DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on January 31, 2007, 07:05:20 AM
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2201103.ece
<<US 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre'
<<By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
<<Published: 31 January 2007
<<There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre.
<<A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental.>>
You can read the whole article at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2201103.ece but basically it seems that some trigger-happy guards at the check-point killed a carload of cult leaders and their families, prompting the rest of the cult to open fire, the panicked "Iraqi Army" troops to call in U.S. air support and the usual indiscriminate massacre to follow. The victims' "plot" to seize the mosques and assassinate al Sistani and the entire Shi'ite leadership was an afterthought, a little bit of PR that was either dreamed up on the spot by the puppets themselves or, IMHO, more likely a cute little spin developed by the world's greatest bullshit and cover-up artists, the U.S. Army.
This could be as big a victory for the U.S. Army as the "Battle" of My Lai. Congratulations are once again in order. That "light" is again appearing at the end of the tunnel.
-
But here's Juan Cole's comment on the above story - -
http://www.juancole.com/
under the heading "Bush comment farcical" about three or four grafs down from the top. Juan thinks there are a lot of holes in BOTH the Cockburn story and the official line.
Juan is a little skeptical about the cultists travelling by night, but I don't see a problem with that - - you travel all night to arrive somewhere at dawn, especially during some religious holidays when dawn might have a special significance at a special destination.
Either way, Cockburn or Cole, the U.S. government spin on this thing is bullshit. But I guess the U.S. gov't would say the same about Cockburn AND Cole. The one account I don't believe is the U.S. gov't account, simply because guerrillas wouldn't stand and fight under U.S. airpower. They'd spread out and disperse on pre-arrranged escape routes at the first sign of helicopters arriving and probably before then, based on known copter arrival times.
-
This story smelled like bullshit from the minute I got a whiff of it. http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=1708.msg14915#msg14915 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=1708.msg14915#msg14915) First of all the number of dead went up & down. People usually stay dead, dont ya know. Secondly, it was a group of Sunnis AND shiites that were to attack a group of Shiites, d'oh. Thirdly, attackers were previously "unheard of"-riiiigght. And finally the Iraqi troops fought well and we were only there for "support-BWAHAHAHA!
Who but the most retarded believer in Bushidiot lies would buy all that crap?
-
This cult travels in large groups by night , packig anti-aircraft rockets ad fights a pitched battle when cornered.
-
But here's Juan Cole's comment on the above story - - under the heading "Bush comment farcical" about three or four grafs down from the top. Juan thinks there are a lot of holes in BOTH the Cockburn story and the official line. Juan is a little skeptical about the cultists travelling by night, but I don't see a problem with that - - you travel all night to arrive somewhere at dawn, especially during some religious holidays when dawn might have a special significance at a special destination. Either way, Cockburn or Cole, the U.S. government spin on this thing is bullshit.
Good gravy, the art of rationalizing evil, while portraying the U.S as evil incarnate, hitting new lows today. :-\
-
This cult travels in large groups by night , packig anti-aircraft rockets ad fights a pitched battle when cornered.
Still looking to absolve the lying mass murderers you put in power? Muslims travel in large groups on pilgrimages all the time day & night sometimes and nearly all Iraqis carry weapons these days.:
"Most of the Iraqis use guns to express their joy, grief, anger…etc."
Posted by oblivious on Sun Nov-26-06 11:06 AM
Iraqis adore guns. It appears in every field of their legacy, culture, everyday life and so on. Most of the Iraqis use guns to express their joy, grief, anger…etc. Shooting guns in air is a regular daily incident. I can recall long ago, when I was a kid, a funeral procession of a tribe leader (Sheik). Hundreds of men were shooting their guns in air, and I can recollect the fear & horror I felt then.
Saddam era, through several wars, made the relation between Iraqis and arms much closer, and the society have been militarized. On the 8th of August 1988, Iraq-Iran war came to an end. And to celebrate ceasing fire in a war which seemed to be an endless one, the Iraqis kept on firing their guns for three days! It caused death to more than 300 people and injured more than 3000 in Baghdad only. One of my acquaintances lost his pregnant wife at that time. She was killed by a bullet falling back to ground hit her head.
The common way to warn people of a moving car is to honk the horn, and of the emergency vehicles is to use siren. A brand new way of warning people of a coming procession is used nowadays in Iraq, that’s shooting guns in air. So a driver may be totally taken by surprise by an IP or National Guard vehicle shooting in the air to make their way. The American troops use a developed method by shooting directly at cars to draw attention of other drivers.
http://ibnalrafidain.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_ibnalrafidain_archive.html
Anyone might defend themselves when attacked and someone defending himself would seem like a pitched battle to the Iraqi Security Force cowards.
-
Hmmmmm, whom to believe? Knute, Tee, and insurgents/terrorists posing as apparently well armed religious folks on some midnight pilgrimage or U.S. and Iraqi security forces defending the newfound freedoms and democracy brought to the Iraqi people.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
-
Hmmm.
So basically the Iraqi Army is not ready to take over their own security and in an effort to cover up their incompetence made up the entire backstory to the battle.
Guess that adds at least another year to the timetable for withdrawal.
Wonder if that was Cockburns intent.
-
Hmmm. So basically the Iraqi Army is not ready to take over their own security and in an effort to cover up their incompetence made up the entire backstory to the battle. Guess that adds at least another year to the timetable for withdrawal. Wonder if that was Cockburns intent.
You know what I have noticed a little more often, though not necessarily in the mainscream news, where it should be happening a whole hell of a lot more, but folks asking politicians & pundits, who are so knee-jerk opposed to Bush and/or the war on terrorism (in general) and the war in Iraq (specifically), "Do you want to see America win this war?" It's obvious via the above rationalizations of Tee & knute, how that's the last thing they want to see. (America --> evil, U.S. military --> evil, Bush --> moron/Hitler.....everything else can be rationalized & justified.) But it's also entertaining watching the 3 part essay answer, to what really is a yes or no question
-
<<but folks asking politicians & pundits, who are so knee-jerk opposed to Bush and/or the war on terrorism (in general) and the war in Iraq (specifically), "Do you want to see America win this war?" >>
That's a no-brainer, and the answer is NO. Why SHOULD the U.S. win this war? They violated the UN Charter by invading a country that posed no immediate threat (given the distance between them and the relative power of the two nations, it's a patent absurdity to think of Iraq as a threat to the U.S.) and THEN they kill about 100,000 Iraqis, imprison and torture unknown thousands more and still persist in the outrageous charade of maintaining an army there to "bring democracy" to the Iraqis. That was kind of like asking a German if he or she wants to see Germany win WWII.
<< It's obvious via the above rationalizations of Tee & knute, how that's the last thing they want to see. (America --> evil, U.S. military --> evil, Bush --> moron/Hitler.....>>
Well, at least you got that almost right, although I've said on numerous occasions that Bush is nothing at all like Hitler except that they're both lying amoral snakes.
<<everything else can be rationalized & justified.>>
WHAT does "rationalizing and justifying" have to do with telling a simple truth?
<<But it's also entertaining watching the 3 part essay answer, to what really is a yes or no question>>
More bullshit - - it's always been a simple No, but since this IS a debating club, some of us think that the explanations that accompany the straight answers are at least as interesting as monosyllabic, one-word answers seem to be to you.
-
<<Hmmmmm, whom to believe? Knute, Tee, and insurgents/terrorists posing as apparently well armed religious folks on some midnight pilgrimage or U.S. and Iraqi security forces defending the newfound freedoms and democracy brought to the Iraqi people.
<<Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.>>
Hmmm, whom to believe? A group of men and women who've never shown the slightest interest at any time in their entire lives in bringing freedom and democracy to the people of the U.S.A. , who claim to have suddenly developed a burning interest in bringing freedom and democracy to [wait for it!] IRAQ of all places, but whose primary justification for the war in the first place was fictitious "weapons of mass destruction" and the absurd idea that Iraq was a dire threat to the U.S.A. and who just happen, by sheer coincidence of course, to have laid hold of the world's second biggest proven reserves of oil in so doing? or just about everyone else on the planet, who finally see that these lying bastards are all fulla shit?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
-
Mikey,
You didn't post the truth.
You posted a column that coincided with your worldview.
Simple as that.
-
I didn't vouch for either of the two articles BT - - just pointed out that even if they both couldn't be correct, either one of them made more sense than the administration bullshit that portrayed the victims of the massacre as foiled participants in some bizarre plot by minority Shi'a to assassinate the entire mainstream Shi'ite religious leadership.
My comments in my last post were basically not in defence of either Juan Cole's or Patrick Cockburn's views but just meant to ridicule sirs' knee-jerk obeisance to whatever BS his beloved "President" chooses to put out, however unlikely it might appear to be.
-
<<but folks asking politicians & pundits, who are so knee-jerk opposed to Bush and/or the war on terrorism (in general) and the war in Iraq (specifically), "Do you want to see America win this war?" >>
That's a no-brainer, and the answer is NO.
I rest my case. Thus everything that leads to that conclusion is thus justfied and/or rationalized. Not just is, but must be, in order to follow the predisposed template. Insurgents, heavily armed, moving at night, MUST be Religious pilgrims heading for a.....? (what's the big AM celebration they were heading for again, Tee?), who just happened to be armed to the teeth. They're simply religious folk because....well because they would have had pre-arranged escape routes otherwise. It's the only explaination. They're heavily armed because.....well, because the U.S. military is a bunch of murdering rapists, so they have to protect themselves. Yea......that's it
-
<<I rest my case [on me, Michael Tee, saying that I don't want the U.S. to win its illegal war of aggression and self-aggrandizement.] ..
I have to say, that's a pretty weak reed on which to rest ANY case. Any normal, decent, law-abiding, straight-thinking person would want the U.S. to lose this war. What gives them the right to invade any country they choose and take control of its natural resources for their own benefit? Who but a fascist thug would ever want them to win?
<<Thus everything that leads to that conclusion is thus justfied and/or rationalized. Not just is, but must be, in order to follow the predisposed template. >>
Well, first of all, I didn't say that either Cole or Cockburn "must be" right, just that the U.S. government version was obvious bullshit. They lie all the time, what would have happened to suddenly convert them into purveyors of pure truth for this one single massacre?
<< Insurgents, heavily armed, moving at night, MUST be Religious pilgrims heading for a.....? >>
PROBABLY were religious pilgrims because it's a holy festival time and the alternative explanation (a guerrilla band) doesn't match the lop-sided casualty count or the stand-and-fight rather than melt away tactics of the typical guerrilla band.
<<(what's the big AM celebration they were heading for again, Tee?)>>
How the fuck would I know, what am I, part of their religion now? I speculated that they might be heading for dawn prayers on a day that was holy to them in a place that was holy to them. The first prayer of the Muslim day is before sunrise. What the hell is so unlikely that a group of pilgrims headed for a holy place want to make a pre-dawn prayer there or maybe a full cycle of all their daily prayers there?
<<, who just happened to be armed to the teeth. >>
WOW!!!!! ARMED TO THE TEETH. And in IRAQ, of all places. I could see religious pilgrims being armed to the teeth in the Vatican Library, maybe, but in IRAQ??????? Man is that Tee crazy. I'll bet the next thing he tries to tellya is that Iraq is a violent place. BWAHAHAHAHAHAH.
<<They're simply religious folk because....well because they would have had pre-arranged escape routes otherwise. >>
No, they're NOT GUERRILLAS because guerrillas don't attack superior forces and then stand and fight - - especially when the superior forces can call in U.S. air support.
<< It's the only explaination. They're heavily armed because.....well, because the U.S. military is a bunch of murdering rapists, so they have to protect themselves. >>
Yeah, what a radical thought. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis blown to bits, kidnapped, tortured and murdered by the U.S. forces and these guys want to arm themselves for protection? Whoa, incredible. Why don't they just lie down on their backs in the middle of the road and ask the U.S. army to bayonet them in the gut like any normal reasonable man would do? Why fight the inevitable?
sirs, your knowledge and grasp of the real world continue to amaze me.
-
<<I rest my case [on me, Michael Tee, saying that he wants the U.S to lose, in every way, shape, and form] ..
I have to say, that's a pretty weak reed on which to rest ANY case.
Not at all. You're beyond transparent, and your arrogant opinion simply reinforces it. Bush is Hitler, America is evil, U.S. military are raping mercenaries, yada, yada, yada, & everything that is done to them, by anyone, be it an IED, Homicide bomber, RPG, even Heavily armed military pilgrims heading to mecca under the cover of darkness, is to be applauded, supported, and encourged. Any and everything that Bush, U.S. military, or the puppet Iraqi security says, is to be completely unbelieved, no ifs, ands or buts.
Defeating "evil" requires that added level of justification and rationalization.
Any normal, decent, law-abiding, straight-thinking person would want the U.S. to lose this war.
