When Mr. Clarke asked for citations, I assumed that he was requesting the article, a reasonable request, and you assume that he is asking for much more that perhaps would not be reasonable to request. To me, then, the request for more information was a direct response to a question dealing with the Times. To you, I assume, it was an irrelevant request, having nothing to do with Al Qaeada.
Finally, your “absurd irony” (even though title loans Delaware online I find nothing either absurd nor ironic about the charge) “that so far, no one has been able to answer my original question: In what way was Al Qaeda less than fully fledged in 1996 if that was the year that it declared war against the US?”
In fact, I did address that point. In my response to Mr. Lederer, I implicated that of course it was “fully fledged” in 1996. I note that the primary article itself contains the inconsistency of calling it otherwise in 1996, when it acknowledges terrorist activities.
Perhaps the mistake was mine for intervening in an exchange that I was not a part of. It is an annoying habit, I know. In any event Irfan, I hope this post clears things up between us and I also hope that my posts did not in any way indicate a hostility for your ideas and comments, of which I hold the utmost respect for.
Clarke’s reply, I do not see where you ask that anywhere
Looking over your posts that preceded Mr. Perhaps I am missing it somewhere. The rest of your point about a deferred answer to the question is moot, since as I say, I do not recall seeing you ask a question other than the one to me in which you ask: “What do you think about the Times’s claim that Al Qaeda was not “full fledged” in 1996 in an article describing the connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq in 1996?” You then condemn Mr. Clarke for not answering you5r question. It is this that I have an objection to.
Clarke believes, I simply felt that your criticisms of him were unfair, given your preceding post. He did address the issue, by requesting more information, as I was waiting for before it had been provided.
3) “He didn’t make a request satisfiable by the citation of one article. He made a request for every article pertinent to his inquiry. (Re read what he wrote and pay some attention to the plurals. Ask yourself: what WOULD satisfy that request, as stated?) Well, sorry, but I’m not his research assistant.”
I have no idea what Mr
Looking over his post, without an extremely broad meaning, I see no reason why a simple citation would not have satisfied everyone involved. The article in question makes a statement and then goes back to document AQ activities in the 1990’s. One need not be a research assistant to post an article that you are referring to. Furthermore, I do not believe it is Mr. Clarke that I am defending (since I have no idea what his position on this debate is). It was merely pointing out certain charges that have no basis of support. I would say the same regardless of who the author was.
4) “As for your telling me that I shouldn’t have written a response, with all due respect Adam, I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever.”
I was commenting, of course, to your statement that “If you’re not interested in that question, I’m not interested in your comment.” You imply that the post was not interested in your question. I was simply pointing out that if you really are not interested in the comment, there seems little point in responding to it merely to make charges against it that are (as I have said) unfair.