U.S. Government KNOWINGLY let Mutallab board Detroit flight

[Michael Tee]

<<Ah huh, backing off on Al Qaeda as the heroic French Resistance protecting Iraq from America huh.>>

No, just backing out of your attempt to put words in my mouth praising al Qaeda as the equivalent to the French Resistance.  Morally they're on a par with their American enemies.

<<I see you also have now admitted that Al Qaeda wanted to overthrow at least one regime.>>

I never denied it.  We differ on primary motivation.  You seem to think they were primarily motivated by the dream of a restored Caliphate, I tend to think the immediate goal was the expulsion of the infidels from the sacred soil.  They weren't galvanized into action by the dream of a Caliphate, they wanted the Americans out.

<<Maybe you'll wake up to bin Ladens purpose after all. >>

I know what his purpose is.  It's to get those fat infidel asses off all Muslim land.

<<Maybe you'll realize he wants all of them to capitulate to his dream and return to a centuries-old Islamic caliphate.>>

Why are you so focused on bin Laden's ultimate dreams, rather than on the motivation of the Americans and the Israelis to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine?  Isn't it kind of like Hitler invading Poland, then France, Belgium and Holland, then attacking England and Russia, all the while raving and ranting about the Jews and Bolsheviks that are trying to enslave the good people of Germany and pollute their bloodstream?  Isn't that a classic example of  Freudian projection?

<<So, from the very get go everyone . . . was afraid Iraq would descend into civil war after our invasion because what? >>

Who's everyone?  You including Cheney and Wolfowicz and Bush and Rice and Perle and Rumsfeld and Feith and . . . ?  They ever confide any of those fears to anyone prior to the invasion?  They sure must have used the argument after the invasion, once it became apparent that the Tales of WMD were just One Big Fuckin Lie, at that point they had to use "fear of civil war" as the new rationale for being in Iraq, even though civil war never broke out till about three years after the invasion.

<<They didn't have a history of being on the constant verge of one? >>

LOL  - -   Oh, lookee here!   Look who's backtrackin' now.  From "constant state of civil war" to "constant verge of one."  Nice footwork, BSB.  You should be teaching dancing at an Arthur Murray academy.

<<If we invaded Norway would everyone be concerned about them descending into civil war . . . ?"

Why gosh, NO, we wouldn't, BSB.  I never realized that.  And of course the Norwegians are SO like the Iraqis that it's absolutely uncanny!!  So, uhh, let's see if I got this straight - - uh, the absence of civil war in Norway is proof of a civil war in Iraq?  Or is it the other way round?  Shit, this stuff is complex!  Help me out here.

 << . . . or would the concern be about a unified effort to remove us? Gee, ya think the latter might be more applicable?>>

BSB you're on to something!  Wow.  Invaders tend to be resisted.  Holy fuckin shit, who woulda thunk?  You're becoming a fucking genius, BSB.  Maybe it's due to your long association with Prof. Tripp.  It's rubbing off on yiz.

[BSB]

Ah huh, so now you're admitting that Iraq was constantly on the verge of civil war, just not actually there yet. Good, you're getting there, slowly, but you're getting there. In case you regress, think about Saddam gassing and bombing his own people. Hummm, kinda like civil war, bin Snowblower?

BTW, this is exactly what I said: "He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war."

I also noticed you brought up Hitler, Israel, and all your other obsessions. Try and stick to the subject. In case you forgot the subject is whether the US caused Iraq to descended into civil war all by itself, or whether Iraq was on the verge of civil war long before America got there, and would have descended into flat out civil war at some point anyway.

