Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bush didn't start a war dumbass he ended one. We were already at war with Saddam Hussein when Bush took office. You don't drop bombs on purpose on people you aren't at war with. Various locales within Iraq were being bombed almost daily by US aircraft during the latter days of the Clinton administration.
Bush didn't start a war dumbass he ended one. We were already at war with Saddam Hussein when Bush took office. You don't drop bombs on purpose on people you aren't at war with. Various locales within Iraq were being bombed almost daily by US aircraft during the latter days of the Clinton administration.
I see. That war is ended. I have a suggestion for you, since that war is ended and it is so peaceful over there, just why don't you take a walk in Mosul by yourself.
Bush started a war, on the basis of lies he had a hand in fabricating. His henchmen committed treason protecting those lies in the Plame case. And you supported all of this. Real fucking American you are.
Bush didn't start a war dumbass he ended one. We were already at war with Saddam Hussein when Bush took office. You don't drop bombs on purpose on people you aren't at war with. Various locales within Iraq were being bombed almost daily by US aircraft during the latter days of the Clinton administration.
I see. That war is ended. I have a suggestion for you, since that war is ended and it is so peaceful over there, just why don't you take a walk in Mosul by yourself.
Bush started a war, on the basis of lies he had a hand in fabricating. His henchmen committed treason protecting those lies in the Plame case. And you supported all of this. Real fucking American you are.
I rest my case Old Rocks. You can't prove anyhing you stated, but that your leaning over the left edge...now take that last step...you can do it.
The radicalization preceded the Iraq war.
"To understand why more and more Muslims are becoming radicalized, one can look to the original currents that fed into the violent Islamic extremism of the 1980s and '90s, culminating on September 11, 2001. Along with a majority of the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who embraces the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam, puritanical in its strictures and extremely intolerant of nonbelievers."
FRONTLINE/WORLD . Canada - The Cell Door . Reversing Islamic Radicalization . PBS
I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument.
Then how would you explain why AQ never bothered with Iraq before it's invasion, which split the two major Iraqi factions of Shia and Sunni? If their intent was to slither into any region where Muslims were pissed off going back 30 years, Iraq should have been ripe for recruitment. Oh wait! Bin Laden DID offer to help Saddam Hussein stave off another invasion by Iran, and SH said thanks but no thanks. Al Qaeda only appeared in large numbers AFTER the U.S. invasion and successfully recruited the sudden minority, which was once the majority, the Sunnis. It's a classic Qaeda MO.
Numerous mistakes.
"Bin Laden DID offer to help Saddam Hussein stave off another invasion by Iran, and SH said thanks but no thanks." Documentation?
On the contrary, "Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qaeda operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraq."
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In your statement "If their intent was to slither into any region where Muslims were pissed off," you miss the point of radical Islam. There are many different groups of jihadists, some like Al Qaeda are internationalst, interested in a caliphate.
Some are nationalist, such as we see in Mehsud and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).
As far as appearing in Iraq, 90% of the fighter in AQ Iraq were Iraqi, although leadership was mostly foreign fighters."Al Qaeda In Iraq is part of the global al Qaeda movement. AQI, as the U.S. military calls it, is around 90 percent Iraqi. Foreign fighters, however, predominate in the leadership..."
Al Qaeda In Iraq
The ideology is so strict, that countries that control the religious establishment are able to isolate them as deviant. So Saddam's Baath secular party had a leg up, as did the Saudi royal family.
The point is, the radicals enter, less where "Muslims were pissed off" than were there is weakness or a power vacuum.
You need to rework your view of the history of the region, and incorporate items such as:
"Al Qaeda's ideology is the lineal descendant of a school of thought articulated most compellingly by the Egyptian revolutionary Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s, with an admixture of Wahhabism, Deobandi thought, or simple, mainstream Sunni chauvinism, depending on where and by what group it is propounded."
