NationStates Jolt Archive

Tue Sep 20, 2005
Cindy versus Hillary: Holding the Democrats Accountable

In a move that is sure to send fissures through the Democratic party "leadership," antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan is squaring off against Hillary Clinton (*1)

"Sheehan isn’t stopping her critique with Bush. On the contrary, she has begun to set her sights on Congress and the Democratic Party as well. When she spoke in Brooklyn on the night before, she took note of the fact that Senator Hillary Clinton voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq and– like most Senate Democrats–has done little to bring the troops home. Clinton, in fact, has filed legislation calling for more troops.

"In an interview after her speech, Sheehan told the Voice she was 'so frustrated' by leading Democrats like Clinton 'who should be leaders on this issue, but are not.' Already, she has set up a future meeting with New York’s junior senator this weekend. And she plans to sit down with the state’s senior senator, Chuck Schumer, too. 'It’s time for them to step up and be the opposition party,' she said. 'This war is not going to end unless the Democrats are on board with us.'”

Good luck with those meetings, Cindy -- especially the one with Hillary -- but if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Democratic party to step up to the plate. You'll remember that the legislation authorizing U.S efforts to intervene in Iraq, the "Iraq Liberation Act,"(*2) was sponsored by Hillary's hubby, the Great Pants-Dropper, and Senator Schumer was one of the more vociferous in supporting the bill.

Yes, it's true that a great many rank-and-file Democrats are opposed to this war, and, unlike Hillary and her fellow Hillary-crats, don't want to send additional troops to Iraq to "finish the job." However, they don't control the Democratic party, which has slavishly tied itself to neoconservative foreign policy goals -- albeit with a slightly different emphasis than the Republicans.

This is a learning process that the anti-war left is going through, and it will be interesting to see how it develops. We can, in any case, be sure of this: Cindy and her admirers will come away from this looming confrontation with the Democratic party leadership with a far more realistic view of "who should be leaders on this issue" -- and, more importantly, who are their friends, and who qualifies as an enemy.

UPDATE: Apparently, the meeting with Schumer did not go well, to begin with, because he refused to meet with her, and instead sent an aide. She asked the aide if Senator Schumer would help in the effort to bring this war to an end, and the aide replied that: "Senator Schumer thinks this war is good for America." According to the source, Sheehan walked out, remarking "Wel, I guess this means Schumer thinks my son's death was good for America." Or words to that effect.

*1 http://villagevoice.com/news/0538,lombardiweb,68015,2.html
*2 http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Mon Sep 19, 2005
Cindy Sheehan Harassed By NYPD

Cindy Sheehan spoke to about 150 people in Union Square today -- but her talk was cut short when a NYPD goon squad charged into the crowd, yanked her off the stage, and pulled the plug on the rally. It isn't clear if she was arrested or not.

The last major antiwar march in NYC had such a hard time getting a permit... The commissars over at the New York Sun were agitating to delay granting the march a permit as long as possible:

"Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly are doing the people of New York and the people of Iraq a great service by delaying and obstructing the anti-war protest planned for February 15. The longer they delay in granting the protesters a permit, the less time the organizers have to get their turnout organized, and the smaller the crowd is likely to be."

Mon Sep 19, 2005
Cindy Sheehan Harassed By NYPD

Cindy Sheehan spoke to about 150 people in Union Square today -- but her talk was cut short when a NYPD goon squad charged into the crowd, yanked her off the stage, and pulled the plug on the rally. It isn't clear if she was arrested or not.

The last major antiwar march in NYC had such a hard time getting a permit... The commissars over at the New York Sun were agitating to delay granting the march a permit as long as possible:

"Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly are doing the people of New York and the people of Iraq a great service by delaying and obstructing the anti-war protest planned for February 15. The longer they delay in granting the protesters a permit, the less time the organizers have to get their turnout organized, and the smaller the crowd is likely to be."

Finally.

She's getting more people killed in Iraq.

I think that Cindy Sheehan bitch should shut her fat ugly mouth.

And oh yeah.

I claim this thread in the name of ME!

I think that Cindy Sheehan bitch should shut her fat ugly mouth!flaming is only going make you look like a 8 years old.

I understand she didn't have the proper permits, and there was some resistance when Police tried to disperse the crowd.

Resisting the police in a situation like that isn't the answer.

I understand she didn't have the proper permits...of course she didnt...the Major of NY is Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is a staunch Israel supporter...(maybe cos he is Jewish?).

This has got to have the right-wing in a tizzy--the two women they love to hate going at each other.

Well, her "credibility" with the Media certainly took a hit when she declared New Orleans to be "Occupied" by US troops in the same way Iraq is...

She's an anti-US anti-military loon. She was before her sone volunteered and just went off the deep end when he died... only it took her "Occupied New Orleans" rant for the Dems to realize it.

She reminds me of an Iowahawk piece about Hollywood types:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2004/11/blue_state_blue.html

"I was driving past a McDonalds one day last summer, and I thought I saw Rain's bike outside. He had told me earlier that he was going to a friend's house to stuff envelopes for the Dennis Kucinich campaign. I pulled a U-turn and headed back," she recalls. "When I confronted him in the parking lot, he started giving me a lame story about how he was only there to protest globalization, but I could smell the french fries on his breath."

McCormack says that Rain's erratic behavior would also come to include excessive politeness and deference.

"Everytime I tried to talk to him it was 'yes Momma,' and 'no Momma,' when he knows damn well my name is Ellen," she says, anger rising in her voice. "It was like I didn't even know him anymore."

McCormack tried an intervention with friends from the Anti-war community, but to no avail. In October, Bobby Ray packed up his Monte Carlo and left for basic training at Camp Pendleton.

"I have no son," she says in a barely audible whisper.

I understand she didn't have the proper permits, and there was some resistance when Police tried to disperse the crowd.

Resisting the police in a situation like that isn't the answer.
You do know that IS a standard revolutionary tactic don't you?

(Knowingly) fail to acquire the correct permits then scream "Facisim" and fight the power when the Police show up (duh).

Oh poor us - look at how mistreated we were! :rolleyes:

Canada City']Finally.

She's getting more people killed in Iraq.

yeah, no kidding... i'm sure the troops over there appreciate her efforts to embolden the enomy.

I think that Cindy Sheehan bitch should shut her fat ugly mouth.

And oh yeah.

I claim this thread in the name of ME!

*blink blink*
Wow! What dazzling rhetoric! What repartee! *applauds lightly*

So happy to support Hillary, and yet it would have been less than a year ago that you would have been amongst those crying for her head, just because Bill O'Reilly, Ann "Thrax" Coulter, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh etc told you so. And yet, if she falls into line and SELLS OUT, she's your fairytale princess.

So you support that fuckwit's war, do you?
Well, then...let me ask you this:
If you support it so much, why aren't YOU there?

Cindy LOST a kid in Iraq, where he was fighting a shit shit war where he had no place being in the first place.

You rank on an innocent woman who has the guts to stand up for her principles i.e. that this war is WRONG, but YOU don't have the guts to stand up for YOURS i.e. JOIN the army and die for this cause that you believe in.

You think that she should shut her MOUTH?
Well, why don't YOU - and any of you who complain that she's getting in the way of your war - put your money where your MOUTH IS? Join the army! Go to Iraq!

But I sincerely doubt you'd do it. You don't have the cojones...

Chickenhawks...you're all alike!
*spits in disgust*

Well, her "credibility" with the Media certainly took a hit when she declared New Orleans to be "Occupied" by US troops in the same way Iraq is...

She's an anti-US anti-military loon. She was before her sone volunteered and just went off the deep end when he died... only it took her "Occupied New Orleans" rant for the Dems to realize it.I dont give a shit about What the US "BIG" Media thinks...

How the Hell can "The-US-Media" assign credibility...when they have no Credibility themselves?

someone in a web site says Sheehan said "this"..Sheehan said "that"...and you expect me to take it at "face-value" ???

I don think so "sone".

I have no idea why anybody's paying any attention to Cindy Shehan. That lady's not really qualified to comment on US foreign policy. Sure she has a right to her opinion, but she's being treated as an expert when she has no more qualifications than the average moron on the street.

This has got to have the right-wing in a tizzy--the two women they love to hate going at each other.

yes... one of the biggest proponents of socialism vs. the woman who's trying hardest to sabotage our efforts in Iraq.

maybe they'll kill each other

..she's being treated as an expert when she has no more qualifications than the average moron on the street.is Bush more Qualified than Sheehan?
Is FEMA Director(Brownie) more qualified?

WAHAHAHAHA... Im laughing because i am sure some moron...somewhere...believes these Chimp-appointed bureaucrats are more qualified to defend their opinion than Sheehan.

You know what else Sheehan is?

An Icon.
A Leader.

what is Hillary Clinton?

Hillary is less than Sheehan.

yes... one of the biggest proponents of socialism vs. the woman who's trying hardest to sabotage our efforts in Iraq.

maybe they'll kill each otherwell If they were both running for the same seat...i would vote for Sheehan.

is Bush more Qualified than Sheehan?
Is FEMA Director(Brownie) more qualified?

WAHAHAHAHA... Im laughing because i am sure some moron...somewhere...believes these Chimp-appointed bureaucrats are more qualified to defend their opinion than Sheehan.

You know what else Sheehan is?

An Icon.
A Leader.

what is Hillary Clinton?

Hillary is less than Sheehan.

icon, my ass. try "traitor"

or are her actions better labeled "sedition" ... what is it when you try to sabotage the US? We don't need hippies like her trying to mess everything up.

fact: if the troops leave Iraq now, all who died there will have died in vain.

is Bush more Qualified than Sheehan?
Is FEMA Director(Brownie) more qualified?

WAHAHAHAHA... Im laughing because i am sure some moron...somewhere...believes these Chimp-appointed bureaucrats are more qualified to defend their opinion than Sheehan.

You know what else Sheehan is?

An Icon.
A Leader.

what is Hillary Clinton?

Hillary is less than Sheehan.
At least it's Bush's job to handle foreign policy (regardless of whether he's qualified for it). Because of that he's supposed to be in the spotlight, but Shehan's just some loudmouth.

Who sees Shehan as an icon? What does she lead?

well If they were both running for the same seat...i would vote for Sheehan.

Sheehan would get the anti-american vote... which wouldn't be enough to beat Clinton. At least Hillary is an American, much as I disagree with many of her policy opinions... at least she's not speaking out against the war and hurting our troops (as a result).

icon, my ass. try "traitor"

or are her actions better labeled "sedition" ... what is it when you try to sabotage the US? We don't need hippies like her trying to mess everything up.

fact: if the troops leave Iraq now, all who died there will have died in vain.
True, they would have died in vain, but that's not even the real problem with leaving now.

The real problem is that Iraq will disintigrate into a chaos of warlords fighting each other like Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Then religious extremists would set up shop there and start training terrorists like Al Quaeda did in Afghanistan.

I dont give a shit about What the US "BIG" Media thinks...

How the Hell can "The-US-Media" assign credibility...when they have no Credibility themselves? I agree totally. I just find it humerous how big a "story" she was until she blabbed about New Orleans.

someone in a web site says Sheehan said "this"..Sheehan said "that"...and you expect me to take it at "face-value" ???
Hmm, how about from her own letter posted on Michael-gaak-Moore's site?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=503

One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.<snip>George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq, and excuse his self from power.
Oh boy. Like that is such a Conservative Hit Piece. :rolleyes: Mama Sheehan is a Loon.
I don think so "sone".
I DO think so, but I'll let Fass crucify you for the above abomination, thank you.