LOL......priceless
-
<<Not at all. You're beyond transparent, and your arrogant opinion simply reinforces it. >>
I'm pleased that I am transparent. If I were gonna rob somebody and steal the most priceless thing he owns, I sure as bitchin hell would NOT tell the world I was doing it to bring him peace and freedom. I can see why you think transparent is bad, though, considering the scumbags you admire so much.
However, since I AM so transparent, I hope you will understand how puzzled I am that anyone could so consistently misrepresent my views, as you have.
<< Bush is Hitler>>
What a crock. You know God-damn well that I would never compare Bush to Hitler - - it's like comparing an evil dwarf to Satan himself, and in other posts, you've represented my views on that topic much more accurately. You KNOW that I think that Bush is inferior to Hitler in every possible way that one man can be inferior to another, and yet you continually misrepresent my view as "Bush=Hitler." You know that is bullshit even as you type it.
<< America is evil>>
That's more bullshit. You know God-damn well that I don't think there is anything evil in Jane Fonda or George Soros or Dennis Kucinich or the late Rosa Parks or any of millions of good, decent, honourable Americans. America is led by evil men and women with a lot of support from a lot of evil Americans, but I never implied the entire country was evil. The good Americans as we speak are fighting hard to get control of the country back from its evil side.
<< U.S. military are raping mercenaries>>
I never said they were all mercenaries. Some of them are obviously members of the U.S. military.
<< yada, yada, yada>>
More bullshit. I never said yada yada yada. I never even said yada.
<< & everything that is done to them, by anyone, be it an IED, Homicide bomber, RPG, even Heavily armed military pilgrims heading to mecca under the cover of darkness, is to be applauded, supported, and encourged. >>
What do you think, invading armies who rape, murder and torture and come to steal a country's natural wealth should be showered with rose petals and given the keys to the capital city?
<< Any and everything that Bush, U.S. military, or the puppet Iraqi security says, is to be completely unbelieved, no ifs, ands or buts.>>
I think there's a difference between (A) pointing out the numerous holes in their bullshit stories and reminding people that all of them (Bush, the U.S. military and the puppet Iraqi government) have lied and covered up on numerous occasions and will in all likelihood continue to do so in the future and (B) taking the position that anything and everything they say is a lie. Obviously they must be telling the truth some of the time, when the truth isn't really against their own agenda or even sometimes purely by accident.
<<Defeating "evil" requires that added level of justification and rationalization. >>
Defeating evil requires a lot of courage and straight shooting. Or straight suicide bombing. Or whatever they gotta do to defeat it and drive its ass out of their country.
-
<<Not at all. You're beyond transparent, and your arrogant opinion simply reinforces it. >>
I'm pleased that I am transparent. If I were gonna rob somebody and steal the most priceless thing he owns, I sure as bitchin hell would NOT tell the world I was doing it to bring him peace and freedom. I can see why you think transparent is bad, though, considering the scumbags you admire so much.
Funny how I could apply the same asanine logic to yourself. Funny how that works
However, since I AM so transparent, I hope you will understand how puzzled I am that anyone could so consistently misrepresent my views, as you have.
<< Bush is Hitler>>
You KNOW that I think that Bush is inferior to Hitler in every possible way that one man can be inferior to another, and yet you continually misrepresent my view as "Bush=Hitler." You know that is bullshit even as you type it.
Oh that's right, Bush is a moronic version of Hitler. Yea, that's more appropriate ::)
<< America is evil>>
That's more bullshit. You know God-damn well that I don't think there is anything evil in Jane Fonda or George Soros or Dennis Kucinich or the late Rosa Parks or any of millions of good, decent, honourable Americans.
Oh yea, those Americans who think that America is evil or racist or fascist, and like minds are to be applauded. Fonda? Soros? Again, priceless And FYI, I wasn't referencing individuals, I was referencing America
<< U.S. military are raping mercenaries>>
I never said they were all mercenaries. Some of them are obviously members of the U.S. military.
Oh, that changes my assessment of your position, how again?
What do you think, invading armies who rape, murder and torture and come to steal a country's natural wealth should be showered with rose petals and given the keys to the capital city?
That's only if we were to buy into your cock and bull garbage of what is is. Thankfully, rationally minded people know better
<<Defeating "evil" requires that added level of justification and rationalization. >>
America is led by evil men and women with a lot of support from a lot of evil Americans, but I never implied the entire country was evil. The good Americans as we speak are fighting hard to get control of the country back from its evil side....Defeating evil requires a lot of courage and straight shooting. Or straight suicide bombing. Or whatever they gotta do to defeat it and drive its ass out of their country.
Again, I rest my case. You've been very helpful, Tee
-
didn't vouch for either of the two articles BT - - just pointed out that even if they both couldn't be correct, either one of them made more sense than the administration bullshit that portrayed the victims of the massacre as foiled participants in some bizarre plot by minority Shina to assassinate the entire mainstream Shi'ite religious leadership.
Be honest Mikey,
By calling it a massacre, you not only vouch for the story but obviously agree with it. Meanwhile Reuters and AP no big friends of the administration and both known to doctor facts to embarrass same have the opposite take on it.
But look on the bright side . You now have 2-300 martyr victims to hold up as role models in their heroic opposition to the oppressors.
-
<<Be honest Mikey,
<<By calling it a massacre, you not only vouch for the story but obviously agree with it. Meanwhile Reuters and AP no big friends of the administration and both known to doctor facts to embarrass same have the opposite take on it. >>
A massacre is a mass killing, BT. Of people who basically are overwhelmed by opposing force. Doesn't have anything to do with the victims being saints or sinners. In the first Gulf War, Barry McCafferty's forces opened fire on retreating Iraqi columns pulling out of the battle area as fast as they could. That also was a massacre. Even though the victims were soldiers on active duty. Had nothing to do with the "guilt" or "innocence" of the victims, only the relative power of the two sides and the final body count.
-
<<Funny how I could apply the same asanine logic to yourself.>>
Well, actually, I don't see how you can. But go ahead and try it if you think you can.
<<Oh that's right, Bush is a moronic version of Hitler.>>
Moronic, cowardly, tongue-tied, illiterate and ignorant.
<<Yea, that's more appropriate >>
More accurate too, if you're quoting me.
<<Oh yea, those Americans who think that America is evil or racist or fascist, and like minds are to be applauded. Fonda? Soros? Again, priceless>>
I didn't ask you to AGREE with me, only to stop misrepresenting what I said. Whatever YOU think of Americans like Fonda and Soros and Rosa Parks, I think they're fantastic human beings. Nothing evil about them. So just stop your lying bullshit claiming that I am calling America evil. It's only SOME Americans that I call evil and you know that God-damn well.
<<And FYI, I wasn't referencing individuals, I was referencing America>>
Asinine referencing then. How can a COUNTRY be evil? The country is made up of individuals. There is no evidence at all that a majority of American individuals support Bush in his evil. Half of those eligible to vote don't even bother, and of the rest, Bush enjoys the support of very slim majorities, in fact in 2000 he owed his "victory" to a corrupt Supreme Court and an undemocratic, rigged electoral system, NOT to the American people.
<<Oh, that changes my assessment of your position, how again?>>
That was a joke, moron.
<<That's only if we were to buy into your cock and bull garbage of what is is. >>
I've already bought into it. So has everybody else whose opinion is worth anything.
<< Thankfully, rationally minded people know better>>
"Rationally minded people" like YOU? ROTFLMFAO
<<Again, I rest my case. You've been very helpful, Tee>>
Resting your case on a clear, logical and concise summary of its diametric opposite indicates either that you have no case at all to rest or that you are seriously out to lunch to an almost certifiable degree. But that's not MY problem.
-
Doesn't have anything to do with the victims being saints or sinners.
Sure it does. You portray them as innocent saints.
You can read the whole article at http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2201103.ece but basically it seems that some trigger-happy guards at the check-point killed a carload of cult leaders and their families, prompting the rest of the cult to open fire, the panicked "Iraqi Army" troops to call in U.S. air support and the usual indiscriminate massacre to follow. The victims' "plot" to seize the mosques and assassinate al Sistani and the entire Shi'ite leadership was an afterthought, a little bit of PR that was either dreamed up on the spot by the puppets themselves or, IMHO, more likely a cute little spin developed by the world's greatest bullshit and cover-up artists, the U.S. Army.
-
yada...rant...blather
You already made my point Tee. You have concluded how evil Bush is, how America is run by evil men, making it an evil place, and defended by evil soldiers, who go out in mass purposely doing evil things. Everything you opine on is based on that template, thus anything said or facts to the contrary are to be completely ignored if not demagogued. Anything said, regardless of how outrageous it is, that happens to mimic your mindset is to be applauded.
Anything bad that happens to American soldiers, even beheadings I bet, is justified by you. Anything that happens to America, such as any further terrorist attacks are to be rationalized as a good thing. Anything to take down the current evil incarnate, the United States of America, is perfectly "reasonable".
Reasonable to the pathological perhaps
-
<<You already made my point Tee. You have concluded how evil Bush is>>
So your point was how I had pegged Bush for the lying war-mongering torturing bastard that he is? Good point, I think. What are we arguing about then if that's your point too?
<< . . . . how America it's run by evil men . . . >>
Yup. And that bitch Condi.
<< . . . making it an evil place. . . >>
Now, now. There is absolutely nothing evil about New York, it's a truly wonderful place full of wonderful decent honest people who absolutely loathe and despise Bush, and there are plenty of similarly wonderful places in America. Don't put words in my mouth, sirs. America is not an evil place, but Bush and his supporters are trying their damndest to turn it into one.
<< . . . and defended by evil soldiers . . . >>
DEFENDED by evil soldiers? You really ARE delusional if you think that their vicious wars of aggression killing millions of innocent Third World peasants who pose no threat whatsoever are defensive operations? You're a fucking lunatic.
<<who go out in mass purposely doing evil things. >>
No, the torture, murder and rape are done in their sleep. They don't even know they did it. What the fuck is wrong with you?
<< Everything you opine on is based on that template, thus anything said or facts to the contrary are to be completely ignored if not demagogued. Anything said, regardless of how outrageous it is, that happens to mimic your mindset is to be applauded. >>
And you, if you had lived in Nazi Germany, would have closed your eyes to every fucking atrocity and sleep-walked through the whole Nazi era, knowing nothing, wanting to know nothing and denying everything. "Facts to the contrary." Fucking bullshit, there ARE no facts to the contrary. There are hundreds of thousands dead, MILLIONS if you want to throw in Viet Nam, thousands tortured to death, thousands more locked away, imprisoned without trial or even charges - - and you, in your asinine persistence, go on with the outrageous LIE that Bush and the rest of them are only bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. You're insane.
<<Anything that bad happens to American soldiers, even beheadings I bet, is justified. >>
Invade a country, kill hundreds of thousands of its people, kidnap them, torture them, murder them and expect roses and kisses? I DON'T THINK SO.
<< Anything that happens to America, such as any further terrorist attacks are to be rationalized as a good thing. >>
Not a good thing but an inevitable thing. And sad because it's the ordinary, good people of New York who have to pay for the crimes of Bush and his ilk.
<< Anything to take down the current evil incarnate, the United States of America, is perfectly "reasonable". >>
Anything to end fascism, racism and militarism in America is good for America, good for humanity and good for the world. Hopefully, the American people have seen the truth of this and will start electing good, decent men and women instead of criminal fascists and the cycle of violence which Bush & Co. have pumped to its highest level ever will begin to subside.
Reasonable to the pathological perhaps
-
<<snip>>
Translated: Bush is evil, America is run by evil men & Condi, making it an evil place, that sends out evil soldiers in mass, to purposely do evil things.
Everything you opine then is based on that template, thus anything said or facts to the contrary are to be completely ignored if not demagogued. Anything said, regardless of how outrageous it is, that happens to mimic your mindset is to be applauded. Objectivity need not apply
Anything bad that happens to American soldiers, even beheadings apparently, is justified by you. Anything that happens to America, such as any further terrorist attacks are to be rationalized as inevitable, if not a good thing. Anything to take down what you have opined as the current evil incarnate, that being the United States of America, is perfectly "reasonable".
Pathologic definately, but reasonably so? ::) I wonder if there's such a thing as reasonably or rationally pathologic?
-
<<Everything you opine then is based on that template, thus anything said or facts to the contrary are to be completely ignored if not demagogued. Anything said, regardless of how outrageous it is, that happens to mimic your mindset is to be applauded. Objectivity need not apply>>
I don't ignore everything that's contrary to my opinion, I usually go out of my way to demonstrate how ludicrous and absurd it is. And of course I approve of views similar to mine, most people do - - I've lost count of the number of times you yourself have posted entire articles seemingly authored by raving lunatics just because their idiocies matched yours. But I don't know what you mean by "regardless of how outrageous" - - outrageous is a pretty subjective thing, obviously. Ninety per cent at least of what outrages me seems to be something you and your fellow "conservatives" seem to find perfectly unexceptionable. And vice versa. But apart from what you might consider outrageous, I try to be as objective as I can in the circumstances - - which is why, for example, I would never compare Bush to Hitler - - objectively speaking, he's more like a minor Nazi war criminal than a major one.