Al Qaeda In Iraq
And the following:
King Abdel-Aziz was the founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He found himself battling the Ikhwan, a tribal religious militia of extremist Wahhabibs. This was in the 1920's. An alliance between Abdel-Aziz and the family of Mohammad bin Abdel-Wahhab resulted in the conquest of what is now the kingdom, and the kingdom assumed he religious preference of Abdel-Wahhab as far back as the start of the 20th century.
Begin here for your study of Al Qaeda, which then adds Qutb's Lenin-Marxism, and the resentment of the Afghanistan invasion by the Russians, the efforts of the ISI of Pakistan to enforce strict Islam on the resistence, and the removal of Saddam's foot from the neck of those unhappy in Iraq. Include those who were suddenly out of work when Saddam was overthrown and had grown used to being in charge.
Now include:
"Yemen has become a jihadist hub where Saudi jihadists have regrouped along with their counterparts from Iraq, Somalia, etc. Yemens north-south divide is re-emerging, meaning that there are two competing nationalisms in the country."
More jihadis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, both different that Iraq, or Saudi Arabia:
"Afghanistan and Pakistan both have highly fragmented religious landscapes consisting of rival Islamist groups, competing Sunni sects and networks of madrassas, the Deobandis (the sect of the Taliban and other Islamist militant groups) are a growing movement, posing a challenge to the Shia and the majority Barelvis (a South Asian form of Sufi Islam)."
Stratfor.com
Even Saudi Arabia has suffered attacks by what you would call Al Qaeda, or pre-Al Qaeda jihadis, including the dramatic attack on the Kaaba in 1979. See "The Siege of Mecca," by Trofimov.
In summary, the argument that the US either created Al Qaeda or served as a recruiting tool is false. The philosophy must be traced back to the Ikhwan prior to 1900, and a time-line can be created to show the incorporations and permutations that resulted in the radical groups we see today.
The talking point "the attack (invasion) of Iraq is the reason for the fighters in Iraq" or its corollary, "we are less safe today" is therefore, bogus.
Do a little more work before your next post.
"I guess that puts a stake through the heart of your argument."
Hi Rati,
What brings you here?
Did someone put out some cheese?
Didn't I just read you complaining about others ad hominem attacks on you? Your credibility slips about another 50 points when you engage in blatant hypocrisy.
Hey, are you stickin' up for the Rat?
Don't worry, it rolls right off her pelt. And I'll bet she really likes cheese.
Actually, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,..."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, you see, you are wrong. It's not an ad hominem, in the sense that I am not using it to respond to an argument...it's a direct assault.
But thank you for assuming that I am perfect. I'll try to do a good deed to make up for it.
You should go back to school...you've no real understanding of anything. But you do whine well, I'll give you that.Didn't I just read you complaining about others ad hominem attacks on you? Your credibility slips about another 50 points when you engage in blatant hypocrisy.
Hey, are you stickin' up for the Rat?
Don't worry, it rolls right off her pelt. And I'll bet she really likes cheese.
Actually, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,..."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, you see, you are wrong. It's not an ad hominem, in the sense that I am not using it to respond to an argument...it's a direct assault.
But thank you for assuming that I am perfect. I'll try to do a good deed to make up for it.
No we haven't not since Reagan. Rush complained like hell about a lot of crap Bush did as did many others of us. Most of us feel like the only thing Bush got right was the war and it took him way to long to get that right.
I see. That war is ended. I have a suggestion for you, since that war is ended and it is so peaceful over there, just why don't you take a walk in Mosul by yourself.
Bush started a war, on the basis of lies he had a hand in fabricating. His henchmen committed treason protecting those lies in the Plame case. And you supported all of this. Real fucking American you are.
I rest my case Old Rocks. You can't prove anyhing you stated, but that your leaning over the left edge...now take that last step...you can do it.
So you blather on. But the facts are all there in the Fitzgerald investigation. And there is no place in Iraq that an American can go safely alone. Other than maybe the Green Zone.
You're joking, right? These are the assholes that claimed for 8 years that liberals were treasonous terrorists.
Right because we...*gasp* dared to criticize the president!