At least it's Bush's job to handle foreign policy (regardless of whether he's qualified for it). Because of that he's supposed to be in the spotlight, but Shehan's just some loudmouth.

Who sees Shehan as an icon? What does she lead?

good question, commies... whom does she lead?

Here's my take:

Sheehan is the outspoken leader of the Citizens Utilizing No Thought Brigade... the C.U.N.T. Brigade.... hippies who naively think that speaking out against the united states presence abroad actually helps anyone... if it does, it helps the terrorists/insurgents against whom we fight and are attempting to conquer SO WE CAN LEAVE IRAQ. in essence, she shoots herself in the foot by arguing against the rebuilding force.

hehe

fact: if the troops leave Iraq now, all who died there will have died in vain.that was the same argument the Chikenhawks were using for Vietnam.

Fact: they have died in vain.
Not if a stable, democratic government that respects human rights can be installed in Iraq. But then from your posting history I think you'd rather see the Iraqi people suffer under years of civil war and oppression by religious extremists just so you'll have more ammo to attack the USA.

Sheehan would get the anti-american vote... which wouldn't be enough to beat Clinton. At least Hillary is an American, much as I disagree with many of her policy opinions... at least she's not speaking out against the war and hurting our troops (as a result).Interesting...

so far most Bushites would vote for Hillary...if the other choise was Sheehan :confused:

Not if a stable, democratic government that respects human rights can be installed in Iraq. that was the same argument the Chikenhawks were using for Vietnam.

icon, my ass. try "traitor"

or are her actions better labeled "sedition" ... what is it when you try to sabotage the US? We don't need hippies like her trying to mess everything up.

fact: if the troops leave Iraq now, all who died there will have died in vain.
You again! Spouting your hateful right-wing ranting!

It's not treacherous to be against the war, and free speech is in the first amendment, maybe you've heard of it? You're the anti-American here.

You probably would have been in Tojo's cabal in 1940s Japan, ratting out all those treacherous, unpatriotic dissidents. Your rhetoric is identical.

Interesting...

so far most Bushites would vote for Hillary...if the other choise was Sheehan :confused:
If there were no other choice, the Revolution would have begun.

But, while Hillary is a nogoodnik IMO, she is also a Politician and is therefore somewhat controlable through the vagrities of Public Opinion.

Mama Sheehan is Certifiable.

So, Yes, I'd choose Hillary... at gunpoint... but yes.

True, they would have died in vain, but that's not even the real problem with leaving now.

The real problem is that Iraq will disintigrate into a chaos of warlords fighting each other like Afghanistan after the Soviets left. Then religious extremists would set up shop there and start training terrorists like Al Quaeda did in Afghanistan.

of course... there are two rock-solid reasons for the troops not to come home until the job is finished.

There are no reasons at all for them to come home right now... at least not if they wish to honor their fallen comrades or give a damn about the new Iraq.

Let it be known that I'm tired of all the flaming. Keep a civil tongue or I'll be going to the mods.

Attack the ideas, proove my statements wrong and there'll be a proper debate. Call me a traitor and a nut-job and you'll be breaking the forum rules.

Now, let's see if we can salvage this thread...

If there were no other choice, the Revolution would have begun.

But, while Hillary is a nogoodnik IMO, she is also a Politician and is therefore somewhat controlable through the vagrities of Public Opinion.

Mama Sheehan is Certifiable.

So, Yes, I'd choose Hillary... at gunpoint... but yes.

yeah

if hillary had total power, we'd take two huge steps toward socialism with socialized medicine and likely widely expanded welfare payouts... and our unemployment rate would go up to probably somewhere around 10% on account of those two moves... but i would vote for her over sheehan, because as bad as clinton's politics seem to me, she is true to America. Hillary Clinton at least would never betray America.

Hillary Clinton at least would never betray America.
Where's the proof that Sheehan would? Criticising the war? First you chickenhawks were attacking Fonda and Kerry for meeting with the Vietnamese, but now apparently even daring to siggest that Herr Busch was wrong means that she is a traitor who should be tried for sedition.

Let it be known that I'm tired of all the flaming. Keep a civil tongue or I'll be going to the mods.

Attack the ideas, proove my statements wrong and there'll be a proper debate. Call me a traitor and a nut-job and you'll be breaking the forum rules.

Now, let's see if we can salvage this thread...

i think i've put my main arguments against "you" (hehe) in a couple posts in here... namely:

a)The troops' work is not finished in Iraq yet
b)Iraqis need us there to protect them from the Sunni (and foreign) insurgency... so that the new government and adequate Iraqi security forces can be in place.
c)If we left now, all the work our troops have done in Iraq would very likely be undone, and those who made the ultimate sacrifice would have died in vain.

That is why I think it is far better for the US, Iraqis (non-insurgent Iraqis, that is) and the honor of those lost that we stay in Iraq until the job is done.

Where's the proof that Sheehan would? Criticising the war? First you chickenhawks were attacking Fonda and Kerry for meeting with the Vietnamese, but now apparently even daring to siggest that Herr Busch was wrong means that she is a traitor who should be tried for sedition.
No, I'm suggesting that anyone who would protest the National Guard in New Orleans by calling it an "Ocupation" force and wondering what it would take for them to shoot her is utterly out of her mind and should be ignored &/or ridiculed for making such stupid comparisons.

Where's the proof that Sheehan would? Criticising the war? First you chickenhawks were attacking Fonda and Kerry for meeting with the Vietnamese, but now apparently even daring to siggest that Herr Busch was wrong means that she is a traitor who should be tried for sedition.

when she protests, it acts as a natural inspiration for insurgents and harms the spirit of our troops.

If I were in Iraq, it would be a blow to hear someone shooting off her mouth to the effect that she doen't want me in Iraq doing my job... the support of Americans would be important to my psyche.

when she protests, it acts as a natural inspiration for insurgents ...like if they need any more inspiration :rolleyes:

They are fighting to defend their freedom...and sovereignty...the same way the founding fathers did...

They don't need some foreign lady to tell them "you are doing the right thing".

BTW most "Iraqi terrorists" don't speak English...do not have access to US media...and they dont care about what US-media (or a US mother) have to say anyways...

when she protests, it acts as a natural inspiration for insurgents and harms the spirit of our troops.

If I were in Iraq, it would be a blow to hear someone shooting off her mouth to the effect that she doen't want me in Iraq doing my job... the support of Americans would be important to my psyche.
Does freedom of speech mean nothing? As I said, before, if you think that dissent is treacherous, then you are against America's founding ideals.

If I was in Iraq, I would be pissed off that the military was being used for a purpose other than protecting America.

*blink blink*
Wow! What dazzling rhetoric! What repartee! *applauds lightly*

So happy to support Hillary, and yet it would have been less than a year ago that you would have been amongst those crying for her head, just because Bill O'Reilly, Ann "Thrax" Coulter, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh etc told you so. And yet, if she falls into line and SELLS OUT, she's your fairytale princess.

So you support that fuckwit's war, do you?
Well, then...let me ask you this:
If you support it so much, why aren't YOU there?

Cindy LOST a kid in Iraq, where he was fighting a shit shit war where he had no place being in the first place.

You rank on an innocent woman who has the guts to stand up for her principles i.e. that this war is WRONG, but YOU don't have the guts to stand up for YOURS i.e. JOIN the army and die for this cause that you believe in.

You think that she should shut her MOUTH?
Well, why don't YOU - and any of you who complain that she's getting in the way of your war - put your money where your MOUTH IS? Join the army! Go to Iraq!

But I sincerely doubt you'd do it. You don't have the cojones...

Chickenhawks...you're all alike!
*spits in disgust*

Hahaha!! Ok, I dislike Bush, Hillary and Sheehan and I think Shehan should shut up. I spent eight years in the military. I'm not longer eligible or I would have considered going, though not to support for the war. How about you dismiss me in the same way? Oh, wait, you can't. How about you actually address the arguments instead of attacking the poster.

Some of the points you didn't notice is that the poster you were replying to didn't comment on Hillary or Bush or the War, only on Sheehan. You also made a lot of assumptions about the poster. How do you know the poster isn't in the military or retired military. How do you know the poster isn't too young, but planning to join when the time comes? How do you know the poster isn't handicapped or ineligible in some way? Nope, you just made a lot of assumptions so you could spout a bunch of tripe.

I dont give a shit about What the US "BIG" Media thinks...

How the Hell can "The-US-Media" assign credibility...when they have no Credibility themselves?

someone in a web site says Sheehan said "this"..Sheehan said "that"...and you expect me to take it at "face-value" ???

I don think so "sone".

It wasn't the media that claims that she said that. It was on her website. I went to her site myself and saw the part where she said the military needs to end its occupation of New Orleans.

I think Shehan should shut up. I spent eight years in the military. I'm not longer eligible or I would have considered going, though not to support for the war. How about you dismiss me in the same way? Oh, wait, you can't..Depends...exactly why are you no longer eligible?

It wasn't the media that claims that she said that. It was on her website. I went to her site myself and saw the part where she said the military needs to end its occupation of New Orleans.so maybe you could show us a Link...

BTW even if she did say that...I still think she is a way better person than Bush or Hillary.

so maybe you could present a Link...

BTW even if she did say that...I still think she is a way better person than Bush or Hillary.
I already did, but you ignored it. So what's the point?

Depends...exactly why are you no longer eligible?
Don't know about Jacobia, but as for me, because I recieved a Medical Discharge in 1992.

Depends...exactly why are you no longer eligible?

A neck injury I sustained while on duty.

I already did, but you ignored it. So what's the point?Jocaiba said its on "her" site...

and you presented some other site... Im just trying to figure what are the sites you NeoCons trust as "Reliable sources" :D

Don't know about Jacobia, but as for me, because I recieved a Medical Discharge in 1992.

I left the military in 1999. I found out the neck injury was more severe after my separation, a fact that was not revealed to me by Great Lakes Medical Center (I'm a bit annoyed with them). If I'd never seperated I'd likely still be in, but because I did, I'd likely never pass the entrance exam due to the loss of motion in my neck and rightly so. I would have difficulty performing the job of a grunt which the duty of every Marine. However, I was E-6 before my separation. To suggest that all people who disagree with Sheehan are chickenhawks is more than trolling and flamebaiting, it's just outright ridiculous.

I have no idea why anybody's paying any attention to Cindy Shehan. That lady's not really qualified to comment on US foreign policy. Sure she has a right to her opinion, but she's being treated as an expert when she has no more qualifications than the average moron on the street.
Neither does Bush, and he gets to run your country.

I can see Hillary Clinton losing her senate race next year anyway. I don't think her seat is as safe as she thinks it is, especially since she won it virtually unopposed, which won't be the case next novemeber.

Jocaiba said its on "her" site...

and you presented some other site... Im just trying to figure what are the sites you NeoCons trust as "Reliable sources" :D

She removed the letter when she got the reaction to it that I'm sure she wasn't expecting. It is still available on Moore's site, unless you think he is trying to trick you into hating her and her liberal ways.

And I'm hardly a NeoCon considering I dislike Bush, I support Roe v. Wade, I would never, ever vote for a Republican or a Democrat so long as their parties continue to suck, I think anyone who doesn't realize that gays deserve equal rights is a bigot and think the Christian right is ruining our country. But, hey, don't let me stop you from using ad hominems. Are you points not strong enough for you to support them without attacking other posters? Let's find out. Be back in a minute.

The most amazing thing to me about this whole Sheehan thing is seeing just how many people are actually willing to let Bush & Co. do whatever they want without any form of opposition whatsoever. Even going so far as calling out those who speak out against the Almighty Bush as traitors and seditious.