[Michael Tee]

<<Ah huh, so now you're admitting that Iraq was constantly on the verge of civil war, just not actually there yet. Good, you're getting there, slowly, but you're getting there. >>

You are a very confused individual.  I didn't admit anything.  I pointed out that YOU were regressing from a position where there was constant civil war in Iraq to a new position that claimed Iraq was "on the verge" of civil war, whatever the fuck that means, except that it was not actually engaged in civil war as you first stated.  A "verge" is an edge or a margin, as alongside a roadway.  A verge can be a few inches wide, or it can be ten or twenty feet wide, so being "on the verge" of war is a particularly meaningless observation.  Snipers can be taking up positions and foot soldiers rehearsing for an attack the next morning or it can just be resentment growing between two opposing groups.


<<In case you regress, think about Saddam gassing and bombing his own people. Hummm, kinda like civil war, bin Snowblower?>>

Yes, exactly, it WAS a civil war.  It came and it went - - Saddam and his national army beat the Kurds and they beat the Marsh Arabs and then after they were beaten down, civil peace resumed.  Doesn't really fit your absurd claim of constant civil war in Iraq now, does it.

<<BTW, this is exactly what I said: "He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war.">>

I'll come back to "exactly" what you said in a moment.

<<I also noticed you brought up Hitler, Israel, and all your other obsessions. >>

WWII is the central event of the past hundred years and references to it are inevitable.  I don't know what I said about Israel, but it was probably a very apt example.  I will return to that too in a moment.

====================================  "a moment" has passed.  So . . .

You claimed that THIS is exactly what you said:  <<He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war.>>

We may be talking at cross-purposes, because HERE is also exactly what you said:  <<Iraq has been in a state of civil war since the Brits created it.>>  (Reply No. 65)   It was this latter remark that I referred to as bullshit.  I still refer to it as bullshit.

Here is the other of your asinine blather to which I said I would return momentarily - - <<I also noticed you brought up Hitler, Israel, and all your other obsessions.>>

Yes, I explained the Hitler reference, which as the central event of the past century I believe will serve as a point of reference for many more decades as the politics of this century unfolds.  It's familiar to everyone, needs no explication and presents sharply drawn choices and conflicts which few other examples can do with such unmistakeable clarity.  It's an apt choice of an example or illustration, and if you're too fucking dumb to appreciate why, that is not really my problem. 

I was kind of puzzled by your reference to my "other obsession," Israel, until I remembered that I did mention it as ONE OF FOUR examples of OBL's determination to rid Muslim lands of infidel invaders.  For an alleged obsession, it certainly played a very minor role in this thread, but if it pleases you to call it one of my obsessions, who the fuck gives a shit?

[BSB]

Debating what on the verge means......ha ha.

Give it up moron, you lost.

[Michael Tee]

<<Debating what on the verge means......ha ha.

<<Give it up moron, you lost. >>

Declare victory, hit enter, eh?  That was one small point, moron, which you lost along with all the other points you don't see fit to mention.  "On the verge" has a somewhat elastic meaning and in any event is quite different from your original claim that Iraq was in a constant state of civil war.  Even the "on the verge" quote is wrong.

[BSB]

You argued against on the "verge of civil war", and you argued against "constant state of civil war", so, it's irrelevant to me which one you pick. The facts are the facts. Iraq descended into civil war because that was inherent in the fabric of Iraq, not because we invaded them. Our invasion just provoked what was already inherent. And that's not to forgive the invasion. I'm on record in here going back to Sept. of 2002 as being against the pending, at that time, attack. And, I'm on record in here pointing to the chaos, and its risks, that the invasion provoked starting 2 or 3 weeks after the fall of Baghdad. That's about 8 months before Bush and Rumsfeld publicly hinted at its significance.

Give it up bin Snowblower. Your heart may, MAY, be in the right place, but you can't think. That's kind of a handicap in a debate forum.

[Michael Tee]

<<You argued against on the "verge of civil war", and you argued against "constant state of civil war", so, it's irrelevant to me which one you pick. >>

Let's try to get our facts right and in the proper order.

You argued for constant state of civil war and claimed that Tripp would back you up.  He didn't.  The most that you could find in Tripp was that Iraq was "on the verge" of civil war.  That's not true either, but it's not as far off as your first statement. 