See the last post and show me where you "...*gasp* dared to criticize the [Democrat] president!"
Like the petard?
Didn't I just read you complaining about others ad hominem attacks on you? Your credibility slips about another 50 points when you engage in blatant hypocrisy.
Hey, are you stickin' up for the Rat?
Don't worry, it rolls right off her pelt. And I'll bet she really likes cheese.
Actually, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,..."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, you see, you are wrong. It's not an ad hominem, in the sense that I am not using it to respond to an argument...it's a direct assault.
But thank you for assuming that I am perfect. I'll try to do a good deed to make up for it.
I seem to recall a time not too long ago when you didn't get your panties all in a wad every time someone disagreed with you. Now you've become just another fucking joke. Carry on. Your ego contributes to the disintegration of your party's influence.
I ask again, PC, is John McCain a member of the "Blame America First" crowd, or is he one of these effeminette panty-waist girly men you delight in describing.
I ask again, PC, is John McCain a member of the "Blame America First" crowd, or is he one of these effeminette panty-waist girly men you delight in describing.
What difference does it make?
My opinion is that, in defense of our citizens I want my government to take any and all steps outside of torture, and these would include the enhanced interrogation techniques in the OP to protect us.
And if the college pranks as I have listed them are torture, please show how it corresponds to the following:
Reading the Miles Unger biography of Lorenzo De Medici, I came across what I would consider torture:
27th September [1481] a certain hermit came to the house of Lorenzo de Medici and declared that he intended to murder Lorenzo, so they took him and sent him to the Bargello, and he was put to the rack.
15th October. This hermit died at Santa Maria Novella, having been tortured in various way. It was said that they skinned the soles of his feet, and then burnt them by holding them in the fire till the fat dripped off them; after which they set him upright and made him walk across the hall; and these things caused his death.
Page 227-228
America doesnt torture, but extremists apply the term in such a way that is meant to seem so.
And as far as the terms 'effeminate,' and 'girly-man,' if the shoe fits, slip it on.
I ask again, PC, is John McCain a member of the "Blame America First" crowd, or is he one of these effeminette panty-waist girly men you delight in describing.
What difference does it make?
My opinion is that, in defense of our citizens I want my government to take any and all steps outside of torture, and these would include the enhanced interrogation techniques in the OP to protect us.
And if the college pranks as I have listed them are torture, please show how it corresponds to the following:
Reading the Miles Unger biography of Lorenzo De Medici, I came across what I would consider torture:
27th September [1481] a certain hermit came to the house of Lorenzo de Medici and declared that he intended to murder Lorenzo, so they took him and sent him to the Bargello, and he was put to the rack.
15th October. This hermit died at Santa Maria Novella, having been tortured in various way. It was said that they skinned the soles of his feet, and then burnt them by holding them in the fire till the fat dripped off them; after which they set him upright and made him walk across the hall; and these things caused his death.
Page 227-228
America doesnt torture, but extremists apply the term in such a way that is meant to seem so.
And as far as the terms 'effeminate,' and 'girly-man,' if the shoe fits, slip it on.
Once again, would you apply these terms to John McCain, a man who has stated his opinion that waterboarding is torture and illegal, a man who has been tortured? You keep creating this false dichotomy, I'm asking you to apply it to a real life person. You seem reluctant to do so.
Or has McCain, by experiencing torture, somehow invalidated his opinion on what torture is? Or are you absurdly trying to paint the other side with colors they do not, in reality, portray?
The torture you describe is horrific, yes, but just because more horrific torture exists than what we've done does not mean what we have done is not torture. Just because you have this image that torture is always done with blood and broken bones doesn't mean those are the only kinds of torture that exist. Nearly every definition of torture you can find in a dictionary or in the law includes mental trauma. You are attempting to narrow the definition to suit your political aims.
My point in bringing him up has been to point out that your characterization of people who share his opinion is false. It's something of a side issue, I admit, but you've been consistently and unfairly denigrating the other side of the argument.You miss the point.