Maybe ya'll should move to a monarchy and see what that's like for a while. Try Saudi Arabia.

The Founding Fathers, those great seditious traitors, spit upon each and every one of you.

I agree totally. I just find it humerous how big a "story" she was until she blabbed about New Orleans.


Hmm, how about from her own letter posted on Michael-gaak-Moore's site?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=503


Oh boy. Like that is such a Conservative Hit Piece. :rolleyes: Mama Sheehan is a Loon.

I DO think so, but I'll let Fass crucify you for the above abomination, thank you.

What does "sone" mean?

Jocaiba said its on "her" site...

and you presented some other site... Im just trying to figure what are the sites you NeoCons trust as "Reliable sources" :D
Lets see... If I cited a "Right Wing" site I'd be faulted for Bias, but when I post a link to a "Left Wing" site with exactly the same information you chose to ignore it.

That's called ideological blindness - and I am hardly a NeoCon (look up the etymology of that term sometime... it's an epithet for "Jewish Conservative", first applied to people like Kristol, Krauthamer and others. Shame on you for Race Baiting.)

Like Jacobia I am not a huge fan of the Republocrats and don't vote for them.

Sheehan has every right to say what she wants, but I have every right to point out that she's a Loon that just alienated her biggest advocates - the Main Stream Media.

And Keru, there is a difference between promoting a rational argument (like the Declaration of Independence) and being a foaming Loon.

Jocaiba said its on "her" site...

and you presented some other site... Im just trying to figure what are the sites you NeoCons trust as "Reliable sources" :D

Like I said, I saw it on HER site. I consider her site a reliable source for her opinion. And if you're ignoring Michael Moore's publication of the letter on his site because it's a NeoCon playground, then I simply have to say, WOW!

Neither does Bush, and he gets to run your country.
True, but bush managed to get into the white house. That means his dumb opinion counts because it decides our foreign policy. Sheehan's opinion counts about as much as mine. Why are there no TV cameras and microphones following me around?

icon, my ass. try "traitor"

or are her actions better labeled "sedition" ... what is it when you try to sabotage the US? We don't need hippies like her trying to mess everything up.

fact: if the troops leave Iraq now, all who died there will have died in vain.


How has she tried to sabotage the US? By disagreeing with you? God knows that should be illegal. How dare anyone have an opinion that doesn't match yours? :rolleyes: If you're going to throw around words like traitor, I'd suggest you provide proof.

True, but bush managed to get into the white house. That means his dumb opinion counts because it decides our foreign policy. Sheehan's opinion counts about as much as mine. Why are there no TV cameras and microphones following me around?
Possibly because you've not made yourself a national hate figure by publicly taking exception to something that your government is doing which is well out of order?
(I was led to believe that your foriegn policy was being decided by Cheney and Rice btw, just like our own...)

The most amazing thing to me about this whole Sheehan thing is seeing just how many people are actually willing to let Bush & Co. do whatever they want without any form of opposition whatsoever. Even going so far as calling out those who speak out against the Almighty Bush as traitors and seditious.

Maybe ya'll should move to a monarchy and see what that's like for a while. Try Saudi Arabia.

The Founding Fathers, those great seditious traitors, spit upon each and every one of you.


You're wrong. They don't think it's treason to disagree with Bush per se, they think it's treason to disagree with them. If Bush did something they didn't like (unliely thought that is), they'd be the first to critcize. But don't you dare do it. They're right, we're wrong, so we should just STFU. That's how it works, you see.

Possibly because you've not made yourself a national hate figure by publicly taking exception to something that your government is doing which is well out of order?
(I was led to believe that your foriegn policy was being decided by Cheney and Rice btw, just like our own...)
What my government is doing right now in Iraq is fixing something that they shouldn't have broken to begin with. Starting the war was out of order. Restoring stability is a way to take responsibility and make ammends.

Sheehan wants to abandon the Iraqi people to lawlessness, civil war, and religious extremism.

Where was she, where were the cameras, before the war started? Nobody listened to people like me who knew that the Iraq war was a stupid and unneccessary idea. Now when we've made a commitment and things are getting tough people want to abandon responsibility and give up. Fuck that. We made this mess and we damn well had better clean it up.

Mon Sep 19, 2005
Cindy Sheehan Harassed By NYPD


Cindy Sheehan spoke to about 150 people in Union Square today -- but her talk was cut short when a NYPD goon squad charged into the crowd, yanked her off the stage, and pulled the plug on the rally. It isn't clear if she was arrested or not.

The last major antiwar march in NYC had such a hard time getting a permit... The commissars over at the New York Sun were agitating to delay granting the march a permit as long as possible:

"Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly are doing the people of New York and the people of Iraq a great service by delaying and obstructing the anti-war protest planned for February 15. The longer they delay in granting the protesters a permit, the less time the organizers have to get their turnout organized, and the smaller the crowd is likely to be."

Sheehan has not been arrested to my knowledge. I am a member of the
Camp Casey Mailgroup on Yahoo, and probably would have heard about it by now. It is ironic that the NYPD would act this way. When I was at Camp Casey in Crawford Texas we experienced nothing but cooperation and
goodwill from the local law enforcement. They would even on occasion
stop by and have coffee with us under the big tent. They will not crush this movement. This movement is far too strong. Even in the presidents hometown we outnumbered the counterprotesters about a thousand to one.

PEACE! :)

yeah, no kidding... i'm sure the troops over there appreciate her efforts to embolden the enomy.

God, what tortured logic...
"Well, Mustafa, i wasn't going to car-bomb the American pig dog imperialist occupying forces, but Cindy Sheehan is against the war in Iraq"
"LETS BLOW OURSELVES UP FOR CINDY"

Be honest, i doubt very much they are even aware she exists. She only very occasionally makes it to the pages of European newspapers, let alone Iraqi ones.

The most amazing thing to me about this whole Sheehan thing is seeing just how many people are actually willing to let Bush & Co. do whatever they want without any form of opposition whatsoever. Even going so far as calling out those who speak out against the Almighty Bush as traitors and seditious.

Maybe ya'll should move to a monarchy and see what that's like for a while. Try Saudi Arabia.

The Founding Fathers, those great seditious traitors, spit upon each and every one of you.

It is this whole "faith based government" if you are not with
the "christian" fundamentalist terror regime then you are against it.

If you want to live in a nation ruled by religion, MOVE TO IRAN!
WE DO NOT WANT YOU IN AMERICA! THIS IS THE LAND OF THE FREE!
IF YOU DO NOT RESPECT THE FREEDOM OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS THEN
LEAVE! BEFORE WE START ANOTHER REVOLUTION AND KILL ALL OF YOU! :sniper:

God, what tortured logic...
"Well, Mustafa, i wasn't going to car-bomb the American pig dog imperialist occupying forces, but Cindy Sheehan is against the war in Iraq"
"LETS BLOW OURSELVES UP FOR CINDY"

Be honest, i doubt very much they are even aware she exists. She only very occasionally makes it to the pages of European newspapers, let alone Iraqi ones.
More along the lines of

"Well, Mustafa, I don't see blowing myself up when the Americans aren't going anywhere and they've got the firepower to keep the new government secure and growing. It's a hopeless cause. Oh, wait, the news says that civilians in the USA are going to force their government to pull out of Iraq. Maybe a few bloody attacks will speed the process up!"

Canada City']Finally.

She's getting more people killed in Iraq.
And your proof for this statement?

I know, you can't prove it. :eek:

More along the lines of

"Well, Mustafa, I don't see blowing myself up when the Americans aren't going anywhere and they've got the firepower to keep the new government secure and growing. It's a hopeless cause. Oh, wait, the news says that civilians in the USA are going to force their government to pull out of Iraq. Maybe a few bloody attacks will speed the process up!"
I would argue that it is the hopelessness and the presence of a large well armed military that prompts someone to resort to suicide bombing instead of 'traditional' warfare-that indeed it is the notion that they are not going anywhere and are well armed that pushes that person trying to defend his homeland and way of life as he sees it to blow himself up in a car.

That it's almost over might actually be insentive not to take such a drastic measure.

This all presuming that in all this time fighting and hiding and planning he's spending time watching talking head American cable and reading deep into American newspapers looking for protestors to validate his work rather than the American tank rolling down the street of his childhood...

I would argue that it is the hopelessness and the presence of a large well armed military that prompts someone to resort to suicide bombing instead of 'traditional' warfare-that indeed it is the notion that they are not going anywhere and are well armed that pushes that person trying to defend his homeland and way of life as he sees it to blow himself up in a car.

That it's almost over might actually be insentive not to take such a drastic measure.

This all presuming that in all this time fighting and hiding and planning he's spending time watching talking head American cable and reading deep into American newspapers looking for protestors to validate his work rather than the American tank rolling down the street of his childhood...

This would be accurate if all or nearly all of the people involved were born and grew up in Iraq. However, they don't seem to be Iraqis and the argument doesn't seem to be accurate.

This would be accurate if all or nearly all of the people involved were born and grew up in Iraq. However, they don't seem to be Iraqis and the argument doesn't seem to be accurate.
So, are they there for the heck of it--or because they fear that thier homes are next?

Just a few thoughts...

If our troops are protecting democracy, then they are in essence also protecting Cindy Sheehan's right to protest.

I have friends over in Iraq, or who have been over in Iraq, soldiers, some pro-war and some anti-war. However, I think they all share the opinion that we are not ready to pull our troops from Iraq.

I was initially against the war. However, I understand that once we went in there and started riling things up, we needed to commit ourselves to the long-haul.

I hate to cite Hollywood, but has anyone seen the movie "Three Kings," about the first time we went over there? I think the post-war conditions presented in that movie for the people of Iraq make a strong argument for why we need to stay until the country is more stabilized. For the people whose nation we've helped to tear apart. To just disappear now would not be fair to them.

I also think the Cindy Sheehan phenomenon is more the media and little else. They saw potential for political conflict stemming from her story and sensationalized it, garnering her both more support and more controversy. I don't think that's her fault, although once it began to happen, she shouldn't be surprised when people started taking personal digs at her. The current political polarization of the US assured that would occur.

So, are they there for the heck of it--or because they fear that thier homes are next?
Same reason armed religious extremist Arabs flocked to Afghanistan and Bosnia. Someone non-Muslim is in "Muslim lands"! Oh No! Quick, let's go blow something up!

So, are they there for the heck of it--or because they fear that thier homes are next?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5311&R=C48238EAD

"The sample does not account for all jihadists in Iraq, but provides a useful and eye-opening profile of them. Saudi Arabia accounted for 94 jihadists, or 61 percent of the sample, followed by Syria with 16 (10 percent), Iraq itself with only 13 (8 percent), and Kuwait with 11 (7 percent.) The rest included small numbers from Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Morocco (of which one was a resident in Spain), Yemen, Tunisia, the Palestinian territories (only 1), Dubai, and Sudan. The Sudanese was living in Saudi Arabia before he went to die in Iraq."

Hmmm... do you really think Saudis are worried that their country is going to be next? Yes, yes, there's a huge danger that the US is about to invade Saudi Arabia :rolleyes: Or perhaps it's that many of these people are supporters of Al Queda (yes, they weren't there before the war, but they're there now). See, if there is a change in the acceptance of genocide and oppression in the Middle East, the Taliban and Al Queda aren't going to do so well. Radical Muslims, which is not a large part of the makeup of Iraq, are worried that they are losing ground. So who is attacking the Iraqis at this point, the US or the foreign insurgents who represent a group that generally isn't present in Iraq? Notice that Iraqis only represent 8% of the dead insurgents. Interesting statistic, no?

