Narrow the topic? The topic started narrow. You made a very specific statement. If we’re interpreting it wrong, please clarify what you meant by " 9/11 perps" and “safely based”. If you actually meant the far more generic:
“9/11 perps” - people connected directly or peripherally to one of more of the 19 hijackers, even to the extent of having associates or backgrounds in common.
“safely based” - had travelled to or lived in Montreal at some point prior to September 11, 2001.
… then of course you’ll find evidence, even if it was a friend of a friend of Majed Moqed who spent a weekend in Montreal to catch part of the 1998 Jazz Festival.
This is a lie as well. Nobody is narrowing the topic. Let us again examine your original claim:
The topic is not being narrowed. It is very simple; you claimed the 9/11 terrorists were based in Montreal. It’s right there. Do you deny writing this?
You have three options:
Provide a cite supporting your claim, which I have helpfully quoted again, just above in this post.
Go look back to the beginning. The topic in the original thread was about US feelings about Montreal being hit by terrorism. I responded wondering why terrorists would hit their own safe haven. I’ve pointed you to just a few links pointing that out, but have seen nothing, nothing whatsoever, in the form of refutation other than childish personal insults wrapped in simple denial.
Try to make it about me personally if that’s all you can do, but it only emphasizes the broader topic of Canada’s attitudes (which, I see, are popular as well as governmental) towards terrorists. The more strenuously you avoid the topic, the more evidence you thereby provide.
Sounds to me like you are trying to widen the topic enough to get the answer you want. You made a statement that the 9/11 hijackers were based in Montreal. Do you have a cite for the statement that the 9/11 hijackers were based in Montreal? Not a cite that there are terrorists in Montreal; not a cite that there are terrorists in Canada; people are asking for a cite for your statement that the 9/11 hijackers were based in Montreal.
You did not merely “wonder” why “the terrorists would hit their own safe haven.” (Which only an idiot would say, anyway, since terrorists attack the city they’re based in all the time; see the London bombings.) What you specifically said was that the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attack were based in Montreal. Let me provide you, again, with your own words:
As you can see, if you would please read your own words, you specifically claim here that the 9/11 perpetrators were based in Montreal. You have provided no evidence supporting this claim. Just in case you’ve already forgotten again what you claimed, I’ll quote you again, since you are having trouble remembering it:
Again, you have three choices; provide evidence this statement is true, retract it, or prove you’re a liar. Let me provide the quote again:
Thunderin’ Jaysus, if smugness were an export commodity, Canada could supply the whole galaxy.
It’s true - preserving your own self-image of moral superiority matters more to you than adult responsibility. But a myth is a myth, and terrorist attacks are reality, and Canada’s provision of a nurturing environment for terrorists has a good deal of documentary support behind it.
I still don’t see a single word of actual refutation of the actual point that started this discussion, not from any of you. Can any of you yappers provide anything at all authoritative to do so, or, for that matter, anything that’s even serious?
Would you accept the 9-11 Commission Report (Warning: long PDF document) as evidence? It traces the actions of the hijackers prior to the attack, and nowhere in that portion of the report do the words “Canada” or “Montreal” appear. It does state that Ahmed Ressam used Canada as a base when he was planning his unsuccessful attempt to bomb LAX on December 31, 1999, but he was in no way involved with the planning of the 9-11 attack (which would have been difficult, because he was in custody at the time).
Are you going to give us any authoritative cites for your claim that the 9/11 hijackers were based in Montreal? You haven’t so far. If not and if you don’t want people to keep bringing that up, then perhaps you should retract it. Making claims you can’t back up doesn’t advance your argument very well.
By the way, if people want something else to read besides the 9-11 Commission Report, “Perfect Soldiers” by Terry McDermott isn’t too bad a read, although I found some parts a little dry. According to the cover of the book, Terry McDermott is an LA Times reporter. Quoting from the cover: “We’ll never know it all, but Terry McDermott comes as close as anyone has - and perhaps ever will - to explaining how nineteen zealots came to the place they did. It’s all in the details, and they are all here. This is journalism at its best”.
I already did, indirectly, in the Jdeh story that is being so indignantly dismissed by those of you who’d rather pull your Hudson’s Bay blankets up over your heads to make the rest of the world just go away.
Now what about all this authoritative refutation of the fundamental story about Canada’s tolerance of terrorists, which if you can force yourselves to recall was the topic before all this personal chickenshit you people have put up as an obvious and pathetic avoidance tactic, that RickJay referred to in the OP and that nobody else has bothered/been able to link? Is there such a thing at all, to put up against the mass of documentation that a Googling will find for you and which I have only briefly sampled for you? Harper hasn’t shut off access to that site yet, has he?
Any of you at all care to address the problem, or even face it? :dubious: Or is personal invective the only thing any of you kiddies have available to present? Shit, y’all obviously don’t even know how to fuck off properly.