It's not his opinion that counts in this thread: it's mine.
In some of your examples, you may as well be comparing a person clipping their fingernails with a person having their fingernails pulled out. Magnitude matters.I've presented my opinion that the term 'torture' is not applicable with the parameters of the NYTimes article. I've give examples of similar events in ordinary life, similar in kind if not in magnitude.
to be exact, you said "To draw a fine line, I believe that those who call the enhanced interrogation techniques 'torture' fall into one of two camps: either the 'Blame America First' camp or those who are so feminized that they don't recognize the threat, or are unable to respond to it.Did you note that I did not apply the terms to which you object to you or any other person, and in fact, asked if you would like to identify yourself as such.
Now, don't claim that I am inundating you with extaneous material, but in an attempt to further indicate the way I see it, consider Michael Scheuer's comment:
""So if the above worst-case scenario ever comes to pass, Americans will have at least two things from which to take solace, even after the loss of major cities and tens of thousands of countrymen. First, they will know that their president believes that those losses are a small price to pay for stopping interrogations and making foreign peoples like us more. And second, they will see Osama bin Laden's shy smile turn into a calm and beautiful God-is-Great grin."
Bill Bennett: Quotes And Statements
This is my main guy. He knows the enemy, and he asks you if stopping interrogations is worth the lives of "thousands of countrymen."
Would you care to answer?
Hey, are you stickin' up for the Rat?
Don't worry, it rolls right off her pelt. And I'll bet she really likes cheese.
Actually, "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim,..."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, you see, you are wrong. It's not an ad hominem, in the sense that I am not using it to respond to an argument...it's a direct assault.
But thank you for assuming that I am perfect. I'll try to do a good deed to make up for it.
I seem to recall a time not too long ago when you didn't get your panties all in a wad every time someone disagreed with you. Now you've become just another fucking joke. Carry on. Your ego contributes to the disintegration of your party's influence.
Wow, you really took it personally when I was forced to give you a lesson on the history of the radical islamic movement.
Good. I meant for you to.
In the future, post about a subject where you actually have knowledge, not just opinion.
My point in bringing him up has been to point out that your characterization of people who share his opinion is false. It's something of a side issue, I admit, but you've been consistently and unfairly denigrating the other side of the argument.You miss the point.
It's not his opinion that counts in this thread: it's mine.In some of your examples, you may as well be comparing a person clipping their fingernails with a person having their fingernails pulled out. Magnitude matters.I've presented my opinion that the term 'torture' is not applicable with the parameters of the NYTimes article. I've give examples of similar events in ordinary life, similar in kind if not in magnitude.to be exact, you said "To draw a fine line, I believe that those who call the enhanced interrogation techniques 'torture' fall into one of two camps: either the 'Blame America First' camp or those who are so feminized that they don't recognize the threat, or are unable to respond to it.Did you note that I did not apply the terms to which you object to you or any other person, and in fact, asked if you would like to identify yourself as such.
You are perfectly free to disagree."
Now, don't claim that I am inundating you with extaneous material, but in an attempt to further indicate the way I see it, consider Michael Scheuer's comment:
""So if the above worst-case scenario ever comes to pass, Americans will have at least two things from which to take solace, even after the loss of major cities and tens of thousands of countrymen. First, they will know that their president believes that those losses are a small price to pay for stopping interrogations and making foreign peoples like us more. And second, they will see Osama bin Laden's shy smile turn into a calm and beautiful God-is-Great grin."
Bill Bennett: Quotes And Statements
This is my main guy. He knows the enemy, and he asks you if stopping interrogations is worth the lives of "thousands of countrymen."
Would you care to answer?
If we focus on this worst case scenario, anything less than that becomes morally possible. Why not find one of KSM's children, bring him in and slowly torture him to death in front of him, at that point? Where do you draw the line? Is one mutilated child worth thousands of countrymen? is a dozen? At what point, by that logic, does the tradeoff become unacceptable to you?
This is not about "making foreign people like us more". This is about our country's honor and dignity.
