogs	0	02-14-2008 07:30 PM
Iraq ready for "final" battle with al Qaeda: PM	DuH2	Warfare / Military	3	01-25-2008 03:42 PM
Iraq Begins "Final" Battle Against Al Qaeda	SweetnessBlog	Political Blogs	0	01-25-2008 08:11 AM
France warned of "pending" Al Qaeda attack	DiscerningBlog	Political Blogs	0	01-23-2008 04:11 PM
"Al Qaeda Absent from Clinton's Final Report in 2000"	JP5	Terrorism	4	04-07-2004 08:21 PM