Liberal Forum

Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

Bye!

You can't refute what I posted.  Run along, ******.

Tiny,

You posted some AI slop.


I posted a fact...

There are far too many others....with which you are unfamiliar...

This will mean that you will reach for more AI slop.

So it will become a matter of me having to curbstomp a bunch of AI slop.
 

Blackvegetable » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

Tiny,

You posted some AI slop.


I posted a fact...

There are far too many others....with which you are unfamiliar...

This will mean that you will reach for more AI slop.

So it will become a matter of me having to curbstomp a bunch of AI slop.
 


 

All you gotta so is show that the brief was more than a historical brief, that the brief contained using planes as weapons, that spicifics were in it, etc etc etc.

NBC is not slop:

No specific information about imminent attack
The memo’s details confirm that the Bush administration had no specific information regarding an imminent attack involving airplanes as missiles, Thompson said.
“The PDB backs up what Dr. Rice testified to. There is no smoking gun, not even a cold gun,” he said.“Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S.,” the memo to Bush stated. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”After President Clinton launched missile strikes on bin Laden’s base in Afghanistan in 1998, “bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington,” the memo said.

The memo cited intelligence from other countries in three instances, but the White House blacked out the names of the nations.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4700899

more to follow
 

Blackvegetable » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

Tiny,

You posted some AI slop.


I posted a fact...

There are far too many others....with which you are unfamiliar...

This will mean that you will reach for more AI slop.

So it will become a matter of me having to curbstomp a bunch of AI slop.
 

 

Seems it was exactly as the AI said it was. 

Insight into failed ‘99 attack



Efforts to launch an attack from Canada around the time of millennium celebrations in 2000 “may have been part of bin Laden’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.,” the document stated.Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam, who was caught trying to cross the Canadian border with explosives about 60 miles north of Seattle in late 1999, told the FBI that he alone conceived an attack on Los Angeles International Airport, but that bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah “encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation,” the document said. Ressam is still awaiting sentencing after agreeing to testify in other terrorism cases.Zubaydah was a senior al-Qaida planner who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002.

Al-Qaida members, some of them American citizens, had lived in or traveled to the United States for years, the memo said.“The group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks,” it warned.The document said that “some of the more sensational threat reporting” — such as an intelligence tip in 1998 that bin Laden wanted to hijack aircraft to win the release of fellow extremists — could not be corroborated.One item in the memo referred to “recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” A White House official speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity said that was a reference to two Yemeni men the FBI interviewed and concluded were simply tourists taking photographs.On May 15, 2001, a caller to the U.S. embassy in the United Arab Emirates warned of planned bin Laden attacks with explosives in the United States, but did not say where or when.The CIA reported the incident to other government officials the next day, and a dozen or more steps were taken by the CIA and other agencies “to run down” the information from the phone call, senior administration officials said Saturday evening.One official said references to al-Qaida in prior presidential briefings “would indicate ’they are here, they are there’ in various countries and the CIA director would tell the president what was being done to address “these 

Huey » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

All you gotta so is 

QED

Blackvegetable » less than a minute ago » wrote: ↑

less than a minute ago

QED

Watch him run.

Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Watch him run.

I ask you to just list your sources..

You refuse.

But all I gotta do is....


 

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:25 am

Answer the question.

STFU…money…mouth…
 

Blackvegetable » 36 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

36 minutes ago

They very much are...

There will be massive gaps in your knowledge, which will require remediation. That involves you accepting objective facts.

That is a fruitless endeavor.

If you tell me on what **** sources you relied at the time, I'll quickly be able to figure out what you don't know.

This is less because I'm a genius and almost entirely because you're a moron.

 

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

I ask you to just list your sources..

You refuse.

But all I gotta do is....


 

 

Yup, I do refuse.  There is no need for my sources.  And I also verified what I posted with the NBC source.

You lose, ******.  You are all talk and no **** action. That is how one gets pepper sprayed in his own driveway.

Blackvegetable » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

QED

 

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:25 am

Answer the question. 

 

Here is CNN:Highlights of the report include:• An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.• An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.• An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.• Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.• A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.

https://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04 ... .briefing/

Blackvegetable » 45 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

45 minutes ago

Tiny,

You posted some AI slop.


I posted a fact...

There are far too many others....with which you are unfamiliar...

This will mean that you will reach for more AI slop.

So it will become a matter of me having to curbstomp a bunch of AI slop.
 

 

Here is a source.  Prove me wrong, Bitch:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEB ... 6-2001.pdf

Huey » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

20 minutes ago

Here is a source.  Prove me wrong, Bitch:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEB ... 6-2001.pdf

How did you "prove" me wrong?



 

BV doesn't answer yet another question

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

How did you "prove" me wrong?



 

 

That is the Aug 6th 2001 PDB.  It backs up what you call AI slop.  That is what you were wrong about.   Hell, you weren't even man enough to source your citation.

Blackvegetable
Child Groomer, Sexual PredatorPosts: 58,291Contact:
Contact BlackvegetableMoney: 1,201,223                   

•  
•  
•  
•  

Huey » Today, 9:03 am » wrote: ↑
Today, 9:03 am
Bye!

You can't refute what I posted.  Run along, ******.

Tiny,

You posted some AI slop.


I posted a fact...

There are far too many others....with which you are unfamiliar...

This will mean that you will reach for more AI slop.

So it will become a matter of me having to curbstomp a bunch of AI slop.
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:43 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:43 am

Answer the question and then we can decide....

YOU made a claim, ****!!

NOW DEFEND IT and POST THE REASONING BEHIND "you don't want to go there" ****!!

AS ALWAYS, YOU RUN, ****!!

****** BV RUNS AGAIN!!

COWARD *** PIECE OF **** THAT YOU ARE, RUNNING IS YOUR FORTE'!!

Huey » 26 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

26 minutes ago

That is the Aug 6th 2001 PDB.  It backs up what you call AI slop.  That is what you were wrong about.   


 

Tiny,

​​​​​​​You must post a SPECIFIC SET OF WORDS constituting my "wrong"...

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Tiny,

You must post a SPECIFIC SET OF WORDS constituting my "wrong"...

 

I posted your words.  Contrary to what you claimed about the AI citation I posted it is 100% verified by the actual brief itself.

​​​​​​​You lose. 
 

Huey » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

I posted your words.  

There were no lies in those words, which is why you can't find one.

 

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

There were no lies in those words, which is why you can't find one.

 

 

It was not AI slop.  It was 100% correct.  So, it seems YOU did not want to go there because YOU would receive yet another epic beatdown.