<<Anything bad that happens to American soldiers, even beheadings apparently, is justified by you. >>
Aw get real. Whatever happens to them in Iraq, they've got coming. There isn't enough pain in the world to pay them back for the pain they've already inflicted there and the natives are justified in anything they can do in retaliation. At the end of the day most of those bastards will come home to boast over their beers for the rest of their lives of their tortures, rapes and murders as long as there is anyone willing to listen to them.
<<Anything that happens to America, such as any further terrorist attacks are to be rationalized as inevitable, if not a good thing. >>
Inevitable but sad, since (as in the Twin Towers) the victims are innocent or good Americans being made to pay for the sins of evil Americans.
<<Anything to take down what you have opined as the current evil incarnate, that being the United States of America, is perfectly "reasonable">>
The best thing that could happen to them would be a sound military thrashing, as in Viet Nam, which teaches them a lesson that will keep them out of more hot water for at least a few years. That means the world will be spared the scourge of their aggression for at least that much time.
-
The best thing that could happen to them would be a sound military thrashing, as in Viet Nam, which teaches them a lesson that will keep them out of more hot water for at least a few years. That means the world will be spared the scourge of their aggression for at least that much time.
=========================================================================
Alas, this does not work. Vietnam was as sound a thrashing as and country ever had, and yet, those who refused to support it with their lives (Juniorbush, Cheney and all those asshole chickenhawks) still created another worse Vietnam 40 years later.
How could the people be so STOOPID as to elect a lying piece of sh*t like Juniorbush and the personification of the Military Industrial Complex himself that was Dick Cheney?
Is it impossible to teach them anything?
-
<<You portray them as innocent saints. >>
I think they were NOT plotting to kill the mainstream Shi'ite leadership and I think that they were probably not guerrillas. The U.S. official position has too many holes in it - - the numerous and widely variant body counts, the lop-sided death toll, the failure to melt away, etc. Both the Cockburn and the Cole versions seem to be closer to the truth.
I did not portray them as innocent saints. Everybody gunned down by the puppet forces doesn't have to be an innocent saint, but they don't have to be grandiose plotters either. They don't even have to be anti-"government" militants.
I don't think there should be any ambiguity in what I posted, but just to clarify it anyway, I think the likeliest scenario now is that the puppet forces opened fire on some non-threatening folks (of whose saintliness I have no idea) which provoked a lot of their well-armed companions to fire back. The cause of the shoot-out was panic on the part of the puppet guards, and the puppet force was so cowardly and /or inept that U.S. airpower had to be called in, resulting in a massacre (in the most value-neutral sense of the word) of the armed "pilgrims" (in quotes because we don't know if they were in fact pilgrims.)
What appears to be reasonably clear is that the victims of the massacre, whether "innocent saints" or not, were NOT a guerrilla force about to assassinate the entire mainstream Shi'ite leadership as now claimed by the Americans and their puppets. So this is NOT a victory over "terrorism" but just one more in a long series of senseless killings set in motion by Bush and his brillilant idea to invade Iraq.
-
<<Alas, this does not work. Vietnam was as sound a thrashing as and country ever had, and yet, those who refused to support it with their lives (Juniorbush, Cheney and all those asshole chickenhawks) still created another worse Vietnam 40 years later.>>
Yeah but they stayed outta trouble for a long time after Nam.
<<How could the people be so STOOPID as to elect a lying piece of sh*t like Juniorbush and the personification of the Military Industrial Complex himself that was Dick Cheney? >>
Good question. I'd say (a) near-total failure of the educational system and (b) a well-organized and all-pervasive MSM campaign of militarism and fascism, glorifying war and violence, equating them with sexual conquests and virtual worship of the armed forces and their so-called achievements, in many cases with completely falsified versions of history to accompany them.
<<Is it impossible to teach them anything? >>
No, but it can't be done in just one or two thrashings. And perhaps the thrashings may have to become much more severe. Sadly, many Americans already know what they all need to learn, but they are still outmanoeuvered by the morons amongst them. (BT: So I guess they aren't such morons then, are they?) They're morons because they don't foresee the end results of their own cunning and guile. Of their own lies.
-
<<Everything you opine then is based on that template, thus anything said or facts to the contrary are to be completely ignored if not demagogued. Anything said, regardless of how outrageous it is, that happens to mimic your mindset is to be applauded. Objectivity need not apply>>
I don't ignore everything that's contrary to my opinion...
Yes, you do, when you're not demagoguing it with more opinion. ESPECIALLY when its anything related to Bush and the War in Iraq
I usually go out of my way to demonstrate how ludicrous and absurd it is.
In other words, "don't bother me with facts and logic contrary to my already made up mind of how evil Bush and the U.S. military are. My opinion is fact, & yours is ludicrous & absurd". Yea, we got that already. That's the point I've been making, that you keep reinforcing, thank you very much.
-
Mikey you present an interesting theory and frankly absent further documentation on your part i simply am not buying it.
-
<<Yes, you do [ignore everything that's contrary to your opinion] when you're not demagoguing it with more opinion. ESPECIALLY when its anything related to Bush and the War in Iraq>>
Well, on the basis that every single thing you ever posted is contrary to my opinion, can you honestly complain that I have IGNORED it?
<<when you're not demagoguing it with more opinion>>
Well, first of all, I don't think the rules of this club require me to stifle MY opinion while swallowing yours. Why CAN'T I add my opinion to counter yours? What special privileges do you possess that allow you to express your opinion and forbid me from putting up mine in opposition? Inquiring minds want to know. And secondly, when I do oppose your opinion, I try to do so with fact, logic and reasoning - - NOT as you imply "demagoguing" it with more opinion.
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on February 01, 2007, 10:35:14 PM
I usually go out of my way to demonstrate how ludicrous and absurd it [the opposing opinion] is. >>
<<In other words, "don't bother me with facts and logic contrary to my already made up mind of how evil Bush and the U.S. military are. My opinion is fact, & yours is ludicrous & absurd". Yea, we got that already. That's the point I've been making, that you keep reinforcing, thank you very much. >>
Maybe you can find a post where I told anyone - - without ANY supporting fact or logic - - this is my opinion and it's right and yours is wrong. Only in your sick imagination, sirs. I always buttress any opinion I express in here with fact and/or logic and/or reasoning. If you claim otherwise: SHOW ME. Put up or shut up.
-
<<Mikey you present an interesting theory and frankly absent further documentation on your part i simply am not buying it. >>
The interesting theory, BT, is your government's yarn about the victims' purported attempt to seize the holiest Shi'a shrines during their holiest holiday and assassinate Sistani and the other Shi'a religious leadership. THAT'S where I'd wanna see the documentation. Because that's really off the wall. The other theories - - mine included - - are a lot more pedestrian. Panicky guards, over-reactions, slaughter of innocents - - hey, c'mon BT, happens every fucking day. No news here, folks, just keep on movin'.
-
Mikey your theory implies the major news agencies are involved in dissemination of the coverup and the conspiracy .
Please provide examples proving the liklihood of AP and Reuters being mouthpieces for the administration.
-
<<Mikey your theory implies the major news agencies are involved in dissemination of the coverup and the conspiracy .
<<Please provide examples proving the liklihood of AP and Reuters being mouthpieces for the administration. >>
BT, I think you're losing it. Happens every day. Here's the first AP story I could find on Yahoo's home page, the lead is sourced 100% from the administration:
<<New charges for 3 Guantanamo detainees By MICHAEL MELIA, Associated Press Writer
<<48 minutes ago
<<The U.S. military prepared new charges Friday against three of the best-known detainees at Guantanamo Bay — a key step toward resuming the military tribunals for terrorism suspects that were halted by the U.S. Supreme Court last year.
<<Authorities drafted new charges — including murder, conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism — against Canadian Omar Khadr, Australian David Hicks and Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen, said Air Force Col. Morris Davis, chief prosecutor in the Guantanamo war crimes trials.>>
I'd have to think more often than not that an AP or Reuters story about Iraq is straight from an administration briefing - - these guys can't be everywhere, they're not allowed to travel independently within the war zone as reporters were in WWII or Viet Nam. They get the story first from a press briefing and they don't have the resources or even the inclination to cross-check each and every press briefing.
I don't have the time or the inclination to respond to a "find examples of water running downhill" kind of challenge, but if it interests you, why don't you try to find an AP or Reuters story that was NOT sourced from the administration. THAT would be more of a challenge.
-
The Jamal Huesien stories were not sourced by the administration. Nor were the reuters photoshop episodes.
-
Nobody would argue that the administration sources every single one of their stories. My point was that there's nothing unusual in the administration sourcing their stories, and in fact IMHO the administration probably sources most of their Iraq stories.
-
Never said the admin never sourced stories. Said the AP and Reuters were not always friendly to the adminsitration, and they certainly haven't been.
-
..on the basis that every single thing you ever posted is contrary to my opinion, can you honestly complain that I have IGNORED it?
Must have missed the OR part, as you pasted below.
<<when you're not demagoguing it with more opinion>>
Well, first of all, I don't think the rules of this club require me to stifle MY opinion while swallowing yours. Why CAN'T I add my opinion to counter yours? What special privileges do you possess that allow you to express your opinion and forbid me from putting up mine in opposition?
Somewhere you're going to have to find a reference that I made ever proclaiming that you shouldn't be allowed to provide an opinion, whether in opposition or not. You see, this is another, in a long line of misrepresentation efforts on your part. When getting clocked, try distraction. On the contrary good Tee, I emplor you to broadcast your opinion. Yours is so far off base, and so disconnected from rational minds, it's pure grade entertainment quality stuff that absolutely bears repetition. As I've said many a time, some of your pieces are priceless. You're apparently getting me confused with folks on the left like Lanya & Brass, who proclaim opinions that don't agree with as hateful, hurtful, hate speech even. Need garbage like the "Fairness Doctrine" to reign in those terrible lying opinions, so people aren't led astray
when I do oppose your opinion, I try to do so with fact, logic and reasoning - - NOT as you imply "demagoguing" it with more opinion.
If only that were the case. Demeaning insults abound, aimed at how bogus such opposing opinions are, minus any rational reasoning is the norm. The whole Bush lied us into war diabribe being a perfect example
Maybe you can find a post where I told anyone - - without ANY supporting fact or logic - - this is my opinion and it's right and yours is wrong. SHOW ME. Put up or shut up
Most of the time, the arrogant tone in nearly every one of your opinionated diatribes proclaims such. But recently we received this priceless gem; "Generally speaking, the way it works is, he's wrong if he's on the wrong side of MY opinion"
I always buttress any opinion I express in here with fact and/or logic and/or reasoning.
Alas, as earlier referenced, if that were only the case. The closest we can get to accurate is that you always think you're right, regardless of facts and/or logic and/or reasoning to the contrary
-
Nobody would argue that the administration sources every single one of their stories. My point was that there's nothing unusual in the administration sourcing their stories, and in fact IMHO the administration probably sources most of their Iraq stories.
Not saying that USA Today is AP.
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005596.html
-
Lanya what was the point of your post?
That Iran is not supplying enhanced IED's?
They are, but we don't know what percentage?
They are, but so what?
or DOD should have those figures at the tip of their tongue?
-
<<The whole Bush lied us into war diabribe being a perfect example>>
Stating a truth that is not only obvious but accepted by most thinking people even in your benighted country is a perfect example of what? Of telling the truth?
-
<<The whole Bush lied us into war diabribe being a perfect example>>
Stating a truth that is not only obvious but accepted by most thinking people even in your benighted country is a perfect example of what? Of telling the truth?
LOL....as I said, perfect example of how you always think you're right, regardless of facts and/or logic and/or reasoning to the contrary.
AAhh, and smooth move in avoiding my demonstrating precisely where you implied I lied about how so right your opinion is compared to everyone else. (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_11.gif)
-
<<AAhh, and smooth move in avoiding my demonstrating precisely where you implied I lied about how so right your opinion is compared to everyone else>>
Afraid you lost me there, sirs. I implied that you LIED about the rightness of my opinion? You must be confused, as usual. How could anyone lie about the rightness of my opinion, which in itself is also just an opinion?
-
<<AAhh, and smooth move in avoiding my demonstrating precisely where you implied I lied about how so right your opinion is compared to everyone else>>
I implied that you LIED about the rightness of my opinion? You must be confused, as usual. How could anyone lie about the rightness of my opinion, which in itself is also just an opinion?
Apparently reading for comprehension isn't as strong as your opinion of your opinion. It's ok. We're used to it by now. Everyone else can scroll up and see precisely what you claimed you don't, and my demonstrating precisely how you do
-
Humour me, sirs. Scroll up and show me exactly where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion, since "everyone else" apparently can do it. I actually think I know what you are talking about, but I hope I'm wrong, because if I'm not, it will actually be painful for me to have to point out how fucking stupid you really are.
so - - same old challenge, which you've already ducked once: put up or shut up. Show me where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion.