So I DENIED that Iraq was in a constant state of civil war (correctly) and I denied that Iraq was "constantly" on the verge of civil war (which is just plain wrong) and pointed out (again correctly) that "on the verge" is a very elastic term, hardly debateable in fact, since it may mean one thing to one person and something different to another.

<<The facts are the facts. Iraq descended into civil war because that was inherent in the fabric of Iraq . . . >>

Again, you start with the undeniable assertion that "facts are facts" and then (presumably as one of those facts that are facts) try to slip in as a fact, something which is not a fact but an opinion, namely the opinion that "civil war was inherent in the fabric of Iraq," a ridiculous and totally unverifiable opinion, the sloppiness of which you hope to get away with because civil war did in fact break out some three years after the fall of Saddam.  That the civil war was deliberately provoked by one of the warring sides is not even a factor in your scenario, because the civil war was simply "inherent in the fabric" of Iraq - - which would render any deliberate provocations irrelevant.

Civil war had in fact broken out and been quickly suppressed by Hussein.  Had there been no invasion, the likeliest outcome for Iraq would have been a consolidation of Saddam's power or a coup d’état by a rival clique of Sunni officers, IMHO.  In neither case resulting in any gains for either the Kurds or the Basra Arabs.  There is no credible evidence that I have seen that indicates further renewal of hostilities either by the Kurds or by the Basra Arabs.  As a matter of fact in both cases of the "civil wars" that you attribute to Saddam's reign of terror, both rebellions were instigated by U.S. interference and promises (never fulfilled) of support for the rebels.  The promises were reneged on, in the case of the Kurds, because the U.S. could not piss off a NATO ally, Turkey and in the case of the Basra Arabs, because the hard-core rebels were followers of the late Ayatollah Khomeini and their troops plastered his image all over every town they took.  Once Saddam had put down these insurrections, the rebels had no further hope of U.S. aid, would not have believed in any more U.S. promises, and were running to cover wherever they could find it, the leaders of the Basra Arabs to Iraq and the Kurdish leaders into their mountain fortresses.  This was not a country "on the verge" of anything except kissing Saddam's ass and hoping he wouldn't get mad at you or anyone you knew.

<<Give it up bin Snowblower. Your heart may, MAY, be in the right place, but you can't think. That's kind of a handicap in a debate forum.>>

Everyone in this forum is debating with a handicap of some kind and I don't think mine is any worse than anyone else's.  We disagree, fine, but your remarks are patronizing and I don't think they belong in a forum like this.  Or like this should be, I guess.  Everyone here's entitled to his opinion and entitled to a certain basic level of respect, which does not include having his brainpower insulted.  Although I've been guilty of doing so myself sometimes.  Oftentimes.  Most of the time.  Anyway it's never too late to turn over a new leaf and take a new shot at civility.  Onward and upward, so to speak.

[BSB]

I speak to you the way I do because if you don't shut up and try and learn you're wasting my time, and I haven't got the time. I'm not into mental masturbation. I didn't post that the civil war that broke out in Iraq was more because of the way Iraq is then because of the US invasion because I like to post. I said it because it's true. Further, for anyone who has been paying even cursorary attention that has been patiently obvious for years.

Wasting someone's time is an insult, and it's an insult I don't take lightly. You don't want me to snarl at you when I post, stop wasting my time.

[Plane]

As far as the Kurds , the verge must have been narrow.

The Kurds were in militant rebellion the whole time Saddam was in charge and wern't happy earlyer.

Didn't the Shah of Iran irritate Saddam regularly by supporting the militant Kurds ? That isn't recent.

Supression of the Shiite Majority didn't begin recently either.


So what year was Iraq last harmonious?

Lets look at that time.

[Michael Tee]

<<Supression of the Shiite Majority didn't begin recently either.>>

That's the whole point.  There was no "suppression of the Shi'ite majority" in the sense that it's usually taken to mean.