What my government is doing right now in Iraq is fixing something that they shouldn't have broken to begin with. Starting the war was out of order. Restoring stability is a way to take responsibility and make ammends.

Sheehan wants to abandon the Iraqi people to lawlessness, civil war, and religious extremism.

Where was she, where were the cameras, before the war started? Nobody listened to people like me who knew that the Iraq war was a stupid and unneccessary idea. Now when we've made a commitment and things are getting tough people want to abandon responsibility and give up. Fuck that. We made this mess and we damn well had better clean it up.
Previous governments didn't manage that in Vietnam or Korea, so why on Earth should this one manage it in the middle east with a far smaller standing army?
Partition the country into the three seperate states it was before the second world war and leave them to kick the crap out of each other until Iran invades. The only real alternatives are to put Hussein back in power (it appears to take a military dictator to run the country succesfully) or setting up indefinite housekeeping there. Given the efforts in that direction so far have pushed the price of oil up and cost a fortune, there's no way in hell that the latter is going to happen.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5311&R=C48238EAD

"The sample does not account for all jihadists in Iraq, but provides a useful and eye-opening profile of them. Saudi Arabia accounted for 94 jihadists, or 61 percent of the sample, followed by Syria with 16 (10 percent), Iraq itself with only 13 (8 percent), and Kuwait with 11 (7 percent.) The rest included small numbers from Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Morocco (of which one was a resident in Spain), Yemen, Tunisia, the Palestinian territories (only 1), Dubai, and Sudan. The Sudanese was living in Saudi Arabia before he went to die in Iraq."

Hmmm... do you really think Saudis are worried that their country is going to be next? Yes, yes, there's a huge danger that the US is about to invade Saudi Arabia :rolleyes: Or perhaps it's that many of these people are supporters of Al Queda (yes, they weren't there before the war, but they're there now). See, if there is a change in the acceptance of genocide and oppression in the Middle East, the Taliban and Al Queda aren't going to do so well. Radical Muslims, which is not a large part of the makeup of Iraq, are worried that they are losing ground. So who is attacking the Iraqis at this point, the US or the foreign insurgents who represent a group that generally isn't present in Iraq? Notice that Iraqis only represent 8% of the dead insurgents. Interesting statistic, no?
Not as much as you'd think. Since it still supports that they are defending thier way of life and it has way more to do with the presence of that military than it does with what one mother is saying in the US.

Needle the point all you want, the core of the matter is that the decision to suicide bomb has a lot more to do with a threat on thier doorstep than it does with Sheehan.

Not as much as you'd think. Since it still supports that they are defending thier way of life and it has way more to do with the presence of that military than it does with what one mother is saying in the US.

Needle the point all you want, the core of the matter is that the decision to suicide bomb has a lot more to do with a threat on thier doorstep than it does with Sheehan.

The point is that these are radical Muslim fundamentalists that are fighting in Iraq, not Iraqis. It's not a civil war. It's a foreign group attacking the new Iraq and the US soldiers that are trying to help rebuild their infrastructure. Don't mistake them for freedom fighters, which is where your argument fell apart. Also, I think the inherent point that was being made was that it degrades the morale of the American soldiers not that it makes insurgents more bold, as it's likely true that these insurgents are not even aware of Sheehan.

And since 'their way of life' was never under attack that is not what they're 'defending'. Iraq was a secular government, we didn't come in and attack radical Muslim fundamentalists. In fact, it was likely that not a single radical Muslim fundamentalist was killed until they began fighting the insurgency. Defending 'their way of life' would make more sense in Afghanistan where RMF's were in power until we removed them three years ago.

And what threat on their doorstep? No one was threatening Saudi Arabia where most of their doorsteps are. You're really trying to stretch into a noble cause, aren't you? It's actually just a bunch of terrorists who don't want to see a democracy put in place in an Arab country so they are causing starvation, disease, death and destruction in a country they are not from. One can argue that we started an armed conflict with Iraq, but shortly thereafter that conflict ended. It was the insurgents from other countries that have started an armed conflict with Iraq and the US and that is what we've been fighting all this time. Americans have killed very few Iraqis.

The point is that these are radical Muslim fundamentalists that are fighting in Iraq, not Iraqis. It's not a civil war. It's a foreign group attacking the new Iraq and the US soldiers that are trying to help rebuild their infrastructure. Don't mistake them for freedom fighters, which is where your argument fell apart. Also, I think the inherent point that was being made was that it degrades the morale of the American soldiers not that it makes insurgents more bold, as it's likely true that these insurgents are not even aware of Sheehan.
Go back to the start of this particular argument (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9677869&postcount=63).

This would be accurate if all or nearly all of the people involved were born and grew up in Iraq. However, they don't seem to be Iraqis and the argument doesn't seem to be accurate.
According to the Defense Department, based on the people they've captured and interrogated, they estimate that foreign fighters only make up about 2% of the insurgent forces, but close to 90% of the suicide attacks. The insurgency is homegrown--the foreign fighters seem to be focused on only one tactic.

And since 'their way of life' was never under attack that is not what they're 'defending'. Iraq was a secular government, we didn't come in and attack radical Muslim fundamentalists. In fact, it was likely that not a single radical Muslim fundamentalist was killed until they began fighting the insurgency. Defending 'their way of life' would make more sense in Afghanistan where RMF's were in power until we removed them three years ago.
Please please PLEASE tell me your not about to tell me they hate our freedoms.

This is a slippery little bubble we're on now. Really, a bit of a PR problem it would seem. If we where attacked by militant muslims why did we attack a secular country? And if your in a nieghboring country and you just saw a superpower fly in the face of the international community and invade your neighbor-after already feeling far too much of that superpowers presence, you wouldn't feel just a little threatened? Maybe a little? Or would you buy somehow that "Oh, they're only invading secular countries. We're cool."

How many Americans would sit around and let a country from across the seas 'rebuild' Canada with out raising a hackle or two, for whatever the reason.

Go back to the start of this particular argument (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9677869&postcount=63).

And go back to the start of that particular argument. "Needle the point all you want, the core of the matter is" that Sheehan is demoralizing the troops and the only 'troops' occupying Iraq and delaying the turnover of Iraq to its new leaders are the foreign insurgents.

And what threat on their doorstep? No one was threatening Saudi Arabia where most of their doorsteps are. You're really trying to stretch into a noble cause, aren't you? It's actually just a bunch of terrorists who don't want to see a democracy put in place in an Arab country so they are causing starvation, disease, death and destruction in a country they are not from. One can argue that we started an armed conflict with Iraq, but shortly thereafter that conflict ended. It was the insurgents from other countries that have started an armed conflict with Iraq and the US and that is what we've been fighting all this time. Americans have killed very few Iraqis.
Damn dude. Get it all out at once, will ya?

It's not democracy they're worried about, it's the corruption of thier beliefs and life. And no one would give a rats ass about thier way of life if they wheren't sitting on top of the go juice. Look at how worse things are in some African countries and how slow response is there. But I digress.

But there is a nugget in there-they are resisting westernization.

And if you want to call it 'hating our freedoms,' well that's on you-but the reality is this isn't an action film, no one is cackling and rubbing thier hands and both sides think they are the good guys. They aren't doing this because you can drink either Coke or Pepsi, or because a mom misses her son but because there is a foriegn military in and near the holy land and they saw it commin and if they don't do something now they'll lose it all. Regardless of whether we think we'll invade whoever next or not is irrelevant.

And go back to the start of that particular argument. "Needle the point all you want, the core of the matter is" that Sheehan is demoralizing the troops and the only 'troops' occupying Iraq and delaying the turnover of Iraq to its new leaders are the foreign insurgents.
Shift posts on your own. That's what I was responding to. I don't buy the 'demoralizing the troops' nonsense either, but that wasn't the argument I was having.

Nazz dealt with the next part.

Please please PLEASE tell me your not about to tell me they hate our freedoms.

This is a slippery little bubble we're on now. Really, a bit of a PR problem it would seem. If we where attacked by militant muslims why did we attack a secular country? And if your in a nieghboring country and you just saw a superpower fly in the face of the international community and invade your neighbor-after already feeling far too much of that superpowers presence, you wouldn't feel just a little threatened? Maybe a little? Or would you buy somehow that "Oh, they're only invading secular countries. We're cool."

How many Americans would sit around and let a country from across the seas 'rebuild' Canada with out raising a hackle or two, for whatever the reason.

I'm not defending the war. In fact, I haven't seen anyone here defend the original entry into Iraq. We're there now. And we can't run away and leave Iraq to be taken over by foreign insurgents. Who said anything about they hate our freedoms? They're terrorists who believe that anyone who is not a muslim fundamentalists should die and killing them earns you salvation and a warm bed filled with 70 virgins. They hate us because we're not them. Same reason Christian fundamentalists hate gays and Israelis and Palestinians hate each other. Religious fundamentalists hate people who don't agree with them. What's more radically different than from Al Queda than a United States ruled by a puppet of the religious right (and vice versa). It's no wonder they hate each other. However, whatever the reason it's happening, we have no right to create the level of violence that now exists there (whether you feel we started it or not, it wouldn't have happened if we weren't there) and then run away to save our boys and condemn every free Iraqi in that country to takeover by foreign forces to turn it into a fundamentalist society. That should not be an option for us at this point.

Now on Canada, it depends. If Canada suddenly invaded England and took them over a little bit and then the US helped the rest of Europe led by, let's say, France kick Canada out of England. Then the international community required Canada to disarm in order for the current leadership to stay in place. Then for ten years the Canadians continued to illegally fire upon the troops that are patrolling no fly zones that were created by the international community to prevent the aggression of Canada. Then we France finally had enough of their troops being fired upon and Canada thumbing its nose at the world, France finally gave them an ultimatum to disarm or they were coming in to disarm them. I think we would support it even if the international community didn't, since having an aggressive neighbor might be a little uncomfortable for us. Then we discovered that the reason the international community rejected the French pleas to enforce the agreements as a result of the Canadian aggression was that many of the international leaders were making billions of dollars off of exploiting the standoff between Canada and the international community and thus didn't want to see it end, I think we might be a little upset with the International community as a whole and pretty happy that the 'French aggressors' decided to not allow it to continue. Thank Goodness for the French.

Remember that Saudi Arabia supported both wars against the aggressive and murderous Hussein and they still do.

Shift posts on your own. That's what I was responding to. I don't buy the 'demoralizing the troops' nonsense either, but that wasn't the argument I was having.

Nazz dealt with the next part.

And the argument I made against you was about your uninformed opinion that they were upset because these tanks were going down the streets of their hometown which is not supported by actual evidence. You extended it to the post you were replying to so I said if you're going to shift my point back then shift it all the way back or reply to my point. You've done neither. Not that I blame you. It's hard to argue that people are defending their homes when there hasn't been any threat to their homes. In fact, isn't that the argument the left made about Bush going their in the first place? Gotta love hypocracy.

I'm not defending the war. In fact, I haven't seen anyone here defend the original entry into Iraq. We're there now. And we can't run away and leave Iraq to be taken over by foreign insurgents. Who said anything about they hate our freedoms? They're terrorists who believe that anyone who is not a muslim fundamentalists should die and killing them earns you salvation and a warm bed filled with 70 virgins. They hate us because we're not them. Same reason Christian fundamentalists hate gays and Israelis and Palestinians hate each other. Religious fundamentalists hate people who don't agree with them. What's more radically different than from Al Queda than a United States ruled by a puppet of the religious right (and vice versa). It's no wonder they hate each other. However, whatever the reason it's happening, we have no right to create the level of violence that now exists there (whether you feel we started it or not, it wouldn't have happened if we weren't there) and then run away to save our boys and condemn every free Iraqi in that country to takeover by foreign forces to turn it into a fundamentalist society. That should not be an option for us at this point.