-
Humour me, sirs. Scroll up and show me exactly where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion, since "everyone else" apparently can do it. I actually think I know what you are talking about, but I hope I'm wrong, because if I'm not, it will actually be painful for me to have to point out how fucking stupid you really are.
so - - same old challenge, which you've already ducked once: put up or shut up. Show me where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion.
Everyone thinks themselves right , debate is all about this.
-
Humour me, sirs. Scroll up and show me exactly where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion, since "everyone else" apparently can do it. I actually think I know what you are talking about, but I hope I'm wrong, because if I'm not, it will actually be painful for me to have to point out how fucking stupid you really are.
so - - same old challenge, which you've already ducked once: put up or shut up. Show me where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion.
You're funny, I'll give you that. Quick synopsis for those who haven't already scrolled up.
Sirs; Tee frequently implies X, when not overtly claiming X
Tee; You lying Right Wing Fascist bastard, show me where I ever said X, or shut the f@*# up
Sirs; (Quote from Tee) "X"
Tee; Same old same old, Sirs ducking yet another challenge
Priceless. This, by the way, was largely the whole debate between Tee and everyone else, regarding Bush's supposed lying us into war. However in that tact, X= some supposed fact as deduced by Tee, while folks like myself, Plane, Ami, Bt, and company routinely demonstrated the fallacy of X, using those dreaded facts and/or logic and/or reasoning to the contrary, with Tee's standard comeback yet again claiming some overt failing to supposedly debunk his X 8)
-
Lanya what was the point of your post?
That Iran is not supplying enhanced IED's?
They are, but we don't know what percentage?
They are, but so what?
or DOD should have those figures at the tip of their tongue?
Lanya must have missed this, the 1st go around
-
Looks like some things will never change. Sirs, faced with a challenge ("Show me where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion." ducks the challenge once, told to put up or shut up, answers the second challenge with a post filled with what I will charitably refer to as incomprehensible gibberish - - when a simple cut-and-paste, followed by the single word, "There!" would have sufficed.
Third repeat of the same challenge, sirs: SHOW ME where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion. Point to the post. You say "everyone can scroll up to it." OK, so scroll up to it.
No more bullshit, OK sirs? Just show me where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion. It's easy, (you claim) just scroll up, cut and paste.
We're waiting, sirs.
-
<<However in that tact [whether Bush lied America into war] X= some supposed fact as deduced by Tee, while folks like myself, Plane, Ami, Bt, and company routinely demonstrated the fallacy of X, using those dreaded facts and/or logic and/or reasoning to the contrary, with Tee's standard comeback yet again claiming some overt failing to supposedly debunk his X >>
YAAAAWWNN, another misrepresentation of what occurred by serial misrepresenter sirs. What actually happened was that sirs refers to the "Bush lied" statements as either (a) without any evidence whatsoever or (b) already "debunked" many times by the brilliance of his own or other's like-minded brilliance.
When the argument is (a), that the allegations of Bush lying are without evidence, I produce ALL of the evidence I am aware of (which I've done on too many occasions already) and then show the reasoning that connects the dots and makes the "Bush lied" theory (IMHO) the likeliest explanation of the actual events. When the argument is (b), that the "Bush lied" theory has already been debunked, I usually issue a simple denial. It's NEVER been debunked, although of course many Bush supporters have tried to argue against it. But I feel this is - - or should be - - a club where IDEAS are debated - - not a club where the results of past debates are debated.
-
When the argument is (a), that the allegations of Bush lying are without evidence, I produce ALL of the evidence I am aware of ... and then show the reasoning that connects the dots and makes the "Bush lied" theory (IMHO) the likeliest explanation of the actual events.
But not the ONLY explanation of the actual events. And therefore, it's not evidence. So, "Bush lied" is your opinion, and not an actual fact, as you even claim here*.
* IMHO - in my humble opinion
-
<<But not the ONLY explanation of the actual events. >>
Of course not. And I never said it was.
<<And therefore, it's not evidence. >>
Huh??? OF COURSE, it's evidence. It's not conclusive evidence, granted. But it's still evidence.
<<So, "Bush lied" is your opinion, and not an actual fact, as you even claim here*.>>
Of course it's my opinion, I'm not his fucking psychiatrist, how the hell would I or anyone else know what really went on inside his head? IMO, based on the available evidence, the LIKELIEST conclusion is that Bush knowingly lied. If he really were incredibly stupid or self-delusional, he could have been simply in error. Given the pre-911 plans laid to attack a major Middle Eastern oil producer and gain control over the resources, and given the total absurdity of the idea that Iraq directly or through completely volatile and crazy non-governmental third parties (who would then have life-and-death power over him) would attack the U.S.A., it's overwhelmingly probable that Bush consciously had to be lying about the "threat" from Iraq immediately prior to the invasion.
-
Of course it's my opinion, I'm not his fucking psychiatrist, how the hell would I or anyone else know what really went on inside his head?
Since it's an opinion, it cannot therefore be claimed to be established fact.
-
<<Since it's an opinion, it cannot therefore be claimed to be established fact.>>
Well, we're getting into semantics here. It's beginning to sound like the "Evolution is only a theory" issue.
It's my OPINION that the sun will rise tomorrow. Barring some unforeseen cosmic calamity it will. I have no reason to expect it won't.
It's my opinion, not as strongly held as my belief in the sun's rising tomorrow, based on the available evidence, that Bush lied. I'm more certain of that than I am that, say, Roosevelt KNEW in advance of Pearl Harbor (I don't think he did), but I believe that other theories (sincere mistake, for example) are much less likely.
-
Well, we're getting into semantics here. It's beginning to sound like the "Evolution is only a theory" issue.
Not really. Evolution is a "scientific theory". What you (and anti-evolutionints) are calling "theory" is known in science as "hypothesis."
It's my OPINION that the sun will rise tomorrow. Barring some unforeseen cosmic calamity it will. I have no reason to expect it won't.
No, there is also quite a bit of scientific evidence and several laws of physics that support your "opinion" and no evidence to contradict it - therefore it is no longer an "opinion."
It's my opinion, not as strongly held as my belief in the sun's rising tomorrow, based on the available evidence, that Bush lied. I'm more certain of that than I am that, say, Roosevelt KNEW in advance of Pearl Harbor (I don't think he did), but I believe that other theories (sincere mistake, for example) are much less likely.
As I said, your "opinion" in this case is no more than a "hypothesis" since there is actually evidence to counter your opinion. Had there not been any evidence to contradict your opinion, it would carry more weight and could be considered a "theory."
-
SHOW ME where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion. Point to the post. You say "everyone can scroll up to it." OK, so scroll up to it. No more bullshit, OK sirs? Just show me where I accused you of lying about the rightness of my opinion. It's easy, (you claim) just scroll up, cut and paste. We're waiting, sirs.
No, only you're waiting Tee. Apparently you don't give anyone else here any consideration for their intelligence. Everyone else, besides you apparently, have been able to scroll up and see precisely what you were complaining about, and how I precisely provided you your unfortunate answer, with Tee's best quote to date "Generally speaking, the way it works is, he's wrong if he's on the wrong side of MY opinion"
Everyone else (of the rational mind set) can also deduce how your overt opinions of Bush are merely opinions, grounded in very little prescious fact, with the most egregious being how Bush supposedly lied us into war. All your so called "evidence" is largely innuendo, with many of your so called "facts", a molehill of selected facts, with your SOP of ignoring the mountain of evidence and facts to the contrary
Now, you're perfectly entitled to ignore all the facts and evidence that consistently & routinely debunk your nonsense about Bush lied us into war. We wouldn't want them getting in the way of a perfectly good predispised mindset of how evil Bush and its military are. We infact enjoy when you entertain us with these grand "my-opinion-is-fact/you-are-all-wrong" proclaimations. And when you do attempt to inject (ir)rationalized opinions explainining how all those committee and investigative conclusions declraing no cover-up, declaring no attempt to manipulate the intel, is just a big massive cover-up to protect Bush and those dumb politicians duped by the nefarious BushCo (wait, I thought he's supposed to be a moron), note how those claims have even less evidence to support them....just Tee's famous insight and "common sense" as to how things must be, because........it just has to be, Bush is evil, Bush is a moronic version of Hitler. Everything then must, by design, feed that template
Please keep up with the good work. (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/14/14_2_109.gif)
-
<<No, only you're waiting Tee. Apparently you don't give anyone else here any consideration for their intelligence. Everyone else, besides you apparently, have been able to scroll up and see precisely what you were complaining about, and how I precisely provided you your unfortunate answer, with Tee's best quote to date "Generally speaking, the way it works is, he's wrong if he's on the wrong side of MY opinion">>
Thank you for taking the challenge, sirs. Actually, I KNEW that was the quote you were going to scroll up to, the one you are so proud of demolishing. Only there's a little problem here, sirs: That was obviously a joke, you moron, between BT and I, and everyone else got it but you.
As for the rest of your overly repetitious rant, the basic Bush-didnt'-lie BS, I've heard it too many times and demolished it too many times; the evidence that he lied is right there for you to accept or ignore and if you choose to ignore it, I can't help that one bit. I choose to accept it. I - - and most other people endowed with minimal common sense - - will conclude, albeit with something less than 100% certainty, that by far the likeliest conclusion to be drawn from it is, that Bush lied.
-
<<No, only you're waiting Tee. Apparently you don't give anyone else here any consideration for their intelligence. Everyone else, besides you apparently, have been able to scroll up and see precisely what you were complaining about, and how I precisely provided you your unfortunate answer, with Tee's best quote to date "Generally speaking, the way it works is, he's wrong if he's on the wrong side of MY opinion">>
Thank you for taking the challenge, sirs.
You're welcome. Glad to have been of service. Perhaps now we can move on to more substantive debate, or <<surpise>> maybe, just maybe you'll actually be able to substantiate some of your other diatribes vs the standard accusatory innuedo and "Tee-leave logic", since your Bush lied us into war garbage has pretty much run its course of distortion and lying itself
-
<<You're welcome. Glad to have been of service. Perhaps now we can move on to more substantive debate . . . >>
Good idea.
<< or <<surpise>> maybe, just maybe you'll actually be able to substantiate some of your other diatribes vs the standard accusatory innuedo . . . >>
LOL. I don't think I leave too much to innuendo, sirs. What I say, I usually back up with fact and logic. Unless you have a specific example of some position I took which I did not back up with fact and logic, I think you'd best leave this topic alone. Another "put up or shut up" situation, I'm afraid. I'm not going to defend myself against such broad, non-specific accusations. It's McCarthyism at its worst.
<< . . . and "Tee-leave logic" . . . >>
I'm afraid you're speaking a language all your own at this point, sirs. Probably an inevitable consequence of your inability to face up to the real world.
<<since your Bush lied us into war garbage has pretty much run its course of distortion and lying itself>>
And speaking of your inability to face the real world, might as well recognize that Bush in all likelihood DID lie you into a war, as I've demonstrated with fact and logic on numerous occasions, so calling it "garbage" is not going to make the unpalatable truth go away. The facts are there, as I said, to be interpreted my way or your way, but I think by now most people have interpreted them my way, as is only reasonable. You are still welcome to your opinion, it is after all a free country, but I can't say that it's a very impressive opinion.
-
<<You're welcome. Glad to have been of service. Perhaps now we can move on to more substantive debate . . . >>
Good idea.
Too bad you have such a hard time doing so :-\
<< or <<surprise>> maybe, just maybe you'll actually be able to substantiate some of your other diatribes vs the standard accusatory innuedo . . . >>
I don't think I leave too much to innuendo, sirs. What I say, I usually back up with fact and logic.
OK Tee, you go right ahead and keep believing that. What ever makes you feel better. The rest of us will simply keep entertained by it. The "specific examples" you ask for was pretty much everything related to your supposed validating the Bush lied us into war garbage.
And if you wish to entertain the folks some more, provide a supposed iron clad fact, hell, even an iron clad circumstantial fact to validate your dren. Give us your best one. Not point to some bogus Bushlied web site, and say "there", but pick your best substantiated arguement for how Bush lied us into war. Go for it. Watch how fast it gets blown out of the water.