Saddam was not a religious man, he was an Arab socialist with a socialist program and an anti-religious bias.  It's interesting to keep in mind that he did not support such Sunni religious extremist movements as Wahabbism, despite their efforts to gain a foothold in Sunni Iraq.

The Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party subscribed to pan-Arabic beliefs, which were that all Arabs should submerge their religious differences and unite on the basis of their common Arabic culture.  These were also Saddam's beliefs.

Kurds, Christians, Shi'ites who subscribed to the principles of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party were welcomed into the Party and could rise in the legislative, executive or judicial branches of the Iraqi government. 

At the same time, Saddam trusted almost no one except his family and townsmen, who monopolized the top levels of power in all branches of government.  This necessarily excluded top-ranking Shi'ite leaders from the real power centres, from which power flows downward in the form of jobs, contracts, etc.  Shi'ite leadership is traditionally religious rather than secular, and because of the religion, many Iraqi Shi'ite leaders had very close ties with Iran.    This wasn't something that Saddam would easily tolerate, and a lot of action was taken against Shi'ite religious leaders who were viewed as threats by Saddam.  This was NOT a deliberate suppression of the entire Shi'ite population of the country, as would be implied by the phrase "suppression of the Shi'ite majority."

[Plane]

    So it was an effective and actual supression of the Shiite majority , but not a deliberate suppression of the Shiite majority?

     I guess I have a higher opinion of Saddam if he was locking up and slaying those people because he didn't trust them , and not because he was trying to please God.

     Effect being equal the quality of the motive gains importance.

[Michael Tee]

<<So it was an effective and actual supression of the Shiite majority , but not a deliberate suppression of the Shiite majority?>>

Who are you debating with?  Yourself?  I don't recognize the source of the contradiction that you are asking about.

<<I guess I have a higher opinion of Saddam if he was locking up and slaying those people because he didn't trust them , and not because he was trying to please God.>>

Well, I certainly agree with you that Saddam was not trying to please God.  So we have apparently found some common ground.

<<Effect being equal the quality of the motive gains importance.>>

Uhhh . . . yeah.  I guess.  I think you're kind of losing me here, plane.

[Plane]

<<So it was an effective and actual supression of the Shiite majority , but not a deliberate suppression of the Shiite majority?>>

Who are you debating with?  Yourself?  I don't recognize the source of the contradiction that you are asking about.

<<I guess I have a higher opinion of Saddam if he was locking up and slaying those people because he didn't trust them , and not because he was trying to please God.>>

Well, I certainly agree with you that Saddam was not trying to please God.  So we have apparently found some common ground.

<<Effect being equal the quality of the motive gains importance.>>

Uhhh . . . yeah.  I guess.  I think you're kind of losing me here, plane.

I am sorry but you were lost to begin with.

I admire your attempt at reforming Saddam , that can't be easy .

But my point was that the Shiite were opressed ,I was not really careing whythey were being opressed.


Do you want to point out what good reason Saddam had for applying gas to his Kurdish minority next?

[Rich]

>>I admire your attempt at reforming Saddam , that can't be easy.<<

LMAO!

No that can't be easy plane. Only a demented terrorist fuck could do such a thing. But by all means, tell him how wonderful he is for trying.

Asshole.

[Plane]

>>I admire your attempt at reforming Saddam , that can't be easy.<<

LMAO!

No that can't be easy plane. Only a demented terrorist fuck could do such a thing. But by all means, tell him how wonderful he is for trying.

Asshole.

I do want someone around who is willing to speak up for Saddam.

How would your debate about anything work , Rich?


Plane -Boy that Fidel Castro sure is stupid!

Rich- Yep

Rich - I wish we could find another Teddy Rosevelt to elect

Plane- Yep

Plane- Good thing the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution in the second admendment

Rich- Yep

Rich - Hey, the Saints won, Good game.

Plane-Yep


If you think of debate this way, I think you are not clear on the concept.