Now on Canada, it depends. If Canada suddenly invaded England and took them over a little bit and then the US helped the rest of Europe led by, let's say, France kick Canada out of England. Then the international community required Canada to disarm in order for the current leadership to stay in place. Then for ten years the Canadians continued to illegally fire upon the troops that are patrolling no fly zones that were created by the international community to prevent the aggression of Canada. Then we France finally had enough of their troops being fired upon and Canada thumbing its nose at the world, France finally gave them an ultimatum to disarm or they were coming in to disarm them. I think we would support it even if the international community didn't, since having an aggressive neighbor might be a little uncomfortable for us. Then we discovered that the reason the international community rejected the French pleas to enforce the agreements as a result of the Canadian aggression was that many of the international leaders were making billions of dollars off of exploiting the standoff between Canada and the international community and thus didn't want to see it end, I think we might be a little upset with the International community as a whole and pretty happy that the 'French aggressors' decided to not allow it to continue. Thank Goodness for the French.

Remember that Saudi Arabia supported both wars against the aggressive and murderous Hussein and they still do.
It would seem the people disagree.

And you left out 'What if France found out Canada wasn't lying about not having those weapons and then started setting up shop in Canada and rattling sabres at other North American neighbors' Would we really be focused on what the talking heads on Renard News or stabling up?

Damn dude. Get it all out at once, will ya?

It's not democracy they're worried about, it's the corruption of thier beliefs and life. And no one would give a rats ass about thier way of life if they wheren't sitting on top of the go juice. Look at how worse things are in some African countries and how slow response is there. But I digress.

But there is a nugget in there-they are resisting westernization.

And if you want to call it 'hating our freedoms,' well that's on you-but the reality is this isn't an action film, no one is cackling and rubbing thier hands and both sides think they are the good guys. They aren't doing this because you can drink either Coke or Pepsi, or because a mom misses her son but because there is a foriegn military in and near the holy land and they saw it commin and if they don't do something now they'll lose it all. Regardless of whether we think we'll invade whoever next or not is irrelevant.

Ha. The only one who has mentioned 'hating our freedoms' was you. They are fighting against a free Iraq. It doesn't matter why. That's why they're doing it.

Yes, they saw it coming. That's why September 11th happened. They saw it coming. :rolleyes: Why am I linking Iraq to September 11? Hmmm... well, we know the Iraqis weren't involved in September 11. But we're not fighting Iraqis anymore, are we? What percentage of the insurgents are Saudis? What percentage of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis? What country is Bin Laden from? Coincidence? I'm fairly certain no. They were attacking us before we went into Iraq and they still are. This isn't a result of our aggression. They're not suddenly upset that we attacked Iraq. This same group was attacking us four years ago before Iraq was even on the radar. And you could make an argument that they did this because they knew when Bush was elected that he would attack if not for the fact that they began planning the attack in the last year of the Clinton Presidency when Democrats appeared to have the Presidency locked up for a long time to come. You have to ignore a lot of facts about the nature of this insurgency to actually believe this is all about them protecting their homeland.

Looks like that advocate of fascism, Frangland, has not replied. I'm not surprised, to be honest. (Unless he just went offline. ;)

It would seem the people disagree.

And you left out 'What if France found out Canada wasn't lying about not having those weapons and then started setting up shop in Canada and rattling sabres at other North American neighbors' Would we really be focused on what the talking heads on Renard News or stabling up?

Doesn't matter. France wasn't lying about Canada attacking England, stockpiling weapons (where do you think those weapons came from) or about Canada continuing to shoot at French planes patrolling the no fly zone.

More to the point, as I pointed out, the insurgents are the same people responsible for 911, the attacks in England, Spain, and various other places including the USS Cole and several US embassies. You're ignoring the fact that these 'insurgents' have been attacking US and European targets for a decade. This is not and never has been about the US occupation of Iraq no matter how much you want it to be. Ignore the evidence all you like. Me, I like to actually use evidence to draw conclusions rather than just my dislike for a particular person, government or action.

EDIT: And some of the people disagree. Al Queda is hardly representative of the general populace of Saudi Arabia or even a significant percentage of it.

Doesn't matter. France wasn't lying about Canada attacking England, stockpiling weapons (where do you think those weapons came from) or about Canada continuing to shoot at French planes patrolling the no fly zone.

More to the point, as I pointed out, the insurgents are the same people responsible for 911, the attacks in England, Spain, and various other places including the USS Cole and several US embassies. You're ignoring the fact that these 'insurgents' have been attacking US and European targets for a decade. This is not and never has been about the US occupation of Iraq no matter how much you want it to be. Ignore the evidence all you like. Me, I like to actually use evidence to draw conclusions rather than just my dislike for a particular person, government or action.

EDIT: And some of the people disagree. Al Queda is hardly representative of the general populace of Saudi Arabia or even a significant percentage of it.
I'll just respond to this one, since it's a re-itteration.

Your chief error here is thinking that invading Iraq is the first time there has been western intervention in the area to resist.

Honestly, anything other than defending themselves, which is how they see it, takes an enormous stretch of logic.

More along the lines of

"Well, Mustafa, I don't see blowing myself up when the Americans aren't going anywhere and they've got the firepower to keep the new government secure and growing. It's a hopeless cause. Oh, wait, the news says that civilians in the USA are going to force their government to pull out of Iraq. Maybe a few bloody attacks will speed the process up!"

If you think the vast majority of "insurgents" give a shit what Cindy Sheehan says, i think you are mistaken.

There well always be a few - the groupings who took malicious delight in beheading of westerners and televising said beheading, f'rinstance. Granted. Personally, the rest i would say are a mix of two types
(1) the majority are various Iraqi groups who are jockeying for position and taking pot-shots at the USA because it builds them support or destabilises their opponents who may be complicit in the USA occupation (i'm not arguing whether the groups complicit are good or bad here, note that, i'm just stating) and
(2) a visible minority of anti-western fundamentalists who have been sucked in by the maelstrom created by the invasion and the fundamentally bad "peace" who now have their all time enemy CLOSE, so they are going to do some damage.

We're there now. And we can't run away and leave Iraq to be taken over by foreign insurgents.
Why not? That was good enough for the mess in Bosnia.

I'll just respond to this one, since it's a re-itteration.

Your chief error here is thinking that invading Iraq is the first time there has been western intervention in the area to resist.

Honestly, anything other than defending themselves, which is how they see it, takes an enormous stretch of logic.

Yes, you're right. Most holy wars are just self-defense. There is no historical evidence for holy wars by radical fundamentalists being aggressive wars to cleanse the earth of those that think differently. Certainly, the Crusades wouldn't be exactly that kind of example, but then they claimed they were just defending their way of life too. :rolleyes:

Well, at least, I've exposed your true colors for all to see. You know these aren't Iraqis fighting to free their homeland from the American occupation. You're supporting international terrorism because YOU hate the US. Well, and Spain and Germany and Great Britain and every other country that's been attacked by Al Queda in the last decade in 'self-defense'. And 'how they see it' is a holy war against infidels that dishonor their God by existing.

Tell me, my friend, what, pray tell, would be required for the US to do in order for their need for defense to end? Leave Iraq so they could install a new radical regime there like the Soviets did to Afghanistan? Get the Israelis to give up their country? Leave the Middle East altogether to descend into chaos as the radical fundamentalist countries fight the secular countries? Hmmm... Because it seems to me that high on their list of demands is to die like the infedel scum that we are.

Why not? That was good enough for the mess in Bosnia.

Bosnia was a civil war. The civil war was already occurring before we arrived.

If you think the vast majority of "insurgents" give a shit what Cindy Sheehan says, i think you are mistaken.

There well always be a few - the groupings who took malicious delight in beheading of westerners and televising said beheading, f'rinstance. Granted. Personally, the rest i would say are a mix of two types
(1) the majority are various Iraqi groups who are jockeying for position and taking pot-shots at the USA because it builds them support or destabilises their opponents who may be complicit in the USA occupation (i'm not arguing whether the groups complicit are good or bad here, note that, i'm just stating) and
(2) a visible minority of anti-western fundamentalists who have been sucked in by the maelstrom created by the invasion and the fundamentally bad "peace" who now have their all time enemy CLOSE, so they are going to do some damage.

Um, I think you have that backwards. About 8% of the dead insurgents have been identified as Iraqi nationals. About 61% have been identified as Saudi nationals.

Um, I think you have that backwards. About 8% of the dead insurgents have been identified as Iraqi nationals. About 61% have been identified as Saudi nationals.

Source?

Yes, you're right. Most holy wars are just self-defense. There is no historical evidence for holy wars by radical fundamentalists being aggressive wars to cleanse the earth of those that think differently. Certainly, the Crusades wouldn't be exactly that kind of example, but then they claimed they were just defending their way of life too. :rolleyes:

Well, at least, I've exposed your true colors for all to see. You know these aren't Iraqis fighting to free their homeland from the American occupation. You're supporting international terrorism because YOU hate the US. Well, and Spain and Germany and Great Britain and every other country that's been attacked by Al Queda in the last decade in 'self-defense'. And 'how they see it' is a holy war against infidels that dishonor their God by existing.

Tell me, my friend, what, pray tell, would be required for the US to do in order for their need for defense to end? Leave Iraq so they could install a new radical regime there like the Soviets did to Afghanistan? Get the Israelis to give up their country? Leave the Middle East altogether to descend into chaos as the radical fundamentalist countries fight the secular countries? Hmmm... Because it seems to me that high on their list of demands is to die like the infedel scum that we are.
Wow, now I'm not only supporting international terrorism, but I hate America?

Nice.

No no, please, continue your fairy tale about those evil evil men and the noble defenders. Make sure it's all as black and white. Make sure you've turned the struggle into a cartoon.

Since we're now in the realm of mindless rhetoric...

Source?

Read the thread?

Wow, now I'm not only supporting international terrorism, but I hate America?

Nice.

No no, please, continue your fairy tale about those evil evil men and the noble defenders. Make sure it's all as black and white. Make sure you've turned the struggle into a cartoon.

Since we're now in the realm of mindless rhetoric...

You've said in plain English that attacking a civilian target and killing 2000+ civilians can't be argued to be anything other than self-defense unless you stretch logic to its breaking point. I don't think it was I who brought us to the realm of mindless rhetoric. With all the bombings, I wonder what the civilian body count for Al Queda attacks is now.

And yes, I'd suggest that when you make such a claim you are in support of international terrorism as you are actively defending it right now.

Let's repost that little gem because it bears repeating.

More to the point, as I pointed out, the insurgents are the same people responsible for 911, the attacks in England, Spain, and various other places including the USS Cole and several US embassies. You're ignoring the fact that these 'insurgents' have been attacking US and European targets for a decade.

Your chief error here is thinking that invading Iraq is the first time there has been western intervention in the area to resist.

Honestly, anything other than defending themselves, which is how they see it, takes an enormous stretch of logic.

Yep wouldn't want to mistake you for a defender of international terrorism. I should have said you are a defender of "killing thousand of uninvolved civilians in defense of real or imagined attacks on the radical Muslim fundamentalist lifestyle."