Or for those watching and reading this, might need to watch how fast Tee goes into his "I already did so numerous times, no need to do it again" tact. That fits in nicely with the earlier referenced (though now modified for Bush lied ) tactic:
Tee; Obviously its X. Fact & Logic says it has to be X
Sirs (or Ami, or Bt, or Plane, or pretty much anyone with an ounce of objectivity); Here's Y that debunks X
Tee; Same old same old Sirs, ducking yet another challenge to X
And when attempting to get Tee to again substantiate X, he quickly goes into how he's already done so "with facts and logic on numerous occasions" (read, Tee's mind is made up, don't confuse me with anything that contradicts my made up mind), and doesn't need to do it again. In other words. Clock --> cleaned. SOP; distract &/or ignore
And again in our above equation, X= some supposed fact as deduced by Tee, while folks like myself, Plane, Ami, Bt, and company routinely demonstrated the fallacy of X, using Y= those dreaded facts and/or logic and/or reasoning to the contrary , with Tee's standard comeback yet again claiming some overt failing to supposedly debunk his X
And speaking of your inability to face the real world, might as well recognize that Bush in all likelihood DID lie you into a war, as I've demonstrated with fact and logic on numerous occasions, so calling it "garbage" is not going to make the unpalatable truth go away.
Priceless 8)
-
I don't need to limit myself to one fact in presenting the case that Bush lied the U.S. into war. That's absurd but it's typical of your screwy way of thinking. If the case is based on circumstantial evidence (as it MUST be in the absence of an actual confession of lying) then one single piece of evidence would not make a strong circumstantial case.
The facts are:
1. The PNAC plan presented to Clinton during his Presidency calling for the invasion of Iraq;
2. The number of PNAC members in Bush's administration who signed the letter to Clinton calling for an invasion of Iraq and supporting Bush in his "decsion" to invade Iraq: Cheney, Perle, Wolfowicz, Rumsfeld, and others.
3. The huge nuclear arsenal in the possession of the U.S. and the means of delivery
4. The puny nuclear arsenal in the possession of Saddam even if all the bullshit theorizing was correct and the total absence of any means of delivery to the U.S. mainland.
5. The total reluctance shown by Saddam towards engaging the U.S. armed forces in any conflict - - the fact that he asked for and got a green light from the U.S. Ambassador before invading Kuwait, and the fact that he wouldn't stand and fight in Kuwait after it became clear that the U.S. adminsitration was either reneging on Ambassador Glaspie's green light or had never authorized it.
6. The remarks by a Bush administration member regarding the timing of the U.N. campaign for authorization of the use of force to back up the phony "disarmament" demands - - "advertising for a new product starts in September"
7. The pressure on the U.S. intelligence agencies to come up with evidence linking Saddam to 9-11 as recounted by Richard Clarke
There are more, but it's getting late. The administration member who testified that immediately after 9-11, the focus in top-level meetings was always on Iraq, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with Sept. 11. That PLUS the PNAC statement that in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, "a new Pearl Harbor" would have to happen. The basic craziness of Saddam daring to attack the US with WMD, virtually guaranteeing his own and his country's extermination.
That Bush was a known liar already - - going back to the insider trading scandal in which he lied to the SEC investigators, a federal offence. That at least some of the evidence Bush relied on was a known forgery (the yellowcake letters) and this had already been pointed out to him before he included it in his State of the Union speech.
The conclusions are virtually indubitable - - Bush lied. Adn the only point of the lie was to get the American public to approve of the invasion of Iraq.
-
1. The PNAC plan presented to Clinton during his Presidency calling for the invasion of Iraq;
I don't believe it called for invasion. I believe it called for regime change. Which i believe ended up being offiicial US polcy.
-
3. The huge nuclear arsenal in the possession of the U.S. and the means of delivery
4. The puny nuclear arsenal in the possession of Saddam even if all the bullshit theorizing was correct and the total absence of any means of delivery to the U.S. mainland.
The basic craziness of Saddam daring to attack the US with WMD, virtually guaranteeing his own and his country's extermination.
I don't think that we can depend anymore on ther huge disparity in strength between the US , the free world vs the opposition , as the Lockerbie bombing and 9-11 demonstrate the frustration of a saller enemy can find an outlet .
When eveluating Saddams wisdom in his choices of whethrto attack te US or not we ought to remember that he was planning to kill retired President Bush and shot at US aircrft on a weekly basis , Saddam actually did do things that garunteed his demise but as a gambler he was prone to roll the dice when he felt that there was a chance of winning.
-
1. The PNAC plan presented to Clinton during his Presidency calling for the invasion of Iraq;
I don't believe it called for invasion. I believe it called for regime change. Which i believe ended up being offiicial US polcy.
3. The huge nuclear arsenal in the possession of the U.S. and the means of delivery
4. The puny nuclear arsenal in the possession of Saddam even if all the bullshit theorizing was correct and the total absence of any means of delivery to the U.S. mainland.
I don't think that we can depend anymore on ther huge disparity in strength between the US , the free world vs the opposition , as the Lockerbie bombing and 9-11 demonstrate the frustration of a saller enemy can find an outlet .
When eveluating Saddams wisdom in his choices of whethrto attack te US or not we ought to remember that he was planning to kill retired President Bush and shot at US aircrft on a weekly basis , Saddam actually did do things that garunteed his demise but as a gambler he was prone to roll the dice when he felt that there was a chance of winning.
Plane & Bt, shooting fish in a barrel
-
7. The pressure on the U.S. intelligence agencies to come up with evidence linking Saddam to 9-11 as recounted by Richard Clarke
Nice effort but false premise. There never was any nefarious push to link Saddam with 911, nor has any arguement been made by Bush or his administration linking Saddam to 911. Perhaps what your grasping at is evidence linking Saddam to the presence of WMD which of course is debunked by George Tenet, his own CIA director, assuring him that the case was "a slam dunk." Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States.
The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."
Lawrence Wilkerson, Cheif of Staff to then SoS Powell, indicated "the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. "In the late spring of 2002, I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes)."
And if it's "well, he tried to manipulate the intel", that pesky fact of the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission keeps gettin in the say of that one. "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." was their offical and FACTUAL conclusion
That Bush was a known liar already - - going back to the insider trading scandal in which he lied to the SEC investigators, a federal offence.
Which he was indicted for of course, being a Federal offence and all. Oh wait
That at least some of the evidence Bush relied on was a known forgery (the yellowcake letters) and this had already been pointed out to him before he included it in his State of the Union speech.
Another lie, since it was never a claim by Bush that Saddam purchased yellow cake, merely attempted to, which is backed up by both the British intel, and surprise, Joseph Wilson as well. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report: He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Mr. Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.
And again: The report on [Mr. Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.
This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research--which did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons--found support in Mr. Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it--which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Mr. Bush in the famous 16 words.
The conclusions are virtually indubitable - - Bush lied. Adn the only point of the lie was to get the American public to approve of the invasion of Iraq.
No, now were right smack dab back to where you always think your right, despite the overwhelming facts, logic, and reasoning to the contrary. Keep up the good work. (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_17_4.gif)
-
Here are the material parts of the actual letter, from "PNAC" on Wikipedia, with a little highlighting by yours truly:
<<In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.>>
The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
I am sorry, gentlemen (plane, BT and their little cheerleader sirs) but plainer than that it does not get. Anybody who thinks that this is not referring to a military invasion after Saddam has been politely asked to resign would have to be certifiably delusional.
<<I don't think that we can depend anymore on ther huge disparity in strength between the US , the free world vs the opposition , as the Lockerbie bombing and 9-11 demonstrate the frustration of a saller enemy can find an outlet. >>
The Lockerbie bombing? Sept. 11? What in the name of sweet suffering Jesus do EITHER of these have to do with weapons of mass destruction? Any country or even any non-country can pull off shit like that, over and over again. They don't demonstrate shit, unless you were trying to make the point that every country on earth is vulnerable to low-tech terrorism from every other country. Even when the authors of the Lockerbie bombing were known, there was no nuclear retaliation because it was a small-scale attack. The subject at hand is an attack on the USA with WMD. Your examples prove only that no one dares attack the USA except on the most minor level.
<<When eveluating Saddams wisdom in his choices of whethrto attack te US or not we ought to remember that he was planning to kill retired President Bush and shot at US aircrft on a weekly basis >>
AGAIN proving my point that nobody would dare attack the USA with real weapons of mass destruction. Plotting to kill a retired head of state really is NBD. Hell, the USA itself plotted to kill a SITTING head of state (Castro) at least fourteen times. Doesn't even come close to quallifying for retaliatory nuclear anihilation.
<<Plane & Bt, shooting fish in a barrel>>
That's evidently how plane's and BT's responses would appear to a brain-dead moron, sirs, but I don't think that's how they saw it and - - actually - - there ain't no fish and there ain't no barrel.
-
<<Nice effort but false premise. There never was any nefarious push to link Saddam with 911 . . . >>
Of course there was. That was the whole fucking point of Richard Clarke's book. The administration alleged that al Qaeda reps had met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence prior to Sept. 11 and polls taken of American public opinion after a concerted Bush administration campaign to spread innuendo linking Saddam to 911 even showed that a majority of the Americans polled had bought into that garbage.
<< . . . nor has any arguement been made by Bush or his administration linking Saddam to 911. >>
That's bullshit and here's a link to a CONSERVATIVE source (Conservative Voice) which recaps the Bush administration's attempts to mislead (lie) the American people into thinking that Saddam was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/10432.html
<<Perhaps what your grasping at is evidence linking Saddam to the presence of WMD which of course is debunked by George Tenet, his own CIA director, assuring him that the case was "a slam dunk." Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. >>
Sure they all picked up the same misleading lies planted by the same interested party (the Iraqi National Congress) which was in bed with the Bush Administration, who had hand-picked its convicted swindler leader Ahmed Chalabi to be the head of the new Iraq once the current head of state was removed by force. AND they were strongly discouraged from picking up anything that didn't fit the preconceived report that Bush and the rest of the lying bastards wanted to have in their hands.
<<The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, BLAH offered with "high confidence" BLAH." Lawrence Wilkerson, BLAH "the consensus BLAH intelligence community BLAH overwhelming" BLAH an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons BLAH in all probability well on the way BLAH nuclear capability BLAH Kenneth Pollack, BLAH Iraqi WMD. BLAH twenty former inspectors BLAH a secret centrifuge plant BLAH secret calutron plant BLAH BLAH>>
What a load of unadulterated garbage. OF COURSE Saddam had chemical weapons - - the United fucking States HELPED him to get them. Every country will work to perfect its armed forces and its weaponry and Iraq was no exception. There is no indication in any of that ton of bullshit that Saddam planned to attack the U.S.A. None.
<<And if it's "well, he tried to manipulate the intel">>
Uh, yeah, sirs, I'm afraid it is.
<< . . . that pesky fact of the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission . . . >>
Oh, yeah, the BIPARTISAN Robb-Silverman commission. As if the decision to invade Iraq itself was not bipartisan. Unfortunately there is no partisanship in the Middle Eastern policies of the US, so a "bipartisan" commission is really the War Party investigating the War Party.
<<Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." was their offical and FACTUAL conclusion>>
Unfortunately there was nothing FACTUAL about it - - http://mediamatters.org/items/200603060001 Significant evidence to the contrary was simply buried by the "bipartisan" commission. Not only was there pressure on the analysts but the results were cherry-picked by the administration. That almost all of the intelligence relied on by the Bush administration emanated from a single, interested source (Iraqi National Congress) was never mentioned by Bush or his administration in any public address.
<<Which [lying to the SEC investigators] he was indicted for of course, being a Federal offence and all. >>
Confused again, sirs? The issue was whether Bush is a liar, not whether his family connections can save his ass.
<<Another lie, [that the yellowcake letters on which Bush relied were a forgery] since it was never a claim by Bush that Saddam purchased yellow cake, merely attempted to . . . >>
Actually, the liar is YOU because the yellowcake letters (which I never claimed represented an actual purchase) were in fact forgeries and Bush did in fact rely upon them. Bush relied upon forged documents and at a time when he had been told that their authenticity was in question. You created a little straw man there (that the letters were proof of an attempt to purchase, not an actual purchase) but that was never an issue as to that because I never claimed the forgeries related to an actual purchase, neither did Bush. You are truly pathetic.
Just to digress for one instant - - you just accused me again of lying. "Another lie" were your actual words. Of course there was no lie. What I said stands up: the letter (which I never claimed was an attempt to prove an actual purchase) was a forgery and it was used by Bush to prove an attempt by Saddam to buy yellowcake from Niger. You called that a lie. It wasn't a lie.
Generally speaking, I enjoy debate, even with - - especially with - - people who will challenge me at every turn. Like plane, like BT or others. In your case, however, I find that you are a lying, weak, stupid, despicable and repulsive individual with no respect for the truth and no hestitation in falsely branding anyone who disagrees with you a liar. I suddenly realized in the midst of the post that I was being thoroughly sickened by having to respond to you, and I also realized if that's how it makes me feel, then why bother? So the rest of my answer will be short, simple and to the point, although not really responsive and reasoned: Go fuck yourself.
