ElvisL1ves; Liar, or stupid?

[ElvisL1ves]

@RickJay

Which of the names you’ve provided “perpetrated” the 9/11 hijackings?

:rolleyes: Kee-rist. :rolleyes:

How far *are *you willing to go to avoid admitting your decision to start this “discussion” was pretty damned stupid? That’s the only reason to keep coming back - to see which trait runs deeper in you lot, the denial or the smugness.

[LurkMeister]

And once again he refuses to answer a simple direct question, preferring to respond with a personal attack.

I don’t have the time (or the inclination) to read through this entire thread, but has anybody tried to defend ElvisL1ves or his stand on this issue?

[crickets chirping]

[ElvisL1ves]

The question *was *already answered, fool.

[RickJay]

@ElvisL1ves

The question *was *already answered, fool.

No, it wasn’t.

You’ve had your chance; the inescapable conclusion is that you’re a liar. All reasonable people seem to agree you’re a liar, so there’s no point in further discussion of it.

[LurkMeister]

It has been pointed out that the word “perpetrator” means “someone who commits [a crime]” with the possible, though tenuous, inclusion of someone who is in someway connected with the crime.

You stated that

@ElvisL1ves

Considering that the 9/11 perps themselves were safely based in Montreal, why would they want to attack it?

and the only evidence you have submitted to which remotely supports that statement was

Mohamedou Ould Slahi, who had come to Canada in 1998, stayed in Montreal’s Assuna Mosque where he sometimes led prayers. After his associate Ahmed Ressam was captured on the eve of the Millennium trying to sneak across the Canadian border with a trunkload of dynamite, Slahi managed to elude Canadian authorities and returned to Germany. According to the 9/11 Commission, Slahi recruited two of the 9/11 pilots (pp.165-6): Marwan al-Shehhi, the pilot of UA Flight 175, which crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center; and Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of UA 93, which went down in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. He also collaborated closely with Mohammed Atta, who he knew from his university days in Germany. Slahi, who is now being held in Guantanamo, may not have been exactly one of the 19 hijackers, but he was the next closest thing.

Abderraouf Jdey, who immigrated to Canada in 1991 and became a citizen in 1995, also lived in Montreal. The 9/11 Commission (p.527) speculates that Jdey was initially part of 9/11 team of hijackers, but that he may have been held back for a second wave of attacks or perhaps he pulled out himself while in Canada in the summer of 2001. Although his martyrdom video was found in the rubble of a Mohammed Atef’s bombed-out house near Kabul, Jdey remains on the FBI’s Terrorist Watch List and earlier in April a $5 million reward was offered for information. If he is indeed alive, the Canadian Government has never tried to remove his citizenship, or that of many other Islamic terrorists for that matter, including, by the way, Fateh Kamal, the Montreal cell’s “father” who allegedly recruited Ahmed Ressam and was allowed back in Canada earlier this year after having served a sentence on terrorism-related charges in France.

The key supporting role of Slahi and Jdey in the September 11 terrorists attacks has never been acknowledged by the Canadian Government. The official line is still that Canada is getting a bum rap in the United States for being too soft on potential terrorists. It makes one wonder if anybody in the Canadian Government actually read the 9/11 Commission report.

As RickJay correctly points out:

Both names you cited were men who in fact had to flee Canada because the authorities were on their tail (so “Safely based” is a lie even for THEM) and neither participated in the attacks. Slahi was in Canada for just two months before fleeing to Mauritania; Jdey apparently was alive and well when he ran away in November 2001. Neither were “perpetrators” of the 9/11 attacks. The attacks were committed by the hijackers. That’s what “perpetrating” means. And of course, it’s precisely what you meant, your protestations to the contrary; you clearly just didn’t know any better. That’s why it’s taken you quite some time to come up with the bullshit answer “Uh, by perpetrators, I didn’t mean the guys who perpetrated the attacks, I meant two guys who allegedly knew them.”

In response to the question, “Which of the names you provided “perpetrated” the 9/11 hijackings?” you responded:

@ElvisL1ves

:rolleyes: Kee-rist. :rolleyes:

How far are you willing to go to avoid admitting your decision to start this “discussion” was pretty damned stupid? That’s the only reason to keep coming back - to see which trait runs deeper in you lot, the denial or the smugness.

Please explain (in words of one syllable, if that will make it easier on you) how, or in what universe, that is an answer to the question, “Which of the names you provided “perpetrated” the 9/11 hijackings?”

[E-Sabbath]

You know, you think this is bad, try Elvis on Gun Control.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

Do we know that **ElvisL1ves ** actually speaks English fluently?

It is possible that he doesn’t understand the definitions of the words he’s using, like : “Considering” or “that” or “the” or “9/11” or “perps” or “themselves” or “were” or “safely” or “based” or “in” or “Montreal” or “why” or “would” or “they” or “want” or “to” or “attack” or “it”.

Perhaps that is the source of the problem.

[Giraffe]

@ElvisL1ves

How far *are *you willing to go to avoid admitting your decision to start this “discussion” was pretty damned stupid? That’s the only reason to keep coming back - to see which trait runs deeper in you lot, the denial or the smugness.

How to handle these types of situations:

@hypothetical OP

@ElvisL1ves

Considering that the 9/11 perps themselves were safely based in Montreal, why would they want to attack it?

Cite?

@Post #1

You’re right, I misspoke – when I said “9/11 hijackers” I should have said “Muslim extremists of the same ilk of the 9/11 hijackers”. Because, in my opinion, Montreal is doing a poor job of (stuff about terrorism in Montreal)

How not to handle these types of situations:

Every single post of yours in this thread.

