> YOu seem to be implying that she must NOT be a friend of the Bushes, even though her husband was so close they called him "Bandar Bush".
Say what? For some strange reason, you want to discuss what you mistakenly think I'm implying while ignoring what I actually said, repeatedly, while simultaneously accusing me of straw-man arguments. So, once again I find myself needing to quote myself. My first post was this:
Evidence that a Saudi family aided the Saudi hijackers is being taken as evidence that the "inside jobbers" were right all along.
Then, after you jumped in to demonstrate your "first-rate intelligence" by stating the trivial truth that evidence is sometimes contradictory, I attempted to explain the point again:
But actually, in this case an "opposed idea" was somehow being taken as EVIDENCE of the opposite claim.
But once again, the point I was actually making eluded your "first-rate intelligence," so you persisted with defending your misinterpretation of it. But having some hope that you might eventually get it, I attempted yet again:
Again, this wasn't a case of evidence contradicting other evidence; it was contradictory evidence being claimed AS evidence.
Perhaps I gave you too much credit to think the point was obvious, but the simple point was
not that evidence of the Florida family aiding the hijackers was convincing proof that 9/11 was not an inside job, but rather that claiming that evidence as actually being
evidence of an inside job was absurdly illogical. But once again, your "first-rate intelligence" persisted in "debunking" something I had neither stated nor implied, so I repeated the above quote a second time. As if to answer to that -- at least, I can't think of any other reason why you tossed it out -- you then claimed that Princess Haifa was a friend of the Bushes. I asked how you concluded that, why you thought it mattered even if true, and if you were seriously trying to imply that the "inside job" actually involved bribing Arabs to carry out a suicide attack. Rather than answer any one of those questions or to clarify just what the hell you were getting at, you tossed out a list of Arabs who were associated in one way or another to Bush, as if that had any relevance to the actual issue.
Now, after repeatedly failing to even understand what I repeatedly said, you're claiming a "simple debunking of {my} nonsense"?
= new reply since forum marked as read