Yep, attacks on uninvolved civilian targets doesn't actually count as international terrorism. What was I thinking? :rolleyes:

Read the thread?

"The sample does not account for all jihadists in Iraq, but provides a useful and eye-opening profile of them. Saudi Arabia accounted for 94 jihadists, or 61 percent of the sample, followed by Syria with 16 (10 percent), Iraq itself with only 13 (8 percent), and Kuwait with 11 (7 percent.) The rest included small numbers from Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Morocco (of which one was a resident in Spain), Yemen, Tunisia, the Palestinian territories (only 1), Dubai, and Sudan. The Sudanese was living in Saudi Arabia before he went to die in Iraq."

So, basically, you have 154 names, posted on websites. How many "jihadists" or "insurgents" have died in the same period?

And, here's the kicker, wouldn't the groups who came into the region to fight the Americans be more LIKELY to advertise themselves?

Just a thought there...

One sample, hardly conclusive proof. Sorry.

"The sample does not account for all jihadists in Iraq, but provides a useful and eye-opening profile of them. Saudi Arabia accounted for 94 jihadists, or 61 percent of the sample, followed by Syria with 16 (10 percent), Iraq itself with only 13 (8 percent), and Kuwait with 11 (7 percent.) The rest included small numbers from Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Morocco (of which one was a resident in Spain), Yemen, Tunisia, the Palestinian territories (only 1), Dubai, and Sudan. The Sudanese was living in Saudi Arabia before he went to die in Iraq."

So, basically, you have 154 names, posted on websites. How many "jihadists" or "insurgents" have died in the same period?

And, here's the kicker, wouldn't the groups who came into the region to fight the Americans be more LIKELY to advertise themselves?

Just a thought there...

One sample, hardly conclusive proof. Sorry.

Actually it's referring to the fact that we only know the origin of those that have died in the insurgency. It's fairly well-known that majority of insurgent bodies found have been foreign nationals. Show me a single study that says otherwise. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Bosnia was a civil war. The civil war was already occurring before we arrived.
Fair point. I don't think that there's any hope of putting this particular humpty dumpty back together again, though. Hussein's elite were the only thing holding the shi'ites in line, and now that they're gone a civil war is inevitable. It doesn't matter how many lives get wasted in the meantime, it's still going to happen the second we leave the country.

You've said in plain English that attacking a civilian target and killing 2000+ civilians can't be argued to be anything other than self-defense unless you stretch logic to its breaking point. I don't think it was I who brought us to the realm of mindless rhetoric. With all the bombings, I wonder what the civilian body count for Al Queda attacks is now.

And yes, I'd suggest that when you make such a claim you are in support of international terrorism as you are actively defending it right now.

Let's repost that little gem because it bears repeating.



Yep wouldn't want to mistake you for a defender of international terrorism. I should have said you are a defender of "killing thousand of uninvolved civilians in defense of real or imagined attacks on the radical Muslim fundamentalist lifestyle."

Yep, attacks on uninvolved civilian targets doesn't actually count as international terrorism. What was I thinking? :rolleyes:
Yep, looking at causes and motivations is exactly the same as supporting the actions.

We're done.

Actually it's referring to the fact that we only know the origin of those that have died in the insurgency. It's fairly well-known that majority of insurgent bodies found have been foreign nationals. Show me a single study that says otherwise. I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

You showed the thread one article, and then used it to proclaim at great length. I offered my *opinion*

You see the distinction? I'm willing to admit mine is only an opinion. But i find your "facts" very...well, sparse.

Fair point.

The point is want the US to clean up its mess(regardless of fault) is not arguing in defense of the initial decision to remove Hussein from office.

I actually supported the removal of Hussein from power but I think it should have been done more than a decade ago. I think you attempt to conquer another country (Kuwait) with no provocation then you are removed from power, do not pass go, do not collect $200 Billion dollars (yes, I know, someone is going to claim that's what we did except we gave it back voluntarily and the action is really just an extension of the 1991 action as it was never officially settled, Sadaam never met the terms of the agreement to end hostilities).

However, I don't agree with the idea of going into Iraq because they have WMDs that may someday become a threat to the US. Preventative military actions are a dangerous slope to start down and I don't approve.

Hey, cute. I'm in your sig-and you've added context. Nice. Very...uh...well...you of you, I guess. How about you make it refer to the insurgency like it really did, just so as not to be a total dick?

...she's being treated as an expert when she has no more qualifications than the average moron on the street.
Which puts her a couple iq points over "the commander-in-chief."

The point is want the US to clean up its mess(regardless of fault) is not arguing in defense of the initial decision to remove Hussein from office.

I actually supported the removal of Hussein from power but I think it should have been done more than a decade ago. I think you attempt to conquer another country (Kuwait) with no provocation then you are removed from power, do not pass go, do not collect $200 Billion dollars (yes, I know, someone is going to claim that's what we did except we gave it back voluntarily and the action is really just an extension of the 1991 action as it was never officially settled, Sadaam never met the terms of the agreement to end hostilities).

However, I don't agree with the idea of going into Iraq because they have WMDs that may someday become a threat to the US. Preventative military actions are a dangerous slope to start down and I don't approve.
It's a responsible and admirable attitude, but I can't honestly see any way this situation can be resolved now. The best case is a civil war, and the worst case is the shi'ites inviting Iran in to annex the whole country. And let's face it, if the Shi'ites did that tomorrow, it's not like the coalition would have enough of a presence to prevent that.

You showed the thread one article, and then used it to proclaim at great length. I offered my *opinion*

You see the distinction? I'm willing to admit mine is only an opinion. But i find your "facts" very...well, sparse.

Yours is a guess based on no facts. Mine is an opinion based on and supported by the available facts. There is no evidence to support that the majority or even a large minority of insurgents are Iraqis. By no coincidence, the available data on insurgents suggests a makeup that matches up nicely with the makeup of Al Queda. All evidence I've seen suggested that the vast majority of the insurgents are foreigners and related to Al Queda. Unless you'd like to offer counter-evidence, I'll go with what I've seen. I, in fact, tried to search for evidence supporting your point just to make sure I wasn't in error, but I have yet to find any. At least my opinion is based on available, rather than unqualified and unsupported assumption.

Yours is a guess based on no facts. Mine is an opinion based on and supported by the available facts. There is no evidence to support that the majority or even a large minority of insurgents are Iraqis. By no coincidence, the available data on insurgents suggests a makeup that matches up nicely with the makeup of Al Queda. All evidence I've seen suggested that the vast majority of the insurgents are foreigners and related to Al Queda. Unless you'd like to offer counter-evidence, I'll go with what I've seen. I, in fact, tried to search for evidence supporting your point just to make sure I wasn't in error, but I have yet to find any. At least my opinion is based on available, rather than unqualified and unsupported assumption.
none indeed. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9678230&postcount=75)

Hey, cute. I'm in your sig-and you've added context. Nice. Very...uh...well...you of you, I guess. How about you make it refer to the insurgency like it really did, just so as not to be a total dick?

I posted it here in context and it wasn't referring to the insurgency. You were specifically referring to foreign Al Queda operatives as that was what I referenced. You weren't talking out of context were you?

I posted it here in context and it wasn't referring to the insurgency. You were specifically referring to foreign Al Queda operatives as that was what I referenced. You weren't talking out of context were you?
No, I was talking about the insurgency. You where trying to make it about Al Queda and other non-sense. I NEVER EVER EVER said anything about Al Qeada. You added that. I never once 'specifically said' foriegn Al Queada operatives. You created that spefification, it was not me and not in my text. You added it, at this point it is now more your quote than it is mine.

Nice intellectual honesty and decency. I'll keep that even handedness of yours in mind.

I understand she didn't have the proper permits, and there was some resistance when Police tried to disperse the crowd.

Resisting the police in a situation like that isn't the answer.

yeah, people dont seem to get it, when a cop says
"MOVE" and you dont move, they get mad.
Then they wonder, "why are the police so mean and forceful?"
Stupid people.
Oh and if she had a permit, then we wouldnt have this problem
would we? Poor baby! <-------(sarcasm)

none indeed. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9678230&postcount=75)

So links to other posters amount to evidence. I haven't found that statistic on the DoD website. Source?

So links to other posters amount to evidence. I haven't found that statistic on the DoD website. Source?
You'd have to take it up with him. I was just highlighting an ignored post that didn't fit your diatribe.

You an me, we're done. I'm all for an above the board and honest debate, but once you start misrepresenting my words in your signature or pulling the 'you hate America/support the terrorist' rhetoric, well there's really no point.

You'd have to take it up with him. I was just highlighting an ignored post that didn't fit your diatribe.

You an me, we're done. I'm all for an above the board and honest debate, but once you start misrepresenting my words in your signature or pulling the 'you hate America/support the terrorist' rhetoric, well there's really no point.

I linked your original post in the signature so you'll be happy. I think people will have no difficulty seeing what you meant in context and that my quote of you is accurate in and out of context.

When Nazz posts a source for his statistic I will address it. S/he hasn't seen fit to do so.

I pointed out your statement here and you not only didn't debate, but continued to support it. I suggested that the foreign insurgents are Al Queda and that they began attacking the US before the removal of Saddam from power and your response was that they were provoked long before then and no one can logically view their terrorist attacks as anything other than defensive actions. I thought it was a very telling point so I put it in my signature. I can see why it upsets you, but I probably would have avoided saying it, in that case. Let's quote it again for all to see.

More to the point, as I pointed out, the insurgents are the same people responsible for 911, the attacks in England, Spain, and various other places including the USS Cole and several US embassies. You're ignoring the fact that these 'insurgents' have been attacking US and European targets for a decade.

Your chief error here is thinking that invading Iraq is the first time there has been western intervention in the area to resist.

Honestly, anything other than defending themselves, which is how they see it, takes an enormous stretch of logic.

Let your words speak for themselves. For the record, I find them upsetting as well.

I linked your original post in the signature so you'll be happy. I think people will have no difficulty seeing what you meant in context and that my quote of you is accurate in and out of context.

When Nazz posts a source for his statistic I will address it. S/he hasn't seen fit to do so.

I pointed out your statement here and you not only didn't debate, but continued to support it. I suggested that the foreign insurgents are Al Queda and that they began attacking the US before the removal of Saddam from power and your response was that they were provoked long before then and no one can logically view their terrorist attacks as anything other than defensive actions. I thought it was a very telling point so I put it in my signature. I can see why it upsets you, but I probably would have avoided saying it, in that case. Let's quote it again for all to see.



Let your words speak for themselves. For the record, I find them upsetting as well.
If you where letting my words speak for themselves it wouldn't be an issue. But frankly even then the main sentiment stands. As they see it, they are defending themselves. Sorry Bob.

If allowing that simple understanding into your head suddenly makes you an apologist, or a supporter of international terrorism or and America hater than you are incapable of ever getting a grasp on foriegn relations. Heaven fucking forbid I look at the cause of an action rather than assume 'it's because they hate us' is enough of an answer. Heaven forbid I try and look at a conflict from the other side. What a monster I am.

I see how you assemble it now. I've got your number. There is no point in wasting anymore time.

No, I was talking about the insurgency. You where trying to make it about Al Queda and other non-sense. I NEVER EVER EVER said anything about Al Qeada. You added that. I never once 'specifically said' foriegn Al Queada operatives. You created that spefification, it was not me and not in my text. You added it, at this point it is now more your quote than it is mine.