-
<<Nice effort but false premise. There never was any nefarious push to link Saddam with 911 . . . >>
Of course there was. That was the whole fucking point of Richard Clarke's book. The administration alleged that al Qaeda reps had met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence prior to Sept. 11
Of course there wasn't. Were these "Iraqi intel folks" under orders of Saddam? Who were these AlQeada reps? Who's made that claim of 911 <--> Saddam?? Show us this connection being made, not just innuendo. You wouldn't even be able to indict a ham sandwich with that kind of vagueness
and polls taken of American public opinion after a concerted Bush administration campaign to spread innuendo linking Saddam to 911 even showed that a majority of the Americans polled had bought into that garbage.
Polls are nothing more than a snap shot of a portion of folks who think something at a particular time. It's simply a snapshot of some portion of group mindset at that particular time. That's all. IT PROVES NADA, ZIP, ZILCH. Don't believe me, trying using regional poll to get a conviction of a particular criminal case. Hell, Civil Case. You can't, because a poll doesn't allow for those polled to have access to all the intangibles, facts, specifics, EVIDENCE.
That's bullshit and here's a link to a CONSERVATIVE source (Conservative Voice) which recaps the Bush administration's attempts to mislead (lie) the American people into thinking that Saddam was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/10432.html
Editorial debunked by the FACTUAL Robb-Silberman commission conclusions
Sure they all picked up the same misleading lies planted by the same interested party (the Iraqi National Congress) which was in bed with the Bush Administration
Boy, you sure proclaim a ton of folks, including that of the French, Russians, Germans, and your UN folk of being even more a moron than Bush, if they bought into everything Bush. And for those reading this fine tidbit from Tee, notice NOT 1 SHRED OF PROOF TO HIS CLAIM. Not even circumstantial evidence. Just his verson of "logic", and what he argues as "reasoning". Don't worry, it gets better down the road here
..who had hand-picked its convicted swindler leader Ahmed Chalabi to be the head of the new Iraq once the current head of state was removed by force.
And with all this power that the U.S. is supposedly wielding, that's why Chalabi is now in charge of Iraq. Oh wait
AND they were strongly discouraged from picking up anything that didn't fit the preconceived report that Bush and the rest of the lying bastards wanted to have in their hands.
proof?....evidence?....anything even remotely resembling rational objective thought??
<<The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, BLAH offered with "high confidence" BLAH." Lawrence Wilkerson, BLAH "the consensus BLAH intelligence community BLAH overwhelming" BLAH an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons BLAH in all probability well on the way BLAH nuclear capability BLAH Kenneth Pollack, BLAH Iraqi WMD. BLAH twenty former inspectors BLAH a secret centrifuge plant BLAH secret calutron plant BLAH BLAH>> What a load of unadulterated garbage. OF COURSE Saddam had chemical weapons
Well, that's a small victory I guess
is no indication in any of that ton of bullshit that Saddam planned to attack the U.S.A. None.
Which of course also dovetails nicely into AT NO TIME DID USA CLAIM SADDAM WAS PLANNING TO ATTACK THE USA. NONE. This folks, is more examples of that Tee-leaf logic masguerading as "reasoning" to Tee, I referenced earlier, since he's not going to be able to provide any quote to such, only a reference by Condi or Bush in wanting to prevent a mushroom cloud from occuring before we realize the danger Saddam could become to the region
<<And if it's "well, he tried to manipulate the intel". . . that pesky fact of the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission . . . >>>>
Uh, yeah, sirs, I'm afraid it is. Oh, yeah, the BIPARTISAN Robb-Silverman commission. As if the decision to invade Iraq itself was not bipartisan. Unfortunately there is no partisanship in the Middle Eastern policies of the US, so a "bipartisan" commission is really the War Party investigating the War Party.
See? Here again is Tee at his normal approach to debating this issue. It's not bi-partisan because he says its not. You can't accept their official conclusions, because he says you can't. He has concluded, minus any assemblence of proof or facts to support such, that the Commission simply white-washed the whole thing. He has to believe that because the template is already in place. Bush is evil, American military is Evil, ergo, anything that supports what Bush has done or clears Bush from anything sinisters, is to be declared null & void, no evidence necessary. Anything & everything else is to be rationalized & justified
<<Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." was their offical and FACTUAL conclusion>>
Unfortunately there was nothing FACTUAL about it - - http://mediamatters.org/items/200603060001
Yep, let's pull up the infamous leftist web site to support a leftist claim. Way to go Tee
Significant evidence to the contrary was simply buried by the "bipartisan" commission. Not only was there pressure on the analysts but the results were cherry-picked by the administration. That almost all of the intelligence relied on by the Bush administration emanated from a single, interested source (Iraqi National Congress) was never mentioned by Bush or his administration in any public address.
Which again is debunked by the NIE and the near concensus by the global intelligence community on the disposition of Saddam's WMD. What is this "buried evidence"? ??? Sorry Tee, I'm going with the FACTUAL Global reports, and bi-partisan commisions over your OPINIONATED editiorials and left wing web links.
<<Which [lying to the SEC investigators] he was indicted for of course, being a Federal offence and all. >>
Confused again, sirs? The issue was whether Bush is a liar, not whether his family connections can save his ass.
I guess the confused one here is you, minus again any facts or evidence, just that omnipotent Tee-leaf logic, since you're claiming Bush lied to the SEC, thus committed a felony, thus the follow-up indictment. Ooooops. See, no proof necessary, just Tee's say so that daddy saved him
Actually, the liar is YOU because the yellowcake letters (which I never claimed represented an actual purchase) were in fact forgeries and Bush did in fact rely upon them. Bush relied upon forged documents and at a time when he had been told that their authenticity was in question. You created a little straw man there
No, I simply presented THE FACTS. You know, those pesky things that keep getting in the way of how evil Bush is supposed to be. FACT IS Bush never claimed Saddam purchased yellow cake. FACT IS, the intel used demonstrated Saddam attempted to. FACT IS that's what Bush claimed in his SOTU. FACT IS the British intel backs up that claim. FACT IS, so did Wilson ironically
Just to digress for one instant - - you just accused me again of lying. "Another lie" were your actual words. Of course there was no lie.
Yes there was. You want to call it an egregious distortion on your part instead?, fine. The real liar in this is Joseph Wilson. But don't let that stop you. You're on a roll
In your case, however, I find that you are a lying, weak, stupid, despicable and repulsive individual with no respect for the truth and no hestitation in falsely branding anyone who disagrees with you a liar.
Only to those that do, and are too ideologically blind to rationally debate this issue. Only to those who are so blinded by vitriolic hatred for the man Bush, that he's compared to a moronic version of Hitler. Only to those who blindly insists X (such as Bush claims Saddam is going to attack the USA), when Y consistently debunks X. Only to those who insist on implying their accusatory opinions as well established fact (Sun will rise = Bush is a liar), that's consistently refuted by a overwehlming amount of facts/evidence/logic to the contrary
I suddenly realized in the midst of the post that I was being thoroughly sickened by having to respond to you, and I also realized if that's how it makes me feel, then why bother? So the rest of my answer will be short, simple and to the point, although not really responsive and reasoned: Go fuck yourself.
And to the rest of our saloon patrons here, they'll note at no time did I ever stoop to such a vulgar low. So there's the gammit of Tee's "reasoning & logic" when argueing the case of how Bush lied us into war. Selected facts, reference to a book, editorials, and a LW web site, and the cou-de-gra, how it's all 1 big massive governmental cover-up, with all those poor European & UN blokes duped by that moron Bush. All of course, with not 1 shred of proof, outside of Tee's say so & Tee-leave logic. Whatever makes you feel better, Tee
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And may I add, if Bt, or Plane, or Js believe I've crossed some repulsive line, that I can't see (I concede my consistent condescending tone, in pretty much all my posts), I offer myself to whatever disciplinary action is deemed appropriate
-
<<Were these "Iraqi intel folks" under orders of Saddam? Who were these AlQeada reps? Who's made that claim of 911 <--> Saddam?? >>
The only point of releasing this information in the first place was to create the impression that Saddam was behind 9-11. Why else was it of the remotest interest to anyone?
<<Show us this connection being made, not just innuendo. >>
The claim that invading Iraq is part of the "War on Terror" is itself an attempt to link the two.
<<Polls are nothing more than a snap shot of a portion of folks who think something at a particular time. >>
Only to a complete moron. To anybody who can think, polls can show a lot more than that. They can measure, for example, the success of an advertising campaign. It is no accident that most of the people polled thought that Saddam was connected to 9-11. After a lengthy brainwashing campaign of Bush bullshit, the people polled - - who normally wouldn't have had a clue about WHAT Saddam was up to and couldn't have cared less - - had come to believe this elaborately concocted hoax and the polls proved it.
<<Editorial debunked by the FACTUAL Robb-Silberman commission conclusions >>
Typical. The editorial points to evidence completely overlooked by the Robb-Silverman commission. Sirs refutes this by merely stating "editorial debunked." And "debunked" by no less than the very commission that the editorial had attacked. As if the all-knowing Robb-Silverman commission had been able to look into the future, read the editorial that found fault with it, and "debunk" the editorial before it was written. ("Debunk" BTW is sirs' very favourite word. Apparently it means "contradicted magically with no argument or evidence.")
<<Boy, you sure proclaim a ton of folks, including that of the French, Russians, Germans, and your UN folk of being even more a moron than Bush, if they bought into everything Bush. >>
Apparently not. None of them bet half a trillion bucks on it and went to war over it. And speaking about "without a shred of evidence," just WHERE is the evidence that "a ton of folks, including that of the French, Russians, Germans, and your UN folk" ever DID buy into the crock of shit that your "President" did? I've got a feeling that's as much of a crock of shit as the rest of your so-called "FACTS."
<<And with all this power that the U.S. is supposedly wielding, that's why Chalabi is now in charge of Iraq.>>
Proving yet again that the great power of the U.S. isn't as great as they think it is; and also proving that the great power of the country's military is matched only by the awesome stupidity of its current leadership. And I thank you for making that point so eloquently.
<<proof?....evidence?....anything even remotely resembling rational objective thought [that U.S. intelligence officers were discouraged from picking up facts that contradicted the lies of the Bush administration]??>>
Ahh, short attention span, sirs? Poor short-term memory? Richard Clarke, remember? The saga of Valerie Plame and her globe-trotting husband, who found the wrong facts and wound up with his wife's cover blown.
<<Which of course also dovetails nicely into AT NO TIME DID USA CLAIM SADDAM WAS PLANNING TO ATTACK THE USA. NONE>>
Hilarious. Condi's reference to a "mushroom cloud" didn't mean a mushroom cloud over the U.S.A. She was talking about the horrible effect on the environment, on marine ecosystems if Saddam exploded a nuclear weapon over the open ocean. We all knew that. We had to attack Saddam to save the whales! NOBODY in the administration ever implied the nuclear weapons in Saddam's hands were a threat to the U.S.A. Why, that's ABSURD! Sirs, as a comedian, I think you are no. 1 in the business.
<<See? Here again is Tee at his normal approach to debating this issue. It's [the Robb-Silverman commission] not bi-partisan because he says its not. >>
What I'm really saying is that "bi-partisan" is a misleading term when BOTH parties supported the war effort. As I stated before, what you really had was the War Party investigating the War Party. The commission was not out to dig up skeletons or affix blame because the leaders of BOTH parties shared the blame. If Bush lied then the Republicans would look bad for having a liar as their leader and the Democrats would look bad for rolling over for his obvious lies. They both had the same interests - - sell the fiction of bad intelligence, not the truth of a lying "President." May I say that nothing in your foolish and childish rant rebuts any of this simple and basic idea.
<<Yep, let's pull up the infamous leftist web site to support a leftist claim. Way to go Tee>>
mediamatters.org (to which I gave the link) effectively demolished the lie that the Robb-Silverman commission's conclusions as to whether or not the President lied can be trusted. First of all by pointing out that the commission's mandate DID NOT INCLUDE deciding that issue. Sirs, in his usual moronic fashion, settles the issue, not by dealing with the factual allegations made by the site, but simply by attacking the site as "infamous leftist." I suppose to a moron that is some kind of logic, however most intelligent sane and normal individuals will not find it very convincing.
[I'm going to skip a few of sirs' more egregious idiocies here simply for lack of time and the fact that they're repetitious and overlapping with his earlier garbage]
<<I guess the confused one here is you, minus again any facts or evidence, just that omnipotent Tee-leaf logic, since you're claiming Bush lied to the SEC, thus committed a felony, thus the follow-up indictment. Ooooops. See, no proof necessary, just Tee's say so that daddy saved him>>
The facts that Bush lied to the SEC investigators are well-known and can be found anywhere on the web. If I have time later, I will dig them out myself. How he was saved from indictment is not a matter of record, although the fact that the commission counsel was also the Bush family lawyer might (to suspicious minds like mine) have had something to do with it. To morons, of course, that would have had nothing to do with it. It would be easier to believe that the offence was never committed than that family connections could save a guy like Bush from prosecution. In America? Never!!! (So think the morons of the world.)
The rest of the post is not worth responding to. Sirs calls me a liar, I tell him to go fuck himself. Sirs repeats the slur, so I close this post by repeating my earlier counsel to him.