By doggedly refusing to admit the statement of yours which is quoted in the OP is not factually supported, you look stubborn and stupid for no reason. Bush-esque, if you will. What’s so hard about saying “I misspoke”?

[Revenant_Threshold]

Not that I want to tell a moderator their business, but surely we’re not allowed to attribute to other posters that which they haven’t said, even in jest?

[Giraffe]

@Revenant Threshold

Not that I want to tell a moderator their business, but surely we’re not allowed to attribute to other posters that which they haven’t said, even in jest?

You’re right, I probably should have said “hypothetical you” rather than “you” in order to make it absolutely clear that I wasn’t quoting ElvisL1ves with my second quoted bit. I was careful to avoid attaching his name to a hypothetical post, which is a bigger no-no.

But still, my bad. I’ll give myself a private Mod Note (read: indian burn) not to repeat said behavior in the future, and I’ll edit the post to make it clear to any future readers.

[Lord_Ashtar]

@ElvisL1ves

:rolleyes: Kee-rist. :rolleyes:

How far *are *you willing to go to avoid admitting your decision to start this “discussion” was pretty damned stupid? That’s the only reason to keep coming back - to see which trait runs deeper in you lot, the denial or the smugness.

Ah, the famous “I’m rubber you’re glue” defense.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@ElvisL1ves

Which you can’t even quote accurately, as someone making an accusation of lying should at least be able do. The word I used was “perpetrators”, not “hijackers”

Well, actually, you said “perps”, so if I can’t accurately quote you, what does it mean if you can’t accurately quote yourself?

Anyway, I’ve asked several times for your definition of “9/11 perps”, while pointing out that the typical interpretation would be the 19 hijackers who staged the attack. I’d be willing to concede Zacarias Moussaoui as the 20th, and sure, the higher-ups who planned the operation, all the way to Osama bin Laden himself. The other names you’ve mentioned are in the same organization, to various degrees, but calling them “9/11 perps” is a real stretch, since (as far as I know) they weren’t doing anything on Sept. 11, 2001 in direct support of the attack.

As for “safely based”, by the rather loose standard you’re applying, anywhere in the world a terrorist was where he wasn’t being actively hunted qualifies as a safe base. The “9/11 perps” (the unquestionably real ones who participated in the attacks) were at various times “safely based” in various flight schools around the U.S. The 19 never assembled in Montreal and there’s no indication any of the 19 had ever been to Montreal (or at least I asked about that some time ago and have received no evidence of it).

(so you must be lying, by your own standards, eh?)

No, not at all.

If, instead, you merely can’t face the broader implications of information I linked just there, go complain to the Canadian who wrote it.

If the “broader implications” are that Canada is and has been host to a variety of scummy individuals, I’ve never argued against that. It’s the fiction that “the 9/11 perps themselves were safely based in Montreal” that makes you a liar and your clinging to it an act of willful stupidity.

Now. Even granting your silly narrowing of the topic from the original

The topic was narrow to begin with. What is silly is your attempt to broaden it.

…to mere personal sniping

At this point, calling you a liar and willfully stupid is based on demonstrable fact, not sniping. I can describe the conditions that’ll prompt me to change that assessment, if you like.

…Or is this a translation issue - perhaps “perpetrator” means something different up there? I believe you’ve claimed to have a law-enforcement background, so maybe that’s it - but that wouldn’t be consistent with a desire to accurately quote a statement you’re trying to claim are false, would it?

Well, it’s of trivial significance, but if “accuracy” is so important, please acknowledge that the original statement (quoted I would estimate at least 15 times in this thread) was “perps” not “perpetrators”.

The definition I’m applying does not strike me as a contrived one - as I see it “9/11 perps” means people who perpetrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In this, I count the 19 actual hijackers and their leaders and the people who knowingly trained them for the attack (i.e. actual members of Al-Qaeda, not innocent instructors in various American flight schools) and people who financed the operation or supplied logistical support. I vaguely recall some reports that bomb threats had been called in that morning to some East-coast air traffic control towers, but I can’t immediately find confirmation. If this happened, then I’d count those callers as “perps”. Including someone who trained alongside some of the 19 but didn’t actually participate on Sept. 11th is tenuous, though. Including such a person would mean “9/11 perps” would logically expand to include hundreds of extra individuals. I suppose you could plausibly argue that everyone who was in Al-Qaeda on Sept. 11th 2001 counts as a “9/11 perp”. Such a position might have some merit, rather like RICO policies that hold every member of a criminal organization responsible for the acts of any other member. Trouble is, these “perps” are “safely based” just about everywhere on Earth. What’s the justification for singling out Montreal instead of, say, Los Angeles or Miami or Toronto or Paris?

My background is military, in any case, not law-enforcement.

Since, that is, you obviously can’t provide any of the simple refutation of the narrower claim, or any responsible discussion of the larger one, for that matter.

I figure the narrow claim is quite thoroughly debunked and the larger claim is too large - it could apply to many cities. If you’re looking for candidates for “safely based” cities for “the 9/11 perps”, I figure there at least ten who have a better claim than Montreal. Certainly Orlando qualifies - apparently nine of the hijackers had bank accounts there.

Miller, ftr, I’ve spent more time in Montreal, and been to more of Canada for that matter, than probably most Canadians.

Yet you cheerfully embrace ignorance about us. Pity.

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Bryan Ekers

Yet you cheerfully embrace ignorance about us. Pity.

I think we should give [del]ElvisLies[/del] ElvisL1ves partial credit for all the hysterical attempts at Canadian slurs. I love the one where we’ve pulled our Hudson Bay blankets over our heads.