Nice intellectual honesty and decency. I'll keep that even handedness of yours in mind.
Um, since the "insurgency" is largely made up of al-qeada "volunteers" (al-qeada claims responsibility for most of the bombings/attacks), and answers (or at least did) to Zaquari, I'm not sure your protest is valid. From what you have stated I certainly don't find it hard to infer that you believe that al-qeada, who make up the bulk of the insurgents, are just "defending themselves" which is obscene. One does not defend oneself by blowing oneself up - especially in the proximity of children.

(edit) What they "believe" is irrelevant. They are NOT "defending themselves." They are engaged in wonton, ultra-violent agression against non military targets - and it is obscene.

If you where letting my words speak for themselves it wouldn't be an issue. But frankly even then the main sentiment stands. As they see it, they are defending themselves. Sorry Bob.

If allowing that simple understanding into your head suddenly makes you an apologist, or a supporter of international terrorism or and America hater than you are incapable of ever getting a grasp on foriegn relations. Heaven fucking forbid I look at the cause of an action rather than assume 'it's because they hate us' is enough of an answer. Heaven forbid I try and look at a conflict from the other side. What a monster I am.

I see how you assemble it now. I've got your number. There is no point in wasting anymore time.

I dont see how they are "defending themselves." Its more like, "hey the US is here, lets go and blow them up because we just hate their guts and put it under the 'defense of Islam' rhetoric." That is what it mostly seems like.
That would like the US sending suicide bombers into Canada because they found a group of people there with an ideology much different than theirs, and they think it would be a bad thing if it came here. I would understand if were attacking Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebenon, Syria, or Iran. But we are not. The longer those dumbass "freedom fighters" keep killing innocent civilians Iraq who are trying to rebuild their country, then we are going to be there longer until they stop. Cause if we stop and pull up camp now, than those 2000 US troops killed would have had a hollow death. And then Sheenen's son would have died for nothing. Cindy Sheenen should shut the hell up, and let bush finish the job. I really doubt Kerry would have done a better job anyway. Its people like Sheenan who made the US lose 'Nam. Take Jane Fonda. How would you feel if you are out fighting and seeing your comrades die, and then see one of your own prominent US citizens putting on a show for the enemy? I would have shot her the moment I saw her get off the plane.

Um, since the "insurgency" is largely made up of al-qeada "volunteers" (al-qeada claims responsibility for most of the bombings/attacks), and answers (or at least did) to Zaquari, I'm not sure your protest is valid. From what you have stated I certainly don't find it hard to infer that you believe that al-qeada, who make up the bulk of the insurgents, are just "defending themselves" which is obscene. One does not defend oneself by blowing oneself up - especially in the proximity of children.

(edit) What they "believe" is irrelevant. They are NOT "defending themselves." They are engaged in wonton, ultra-violent agression against non military targets - and it is obscene.

True. They did it in Beslam Russia, and that just pissed off more people into hating these Islamic militants. maybe if they stopped blowing up kids and old people who are going to school or working, or playing, maybe then we would leave. I would not walk away from someone who is getting their ass kicked by an asshole. America shouldnt either. Instead of protesting Bush and his descision to finish the job, protest Al'Qeada. They are making us stay there longer.

If you where letting my words speak for themselves it wouldn't be an issue. But frankly even then the main sentiment stands. As they see it, they are defending themselves. Sorry Bob.

If allowing that simple understanding into your head suddenly makes you an apologist, or a supporter of international terrorism or and America hater than you are incapable of ever getting a grasp on foriegn relations. Heaven fucking forbid I look at the cause of an action rather than assume 'it's because they hate us' is enough of an answer. Heaven forbid I try and look at a conflict from the other side. What a monster I am.

I see how you assemble it now. I've got your number. There is no point in wasting anymore time.

There is no defense for murdering thousands of civilians chosen specifically because they are civilians and thus easier targets. I have no interest in defending the actions of people whose actions are indefensible.

I'll edit the signature to better reflect what you were replying to.

I'd like to point out that my opinion on the constitution of the insurgency is based on all evidence I could find. If anyone would like to present more evidence (sources not guesses) I'd be happy to alter my opinion to include new evidence. See, this is what reasonable people do, base their opinions on available evidence, not base what evidence they'll accept on what their opinion is.

There is no defense for murdering thousands of civilians chosen specifically because they are civilians and thus easier targets. I have no interest in defending the actions of people whose actions are indefensible.

I'll edit the signature to better reflect what you were replying to.
Maybe I'm a sucker for lost causes.

Once more, with feeling:

Looking at a root cause or trying to understand the motivations of an opposition is not the same as defending them, appologizing for them, or encouraging them.

It is your core inability to seperate these concepts that is most telling throughout this.

there is no defense, no matter how you cut it!
Now if we were dropping bombs onto schools, mosques,
hospitals, stores, and markets on purpose
to kill civilians, then I would maybe understand the
terrorists motives. But we are not!
Instead we are rebuilding every damn thing they blew up.
What, Al'Qeade doesnt like taking a dump in a nice clean toilet,
or drink clean fresh water, or have smart people living amongst them
that will make a difference?
What a bunch of dumbasses!!!!

there is no defense, no matter how you cut it!

Swing and a miss.


I give up.

Maybe I'm a sucker for lost causes.

Once more, with feeling:

Looking at a root cause or trying to understand the motivations of an opposition is not the same as defending them, appologizing for them, or encouraging them.

It is your core inability to seperate these concepts that is most telling throughout this.

You didn't say they believe they are defending themselves, you said that you can't logically come to any other conclusion than they are defending themselves. That's not their 'root cause'. It's yours.

that was the same argument the Chikenhawks were using for Vietnam.

Cool it with the generalizations that all people who oppose the war and those who don't support Sheehan. Stick with the relevant debate, and cut out the baiting.

Looks like that advocate of fascism, Frangland, has not replied. I'm not surprised, to be honest. (Unless he just went offline.

Cool it, Fingolfin. Name calling will get you nowhere in debate. Stick with the facts, and don't result to those sort of responses.

If you want to live in a nation ruled by religion, MOVE TO IRAN!
WE DO NOT WANT YOU IN AMERICA! THIS IS THE LAND OF THE FREE!
IF YOU DO NOT RESPECT THE FREEDOM OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS THEN
LEAVE! BEFORE WE START ANOTHER REVOLUTION AND KILL ALL OF YOU!

Threatening those who disagree with you? Not a good start for you. Take 3 days off.

Frangland and Fingolfin Unleashed: You both need to quit attacking each other. It's getting very heated between you two, and is much more likely to produce flames. I suggest you both either quit with the exchange insults, or you both just stop debating with each other til you cool off.

yes... one of the biggest proponents of socialism vs. the woman who's trying hardest to sabotage our efforts in Iraq.

maybe they'll kill each other

True enough. The only thing that would make me happier is to get Ted Kennedy and Michael Moore to take opposing sides so that we could get rid of all the left's most voluminous luminaries all in the same go.

Maybe there is a God......! :)

Not siding with either Cannot think of a name or Jacobia.. but I think we should have to get permission from the poster ,before quoting them in our sig. Or maybe that would just be.. being considerate.

Maybe I'm a sucker for lost causes.

Once more, with feeling:

Looking at a root cause or trying to understand the motivations of an opposition is not the same as defending them, appologizing for them, or encouraging them.

It is your core inability to seperate these concepts that is most telling throughout this.

Bingo. To make it painfully clear, understanding the motovations and root causes for the insurgency's actions will allow us to defeat and quell the insurgency much faster that throwing bombs and money at it.

so maybe you could show us a Link...

BTW even if she did say that...I still think she is a way better person than Bush or Hillary.
Lets see... If I cited a "Right Wing" site I'd be faulted for Bias, but when I post a link to a "Left Wing" site with exactly the same information you chose to ignore it..disclaimer: I do like Moore and his movies... still I never have time to read his web site (I gotta read the best sources first)

... Michael Moore site, or DrudgeReport or any "Right/Left wing sites"...Usually I avoid those sites...cos they present you 90% one-sided views...

BBC, AFP, most European/Asian Newspapers...are Way better sources...and since I don't have much free time...I avoid the Moore/Drudge sites...

Having said that...I took a look at Moore site (I hope its the last time I have to do that)
and here is the Full context of the "Letter":
________________________________________________________
One thing that truly troubled me about my visit to Louisiana was the level of the military presence there. I imagined before that if the military had to be used in a CONUS (Continental US) operations that they would be there to help the citizens: Clothe them, feed them, shelter them, and protect them. But what I saw was a city that is occupied. I saw soldiers walking around in patrols of 7 with their weapons slung on their backs. I wanted to ask one of them what it would take for one of them to shoot me. Sand bags were removed from private property to make machine gun nests.

The vast majority of people who were looting in New Orleans were doing so to feed their families or to get resources to get their families out of there. If I had a store with an inventory of insured belongings, and a tragedy happened, I would fling my doors open and tell everyone to take what they need: it is only stuff. When our fellow citizens are told to "shoot to kill" other fellow citizens because they want to stay alive, that is military and governmental fascism gone out of control. What I saw today in Algiers lifted up my spirits, but what I also saw today in Algiers frightened me terribly.
_______________________________________________________

I agree with her view (Please dont Shoot-to-kill desperate poor people left behind in the latest "Survivor" Reality Show)

I still think Sheehan is way better than Bush or Hillary.

In this Forum...

Neo Con is now officially a dirty word.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445468

apparently its like calling another poster "s00pid" or "moron"

so fellow players you can no longer call another Player "NeoCon"

so please stop calling them NeoCons...cos I dont want to have this thread Locked.

also when a Neo..err a guy-who-support-Bush says

"....bitch should shut her fat ugly mouth!" (page1 post#4)

Do not I repeat do not answer like I did here belowflaming is only going make you look like a 8 years old.

Because that reply offended Jocaiba and...he went calling the Mods http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445468

Pls friends... be careful...I do not want this thred locked.

The majority of insurgents in Iraq are from other countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They mostly fall into the category of groups who think "now that Saddam has fallen, Iraq is up for grabs" and they want their piece of the pie. In addition, most are jihadists who favour Islamic dictatorship.

There is at best a small minority of "Iraqis militantly defending their homeland".

Maybe I'm a sucker for lost causes.

Once more, with feeling:

Looking at a root cause or trying to understand the motivations of an opposition is not the same as defending them, appologizing for them, or encouraging them.
"Defense" is a term that definitionally and semantically implies moral and/or ethical justification. Any human is morally/ethically Just in "Defending" themselves from agression. By saying that there is no rational way to look at the insurgents/al-qeada's actions as anything other than "defense" you are implying their actions therefore have moral justification and are to be applauded, or at least condoned.

So Yes, accepting their "root cause" as valid IS defending, apologizing for and encouraging them.

It is your core inability to understand this basic semantic concept that is most telling throughout this.

Now, had you said that the Insurgents/al-qeada were fighting an agressive war to repulse foreign occupiers, I could agree, insofar as attacks on US and British troops are involved. But that is NOT The same as defensive fighting - which ended when the Coalition ceased attacking Iraqi infrastructure.

But since the "insurgents" seem to not be interested in actually restricting their attacks to military and interim Iraqi government targets, they do not even merit the title of "freedom fighter" (oddly against the freedom elect a government...). They are interloping foreign terrorist thugs who indiscriminately kill innnocent Iraqi women and children in their PR attempt to give the US a black eye.

also when a Neo..err a guy-who-support-Bush says

"....bitch should shut her fat ugly mouth!" (page1 post#4)

Do not I repeat do not answer like I did here below

Because that reply offended Jocaiba and...he went calling the Mods http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445468

Pls friends... be careful...I do not want this thred locked.
When it comes to Sheehan, many Bush apologists carry a red hot poker and wish to brand her as a "traitor" and have used copious amounts of unsavoury adjectives to describe her, when all she is doing is exercizing her right to "free speech". How can people promote "democracy" in Iraq when they cannot even practice it at home. I find their actions totally baffling.