-
The facts that Bush lied to the SEC investigators are well-known and can be found anywhere on the web. If I have time later, I will dig them out myself.
Please do. When I went searching the other day, I found plenty of blogs that re-iterated the claim - without any evidence - and a number of news articles that stated the records were sealed so it was not known what was said.
-
If you've got even a little time for this - - mine ran out almost an hour ago - - search for a Vanity Fair link to the story, because I believe that's where I found it. If you don't, NBD. It's really my allegation, so I should be the one looking.
-
Still trying to find the source of the "Bush lied to SEC investigators" story, but in the meantime I've come across more Bush lies that I didn't even know about. For example:
1. Bush lied about being exonerated by the SEC:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh070802.shtml
In his 1994 gubernatorial debate with Ann Richards, Candidate Bush misstated the contents of an SEC letter about its probe of his sale. Bush’s campaign had asked the SEC to issue a statement about the matter. In a letter to Bush’s lawyer, the SEC said, “the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and…at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him.†But the letter also said that this “must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result.†Despite this, Bush explicitly said, during the Richards debate, that he had been “exonerated†by the SEC’s probe. Why, you could almost say he embellished the facts! Richards corrected his error.
2. http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#drunk
Lying Under Oath. Bush & Co. Squelch Investigation of Contributor's Funeral Homes
In a (so far successful) attempt to stop a scandal, Bush perjured himself under oath, according to the sworn testimony of two of his political allies. The situation is amazingly similar to Clinton's Lewinsky problem: a potentially damaging lawuit arose (see below) that threatened to involve him. Just like Clinton, Bush swore an affidavit that he had no involvement in the case, which got him excused from testifying. And just like Clinton, the affidavit was proven false months later by new evidence. In this case, it's the recent sworn testimony of Robert MacNeil, a Bush appointee, that he had discussed the case with Bush at a fundraiser.
NOTE: This last story is fairly complex and you need to go to the website to get the whole train of events.
In addition to the above, there were plenty of stories about Bush's drug and alcohol use, his drunk driving arrest and his lies to cover them up, but I think those kind of stories are kind of distasteful. They're the kind of skeletons a lot of us have in our closets and it's just kind of cheesey to bring them up now. The guy's a married man and a father, so it's natural he wouldn't want to admit to a lot of that stuff and to be frank, I give him credit for cleaning up his act and rising to the top, even as a President's son, because it's a very competitive field.
-
<<Were these "Iraqi intel folks" under orders of Saddam? Who were these AlQeada reps? Who's made that claim of 911 <--> Saddam?? >>
The only point of releasing this information in the first place was to create the impression that Saddam was behind 9-11. Why else was it of the remotest interest to anyone? The claim that invading Iraq is part of the "War on Terror" is itself an attempt to link the two.
See? This is the best Tee can do. Tee leaf logic is the most accurate labeling that can be applied. For those of us who actually could seperate the war on Terror, and why we went into Iraq, we're simply dismissed. For those of us who knew precisely what Bush was stating in both his SOTU's and numerous Press Conferences, where he provided his clear cut reasons for why we went into Iraq, again, that ability to comprehend it all is to be ignored. Because Tee, has devined, via connecting his non-existant dots
- Bush completely buffalowed all the Eurpean nations and the UN
- Bush alone knew there were no WMD, but took us to war anyways, while everyone else who claimed the same thing were simply wrong or misled by the moron Bush
- Bush lied about yellowcake despite his claims being backed up by the British Intel and Joseph Wilson
- Bush manipulated the intel despite clearance from every comission and investigative body that concluded otherwise
- The U.S. planted a puppet Government in Iraq, despite the fact that their fella to run it was blown away in the elections
- And of course, it's all to get the oil, despite the fact we had the military ability to simply annex the fields at any time. Claim it's our payment for ridding them of their dictator
The all seeing all knowing Tee knows.........because the template is in place. Bush is evil, American military is evil, everything has to stem from that position. Why? Because Tee says so
The rest of the post is not worth responding to as it's simply laced with the same "I-know-best, go f'off" arrogant tone, so we'll leave things here for the rest of the rationally minded to digest it all. Keep up the excellent work, Tee
(http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/14/14_3_1v.gif)
-
<<See? This is the best Tee can do. Tee leaf logic is the most accurate labeling that can be applied. >>
The logic is unassailable. Information about Iraqi intelligence meeting with al Qaeda in Prague prior to 9-11 was released for only one possible reason - - to convince the public (as subsequent polls showed that it did) that Iraq was behind 9-11 and therefore could legitimately be invaded.
Faced with such unanswerable logic, sirs has only one recourse - - obviously, not to argue with it, which would make him look even more foolish than he already does - - but to resort to some meaningless rhetoric, such as "see? this is the best Tee can do. Tea leaf logic." Can anyone imagine a more moronic response?
<< For those of us who actually could seperate the war on Terror, and why we went into Iraq, we're simply dismissed.>>
Simply dismissed? Now you're hurting my feelings, making me feel unappreciated. I actually spent a good deal of effort showing in great detail why and where you and your fellow wingnuts went wrong. Is it all for naught? Next time, you WILL be "simply dismissed." Why the hell should I waste my time compiling facts and applying logic, only to see it all go unacknowledged and my efforts summed up as a simple dismissal?
<< For those of us who knew precisely what Bush was stating in both his SOTU's and numerous Press Conferences, where he provided his clear cut reasons for why we went into Iraq, again, that ability to comprehend it all is to be ignored.>>
Not at all. I believe you comprehended what Bush said. Your fault lies in believing it. Against all common sense and against all evidence to the contrary.
<<Because Tee, has devined, via connecting his non-existant dots>>
The dots exist alright. You just don't like the way I connected them.
<<- Bush completely buffalowed all the Eurpean nations and the UN>>
Obviously not because none of them believed that the urgency of the situation necessitated an invasion.
<<- Bush alone knew there were no WMD, but took us to war anyways, while everyone else who claimed the same thing were simply wrong or misled by the moron Bush>>
Bush wasn't alone in knowing the whole thing was a crock. He didn't even dream up the crock, that was done for him by the PNAC. And I'm not sure how many others were actually misled by Bush or actually went along for calculated political reasons, cowardice or opportunism or maybe just cunning - - I don't think too many people outside of the true believers in his base were actually misled.
<<- Bush lied about yellowcake despite his claims being backed up by the British Intel and Joseph Wilson>>
Not exactly. Bush used documents that he knew were fakes to bolster a claim about Saddam's previous attempts to buy yellowcake. Do you deliberately misrepresent every one of my arguments or is it an unconscious reflex of yours?
<<- Bush manipulated the intel despite clearance from every comission and investigative body that concluded otherwise>>
all two of them? Hey, can you spell "whitewash?" Were there any real critics of the establishment on any of these commissions, any Noam Chomsky's, any Ralph Naders, any Cindy Sheehans? LMFAO. The War Party investigated the War Party and found: Absolutely. Nothing. Wrong. Whooooeee!!! Vindicated at last!
<<- The U.S. planted a puppet Government in Iraq, despite the fact that their fella to run it was blown away in the elections>>
How about they TRIED to force this guy onto the Iraqis and were too fucking stupid to realize they not only lacked the power to militarily subdue the country, they couldn't even force their stooge down the throats of their own puppets. Which, BTW, should be one of the telltale little signs that says "foredoomed to failure" that most "leftists" have been predicting since Day One. Despite all of your foolish cheerleading, denials, Churchill allegories and other ridiculous nonsense.
<<- And of course, it's all to get the oil, despite the fact we had the military ability to simply annex the fields at any time. >>
You did? Seems to me it's a tad more difficult than your moron "President" and his "advisers" thought it would be. And OF COURSE it's all to get the oil. No other "reason" will stand up to the test of fact and logic.
<<Claim it's our payment for ridding them of their dictator>>
Good thing they're not as stupid as you are. They won't claim any such thing because they won't admit to stealing the oil in the first place. They bring "democracy" to Iraq and the "democratically elected" Iraqi government then gives away the oil in sweetheart deals to "multinational" oil companies, 90% of which "happen" to be American-owned AND good friends of Bush and Cheney and hey that's "democracy" - - the "independent" Iraqi government struck a deal with the "multinational" and good deal or bad deal, it's nothing to do with the U.S. government any more. THAT'S how things happen in the real world, sirs. Get used to it.
-
yada...you're a moron...rant...Bush is Evil...blather...I'm right, you're wrong...rant
Must feed the template....must feed the template. All evidence & facts to the contrary must be demagogued or ignored. Must feed template
-
<<Must feed the template....must feed the template. All evidence & facts to the contrary must be demagogued or ignored. Must feed template>>
The only one feeding the template here is you. The obvious conclusions, backed by fact and logic are that Bush is a murderous lying bastard as are the people around him, that hundreds of thousands have already died because of him and a country lies in ruins. There's a fucking tragedy going on under your nose, but that BUSH - - who ordered the bombing, who pursues the conquest of a nation fighting to free itself from foreign occupation when they aren't fighting with each other, whose forces bomb, blast, torture, kidnap, murder at will - - HE'S not the evil one here. Well, if Bush isn't the evil one in the picture, who the fuck is?
YOUR template is "America good, Arabs bad (except those who accept U.S. domination and collaborate)" and "America can do no evil." That's fine - - the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead, maimed, tortured and imprisoned Iraqis know better, although in your sick little fantasy world they're all on their knees thanking America for the "freedom" they have brought to Iraq.
-
<<Must feed the template....must feed the template. All evidence & facts to the contrary must be demagogued or ignored. Must feed template>>
The only one feeding the template here is you. The obvious conclusions,...
LOL.....yea right. The "obvious conslusions" are that Bush is an evil murderous lying bastard and the American military is evil groupd of raping murdering thugs, because Tee says so, supported by his version of "facts & logic". But I'm the one with the template
Priceless ;D
YOUR template is "America good, Arabs bad (except those who accept U.S. domination and collaborate)" and "America can do no evil."
This folks is where Tee routinely ignores my frequent criticisms of bad decisions, and frequent references that no country is perfect or can do no wrong. This is where he routinely ignores my specific references to the Arab Terrorists & militant Ismlamics as "bad", while Arabs in general are perfectly fine. This folks is precisely the type of debate you get from Tee, when this topic comes up. Just scroll back and watch it unravel.
But if I had a template, it would include giving the benefit of the doubt to both Bush & our military, until FACTS are presented to the contrary (read, NOT Tee's say so, or Tee-leaf logic). It would actually include rational objective thinking before making conclusions, based on the information present at the time. It does include that Bush is naive, and at times stubborn, but reasonbly principled, even when those principles are leaning away from that of Conservatism. What it doesn't include is unadulterated unsubstantiated garbage claiming how Bush is a stupid version of Hitler, who was the only one to know that Saddam didn't have WMD, but was able to convince everyone else even those in the previous administration (excluding the far superior smarter folks like Tee of course) that he did
the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead, maimed, tortured and imprisoned Iraqis know better, although in your sick little fantasy world they're all on their knees thanking America for the "freedom" they have brought to Iraq.
Subtracting any support for any of our soldiers that have knowinly & purposely tortued anyone, that's right Tee. The majority of Iraqis still believe that taking out Saddam was worth it. The polls I provided you before point that out, and given your new found love of polls, should be a clue to just how blinded you are to rational reasoned debate, on this issue
-
<<Must feed the template....must feed the template. All evidence & facts to the contrary must be demagogued or ignored. Must feed template>>
The only one feeding the template here is you. The obvious conclusions, backed by fact and logic are that Bush is a murderous lying bastard as are the people around him, that hundreds of thousands have already died because of him and a country lies in ruins. There's a fucking tragedy going on under your nose, but that BUSH - - who ordered the bombing, who pursues the conquest of a nation fighting to free itself from foreign occupation when they aren't fighting with each other, whose forces bomb, blast, torture, kidnap, murder at will - - HE'S not the evil one here. Well, if Bush isn't the evil one in the picture, who the fuck is?
YOUR template is "America good, Arabs bad (except those who accept U.S. domination and collaborate)" and "America can do no evil." That's fine - - the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead, maimed, tortured and imprisoned Iraqis know better, although in your sick little fantasy world they're all on their knees thanking America for the "freedom" they have brought to Iraq.
I suppose you havent noticed this but our oppositin presently kills innocent bystanders , if we killed more than they I would be very supprised.
-
BUSH - - HE'S not the evil one here. Well, if Bush isn't the evil one in the picture, who the fuck is?
Easy question with easy answer......the Islamic terrorists who target and kill innocent civilians, the insurgents who target and kill innocent civilians. The sectarians who target and kill innocent civilians.
Note also how it's not some vague reference to "Arabs bad"
-
<<The "obvious conslusions" are that Bush is an evil murderous lying bastard and the American military is evil groupd of raping murdering thugs, because Tee says so, supported by his version of "facts & logic". But I'm the one with the template>>
Yeah, because I say so. That a minimum of 100,000 Iraqis have died because of Bush's decision to invade is a fiction. Bush is bad because I say he's bad, not because of any real-life consequences arising from his actions. What fucking planet did you say you were from? (And that was not even counting the wounded, the maimed, the tortured and the jailed.)
The American military had nothing to do with any of those deaths, they didn't shoot any families at checkpoints, they didn't bomb any populated areas, they never tortured anybody and they never harmed a single hair on a single head. They're humanitarians, actually. Get it through your head, sirs: they're trained killers, and what they were sent over there to do was to kill and to keep on killing until all resistance to their occupation of another people's homeland was completely and utterly crushed.
And if you noticed, none of their misdeeds is wrong because I say it's wrong, and they're not evil because I say they're evil. They're evil because of what they do and what they do is unmistakeably real. So the problem isn't that Michael Tee fails to recognize what good, noble and wonderful human beings these murderous thugs are; the problem is what the murderous thugs are actually doing, even as we speak.
-
<<The "obvious conslusions" are that Bush is an evil murderous lying bastard and the American military is evil groupd of raping murdering thugs, because Tee says so, supported by his version of "facts & logic". But I'm the one with the template>>
Yeah, because I say so. That a minimum of 100,000 Iraqis have died because of Bush's decision to invade is a fiction. Bush is bad because I say he's bad, not because of any real-life consequences arising from his actions.
You have to love the act of desperation. Blow everything into absolute hyperbole, and play like that's what your opponet is saying. A) MOST of those 100K have died at the hands of terrorists and other Iraqis, B) There's a war going on, so how its deemed "fiction", can only be understood in Tee's universe. And C) EVERY FRELLING WAR leads to unintended real life consequences.
Pathetic
What fucking planet did you say you were from?
Earth. What's your excuse?
The American military had nothing to do with any of those deaths, they didn't shoot any families at checkpoints, they didn't bomb any populated areas, they never tortured anybody and they never harmed a single hair on a single head.
For someone who's supposed to pride themselves on rational reasoning, you can't seem to get much more irrational than you are currently. I can alomst visualize the foam coming out of the mouth. See above for more examples of that desperate hyperbole, referenced earlier
They're humanitarians, actually. Get it through your head, sirs: they're trained killers, and what they were sent over there to do was to kill and to keep on killing until all resistance to their occupation of another people's homeland was completely and utterly crushed.
Close...they're trained to target and kill the enemy, which has currently been identified as Islamic terrorists & insurgents. They do not target and kill women and children like the terrrorists, insurgents, and sectarians do. Those that do are either doing so out of perceived self defense, or they themselves have no business wearing the American uniform, and be prosecuted to the fullest extend possible
And if you noticed, none of their misdeeds is wrong because I say it's wrong, and they're not evil because I say they're evil. They're evil because of what they do and what they do is unmistakeably real.
So says Tee
So the problem isn't that Michael Tee fails to recognize what good, noble and wonderful human beings these murderous thugs are; the problem is what the murderous thugs are actually doing, even as we speak.
Priceless
-
<<You have to love the act of desperation. Blow everything into absolute hyperbole, and play like that's what your opponet is saying. A) MOST of those 100K have died at the hands of terrorists and other Iraqis . . . >>
ALL of them died because (a) they were directly killed by U.S. forces or (b) because the U.S. invasion created anarchy which local forces freely exploited. BTW, I assume you have the facts to show how many actually were killed by "terrorists" and "other foes?" No? Oh, I forgot, the U.S. "doesn't do" body counts. Convenient, eh? Allowing its cheerleaders to make unverifiable claims of who causes most casualties.
<< . . . .B) There's a war going on, so how its deemed "fiction", can only be understood in Tee's universe. >>
The "fiction" remark was sarcasm, aimed at YOU, moron.
<< And C) EVERY FRELLING WAR leads to unintended real life consequences. >>
YESSSSS!!! Which is why decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people DO NOT START WARS, for non-existent or manufactured reasons.
<<. . . irrational . . . the foam coming out of the mouth. . . .desperate hyperbole . . . >>
This was the entire substance of sirs' answer to my point that U.S. forces did in fact commit horrific atrocities. No, I am not kidding. Go back and check it out. Of course, he wasn't as concise as I was in boiling down his "argument" to its essence, but believe me, you will find nothing more of substance in his entire rant. Conservative "reasoning" at its finest.
I'm going to skip over some of sirs' rant here, because it's the usual technique of cut, paste, add "priceless" or some similar snark and voila - - another point or argument "demolished" - - or at least "demolished" in whatever unique neural wasteland passes for sirs' mind. Not really worthy of any response, but what the hell - - it would be rude to ignore it.
-
<<A) MOST of those 100K have died at the hands of terrorists and other Iraqis . . . >>
ALL of them died because (a) they were directly killed by U.S. forces or (b) because the U.S. invasion created anarchy which local forces freely exploited.
Every life that dies in war is directly as a result of someone killed by someone purposely or accidentally. Anarchy is being caused by Iran & Syria, fueling the civil unrest, both directly with militants coming in from those countries, and indirectly with the military arms they provide, while AlQeada tries to simply fight back. Take away those 2, and there'd be no anarchy. Take away the U.S., and you have Terrorist Heaven. But I do appreciate you conceding that the vast majority of lives lost are at the hands of terrorists and Iraqis
BTW, I assume you have the facts to show how many actually were killed by "terrorists" and "other foes?" No? Oh, I forgot, the U.S. "doesn't do" body counts. Convenient, eh?
No, actually logic and common sense. You should try it some time. How far back you want to go? Hundreds, if not thousands of Israelis killed by homicide bombers, over the last 2+decades. Beirut in 83, Russia in 92, Madrid, Bombay/Mumbai, Nigeria, Bali, Dahab, Somalia, New York, DC, etc., etc., etc. This is more of that ignrorance you demonstrate, that I referenced earlier. Facts that go against the template of how evil Bush and our military are supposed to be, must be either demagogued, or in this instance, ignored
The "fiction" remark was sarcasm, aimed at YOU, moron.
Perhaps you should stick with sarcasm, since civil & substantive debate is definately not your strength
<< And C) EVERY FRELLING WAR leads to unintended real life consequences. >>
YESSSSS!!! Which is why decent, peace-loving, respectful-of-human-life people DO NOT START WARS, for non-existent or manufactured reasons.
Your opinion of non-existant/manufactured reasons is duely noted
<<. . . irrational . . . the foam coming out of the mouth. . . .desperate hyperbole . . . >>
This was the entire substance of sirs' answer to my point that U.S. forces did in fact commit horrific atrocities. No, I am not kidding.
Yes, he is, since the issue of some American Soldiers committing crimes, including rape & murder isn't an issue. Of course isolated events at locations like Abu Graib have occured. And those folks are condemned & prosecuted. The issue, continues to be Tee's grand proclaimation of the U.S. military as a whole being this barbarous out-of-control raping machine, then using hyperbole to supposedly validate it. The dire stench of desparation
Go back and check it out.
Oh please do. And pay close attention to some of this hyperbolic stuff like "they're trained killers, and what they were sent over there to do was to kill and to keep on killing until all resistance to their occupation of another people's homeland was completely and utterly crushed", and that it's a war against all Arabs.
You can't pay for this kind of unadulterated garbage. Well, I suppose you could, but you get it here for free
-
<<Every life that dies in war is directly as a result of someone killed by someone purposely or accidentally. Anarchy is being caused by Iran & Syria, fueling the civil unrest, >>
Funny how before the U.S. invasion there was no civil unrest to fuel and most Iraqis polled now say things were better before the invasion. Funny also how nobody really knows WHO is fuelling the "sectarian" killing, since the average folk there aren't that concerned about the religious divide in what used to be (under Saddam) a secular nation. And funny who really benefits from all the killing, isn't it? "We can't go now, there'll be a bloodbath." Anarchy is caused DIRECTLY by the U.S. invasion and right now we don't know exactly WHO is behind the sectarian killings. In Lebanon, some of the civil strife violence including the Hariri assassination is now being traced back to Israeli-organized hit squads using Arab manpower. Who says the same techniques aren't being employed right now in Iraq?
<<both directly with militants coming in from those countries, and indirectly with the military arms they provide, while AlQeada tries to simply fight back. Take away those 2, and there'd be no anarchy. Take away the U.S., and you have Terrorist Heaven. But I do appreciate you conceding that the vast majority of lives lost are at the hands of terrorists and Iraqis>>
No I didn't - - there's a reason why Tommy Franks said "We don't do [civilian] body counts." A very good reason. You DON'T WANT TO KNOW how many Iraqis you have killed. Which suggests it's one hell of a lot of Iraqis.
<<No, actually logic and common sense [tell sirs that "terrorists" kill more than Americans kill.] You should try it some time. How far back you want to go? Hundreds, if not thousands of Israelis killed by homicide bombers, over the last 2+decades.>>
Adding up to a fraction of the number of Palestinians, Lebanese and Israeli Arabs killed by Israel in the same period.
<<Beirut in 83, >>
I guess you are totally unaware of the fact that about TWENTY THOUSAND Lebanese were KILLED in the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon, without even counting the thousand killed in the latest one.
<<Russia in 92, Madrid, Bombay/Mumbai, Nigeria, Bali, Dahab, Somalia, New York, DC, etc., etc., etc. >>
Yeah, what's that add up to? One Falluja plus a couple of bunker-busters and a willie peter? Ten wedding parties plus a dozen family cars lit up at check-points? GET REAL for once in your life.
<<Perhaps you should stick with sarcasm, since civil & substantive debate is definately not your strength>>
When my sarcasm sails right over your head and draws the same kind of response most sane and normal people would give to serious debating points, I think it's the sarcasm I should give up completely and try to concentrate on building my civil and substantive debate skills up to the point where they can match yours.
<<Of course isolated events at locations like Abu Graib have occured. And those folks are condemned & prosecuted. The issue, continues to be Tee's grand proclaimation of the U.S. military as a whole being this barbarous out-of-control raping machine, then using hyperbole to supposedly validate it. >>
What's hilarious is that every time it occurs, it's another "isolated event." That the folks "condemned and prosecuted" include not a single senior officer despite the fact that most of the torture occurs within the four walls of prison compounds and not in the field, sails right over sirs' head. That the "condemned" suffer at most an original eight-year prison sentences (always reduced on appeal) andat least mere reprimands is never mentioned. That the "President" has instructed his legal officers to defend his right to define "torture" and refuses to submit his troops to the scrutiny of international war crimes courts means nothing to sirs. That the practice described as "isolated" has cropped up in American prisons separated by hundreds and even thousands of miles is of no significance. That the President's legal advisers have declared the Geneva Conventions "quaint and old-fashioned" is undoubtedly also an isolated instance. What we have here is not an inability to connect the dots, ladies and gentlemen, it is an inability to see a picture that is as plain and unambiguous as a Renoir painting, only a lot uglier.
<< pay close attention to some of this hyperbolic stuff like "they're trained killers, >>
No, they're psychiatric social workers and Professors of Greek philosophy.
<< . . .and what they were sent over there to do was to kill and to keep on killing until all resistance to their occupation of another people's homeland was completely and utterly crushed">>
No, they're ordered to party and boogie all night long and then teach little kids how to read Arabic and study Koran.
<< . . . . and that it's a war against all Arabs.>>
Now THAT'S not true. The war is against all Arabs who have oil and won't give it up to the Americans or have land and won't give it up to the Israelis. The rest of the Arabs can all go fuck themselves, unless of course they choose to come to the assistance of the "bad" Arabs who won't give up their oil or their land. But you knew that.
-
The "insugency " in Iraq has as its most frequently used tactic the killing of other Iriquis.
I do not see them deserveing your sympathy.
-
<<The "insugency " in Iraq has as its most frequently used tactic the killing of other Iriquis.>>
To be perfectly honest, at this point we do not really know WHO is killing the other Iraqis or what is the involvement of the U.S. and/or Israel in the killing. The recent discovery in Lebanon of networks of Arab killers acting under contract to the Mossad to create chaos, to stigmatize Syria and Hezbollah, is indicative of a tactic that could very well be working to great effect in Iraq today. The cui bono question alone points the finger of guilt directly at the U.S.A. and/or Israel. There certainly seems to be little benefit to Iraq in all this random and devastating violence.
<<I do not see them deserveing your sympathy. >>
Even allowing for the possibility that what we are witnessing really is a case of internal Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, as improbable as it now seems, there is nothing admirable about it. Such killers would not have my sympathies. Who but a lunatic could sympathize with anyone setting off explosives in a crowded marketplace? But there seem to be plenty of lunatics, because there is no shortage of folks who would sympathize with U.S. pilots firing missiles into a wedding party or a collection of so-called "safe houses" with enormous civilian loss of life and limb.