In regards to flaming, I have been posting here since Feb. 2004, and I have been told where to go, been called everything from retarded to moron to stupid, and have been called a hippy, commie, and on one strange occaision, a facist (made me chuckle). All of that and lots more, and I have never dreamt of running to the Mods to complain. If one is going to debate here, one needs thick skin, especially on some of the more sensitive subjects.

IMHO, flaming just weakens the other posters argument, and is totally unnecessary but it is going to happen. Those that go overboard will eventually get caught and dealt with appropriately by the Mods, who by and large do a great job. Another option is to use the ignore feature, although I have never used it myself.

Carry on.....

The majority of insurgents in Iraq are from other countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. They mostly fall into the category of groups who think "now that Saddam has fallen, Iraq is up for grabs" and they want their piece of the pie. In addition, most are jihadists who favour Islamic dictatorship.

There is at best a small minority of "Iraqis militantly defending their homeland".
This keeps coming up time after time. The majority of "insurgents" are Iraqis:

Sunni Arabs, who represent the overwhelming majority of insurgents (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2251), are demographically and politically isolated. As they have long been politically dominant in Iraq, it is hard for them to reconcile themselves to the new situation, and they are quite willing to use violence in a bid to restore the old political balance

In many ways, the US is fighting not one but two distinct insurgencies. The more numerous is a mobilized movement of Iraqi Sunnis (http://www.issuesinperspective.com/index_1069.cfm), some of them former Baath Party members, and all beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein’s pro-Sunni policies.

Of the rest of the violence, 80% is thought to be committed by Iraqis (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-21-insurgents-cash_x.htm?csp=34) — not foreigners — acting out of nationalistic or Islamic extremist motivations, the official said.

A majority of insurgents captured or killed have been Iraqi Sunnis (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050110-105955-8477r), as are up to 95 percent of those detained, military expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington wrote in a recent report on the insurgency.

Insurgents are domestic, Sunni and nationalist (http://theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=874)

In the past, the American military command here often emphasized the role of foreign mujahedeen in the rebellion. Recently, it has acknowledged that Iraqis form the vast majority of the insurgents (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120604B.shtml),

This makes the Iraq War, more like a civil war, although outside interests are supplying money, weapons and some of the manpower. However, the majority of "insurgents" are Iraqi.

I just cant belive you learnt nothing from vietnam - you will always loose a ground war if you care more about your people dieing than the opposition.
Get out of it asap, save those brave young men and women that you should be able to be proud of. Even the ones that come back alive will have scarred lives.
Get rid of those silly big 4x4 SUV things and face up the to the fact that you dont have the oil reserves that the Arabs have. Live within your means and stop bringing the rest of the world down to your level.
btw - this is NOT a pop at the US people - but their government

In this Forum...

Neo Con is now officially a dirty word.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445468

apparently its like calling another poster "s00pid" or "moron"

so fellow players you can no longer call another Player "NeoCon"

so please stop calling them NeoCons...cos I dont want to have this thread Locked.

Actually, I went to the mods because this thread had as much flame-baiting and ad hominems as there was debate.

Here are your options, debate on points or call people names. One of these will allow you to explore ideas and express ideas and the other will get you into trouble with the mods. Can you guess which is which?

Perhaps what you should do is strengthen your arguments rather than spit out ad hominems like NeoCon at people who aren't even right wing. Most NeoCons would be offended by including me in their group.

Now I realize you have a grand dislike for people who don't agree with you, but I prefer to look at the consequences of actions and make decisions based on them rather just making emotional pleas like Cindy Sheehan. I dislike the fact that my friends are and her son was in harm's way and I appreciate the anguish she has experienced, but I can't justify protecting the 40,000 volunteer MILITARY personnel by pulling out and subjecting several million people to starvation, disease, chaos, death and oppression, particularly when all of those things would be our fault. Feel free to disagree by either not replying or by making a point, but you are not free to spit terms like chickenhawk and NeoCon at me and people like me just because you can't find a better way to make your point.

This keeps coming up time after time. The majority of "insurgents" are Iraqis:
<snip>This makes the Iraq War, more like a civil war, although outside interests are supplying money, weapons and some of the manpower. However, the majority of "insurgents" are Iraqi.
You know Canuck, while I can accept your data, the fact remains that the insurgents are NOT fighting a defensive fight, and as I stated, since they are not solely fighting "the occupiers" then they still can't really be called "Freedom Fighters".

So it remains that they are simple terrorist thugs.

Yours is a guess based on no facts. Mine is an opinion based on and supported by the available facts. There is no evidence to support that the majority or even a large minority of insurgents are Iraqis. By no coincidence, the available data on insurgents suggests a makeup that matches up nicely with the makeup of Al Queda. All evidence I've seen suggested that the vast majority of the insurgents are foreigners and related to Al Queda. Unless you'd like to offer counter-evidence, I'll go with what I've seen. I, in fact, tried to search for evidence supporting your point just to make sure I wasn't in error, but I have yet to find any. At least my opinion is based on available, rather than unqualified and unsupported assumption.
I think your research is incomplete? It appears that the majority of "insurgents" are indeed Iraqi. My previous post has numerous links that would support my claim.

This keeps coming up time after time. The majority of "insurgents" are Iraqis:

Sunni Arabs, who represent the overwhelming majority of insurgents (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2251), are demographically and politically isolated. As they have long been politically dominant in Iraq, it is hard for them to reconcile themselves to the new situation, and they are quite willing to use violence in a bid to restore the old political balance

In many ways, the US is fighting not one but two distinct insurgencies. The more numerous is a mobilized movement of Iraqi Sunnis (http://www.issuesinperspective.com/index_1069.cfm), some of them former Baath Party members, and all beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein’s pro-Sunni policies.

Of the rest of the violence, 80% is thought to be committed by Iraqis (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-21-insurgents-cash_x.htm?csp=34) — not foreigners — acting out of nationalistic or Islamic extremist motivations, the official said.

A majority of insurgents captured or killed have been Iraqi Sunnis (http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050110-105955-8477r), as are up to 95 percent of those detained, military expert Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic International Studies in Washington wrote in a recent report on the insurgency.

Insurgents are domestic, Sunni and nationalist (http://theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=874)

In the past, the American military command here often emphasized the role of foreign mujahedeen in the rebellion. Recently, it has acknowledged that Iraqis form the vast majority of the insurgents (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120604B.shtml),

This makes the Iraq War, more like a civil war, although outside interests are supplying money, weapons and some of the manpower. However, the majority of "insurgents" are Iraqi.

Do you notice anything about your sources? They are all from 8 months to a year ago. What happened around that time? A free election. It has been reported several times that the has been a steady decline in Iraqi national participation in the insurgency since the election while they insurgency hasn't really dies down. Okay, quick math lesson. If you have a group and the size of that group stays the same while the number of one type of member in that group decreases what does that do the percentage of other members in that group.

Here is a source from the DoD from around that time.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050914-3903.html

COL. BROWN: Yeah, that's a great question. I apologize. Concentrating a little bit too much on al Qaeda. There are other folks involved. There's former regime elements. What we have seen -- we saw prior to January, the former regime elements and other extremist groups and other borderline terrorists groups that were working pretty well together prior to elections. What we've seen since February on is many of these former regime elements are coming forward; they want to be involved in the political process. They realize it was a mistake to align themselves with al Qaeda. And the biggest split we saw was when al Qaeda got so desperate and started attacking women and children, and then Zarqawi said it was okay to attack women and children. That's the biggest split that we saw. At that point, many of those -- you know, ones we captured, turned themselves in. We had many other -- you know, the former regime, some borderline Sunni groups, Ansar al-Sunni, some of these other groups that realized that this was not what they signed up for, and there was a real split there. And so the reason I'm concentrating right now so much on al Qaeda is that clearly is our biggest threat.

The other -- you know, we do have also some folks who are just simply unemployed and the terrorists will coerce them into, you know, firing an RPG for a hundred dollars or whatever it may be. And you have that kind of criminal aspect that's still there, smaller, much smaller, we've seen over the year, much, much smaller. As more jobs become available, as the government is functioning better and better, that element is getting smaller and smaller, and as people see that that doesn't offer any hope for the future and really see the true -- the evil ways of these terrorists.

So we did see that prior to January, a lot of these groups working together. We don't see it as much now at all, and many of the folks are moving over to the, "Hey, how can I get involved in the process," stepping forward wanting to be involved and wanting to make this government work and get involved, and realize that that's their best hope for a bright future.

...

Q Colonel, Bob Burns again. Could you put a number, an estimate of the percentage that the foreign fighters represent of the total opposition you face?

COL. BROWN: Yeah. I'd say of the 550 enemy killed, I would say 70 -- 60, 70 percent foreign fighters. And a lot of those were in those large attacks prior to January. [/B]Of the 3,000 detained, over 3,000 we've detained, probably not as many detained, probably 40 to 50 percent foreign fighters,[/B] and the rest either, again, a "RPG for hire" type or one of these earlier groups earlier. [/B]But we're seeing more foreign fighters now,[/B] more poorly trained foreign fighters now than we did earlier, but the numbers have come down so much, it's kind of a tough comparison. But, yeah, clearly the level of proficiency is down in the foreign fighter, and clearly we see the level of complexity of attacks is way down, the level of attacks is down and the leadership is severely disrupted, no doubt about it.

Hmmm... seems like you may have been right at one time (at the time of your sources) but current sources disagree with you. If you read the entirety of the press conference you'll see that Iraqis are more likely to surrender which accounts for the disparity between captured and killed. Also remember this accounts for the entire insurgency since its beginning. The numbers now lean far more towards foreign insurgents.

I think your research is incomplete? It appears that the majority of "insurgents" are indeed Iraqi. My previous post has numerous links that would support my claim.

Read the post following yours. I think I've shown you what the problem is. Your research is from around a year ago and my research is incomplete. Trying looking at the current trends.

You know Canuck, while I can accept your data, the fact remains that the insurgents are NOT fighting a defensive fight, and as I stated, since they are not solely fighting "the occupiers" then they still can't really be called "Freedom Fighters".

So it remains that they are simple terrorist thugs.

Don't accept his data. It's dated. And if the captured or killed insurgents were 95% iraqi a year ago and that number is closer to half and half, what does that tell you about the percentage of foreign insurgents over the past year? Hint: it pretty much says that numbers have flipped the other way.

When it comes to Sheehan, many Bush apologists carry a red hot poker and wish to brand her as a "traitor" and have used copious amounts of unsavoury adjectives to describe her, when all she is doing is exercizing her right to "free speech". How can people promote "democracy" in Iraq when they cannot even practice it at home. I find their actions totally baffling.

In regards to flaming, I have been posting here since Feb. 2004, and I have been told where to go, been called everything from retarded to moron to stupid, and have been called a hippy, commie, and on one strange occaision, a facist (made me chuckle). All of that and lots more, and I have never dreamt of running to the Mods to complain. If one is going to debate here, one needs thick skin, especially on some of the more sensitive subjects.

IMHO, flaming just weakens the other posters argument, and is totally unnecessary but it is going to happen. Those that go overboard will eventually get caught and dealt with appropriately by the Mods, who by and large do a great job. Another option is to use the ignore feature, although I have never used it myself.

Carry on.....

First, I don't like Bush. I don't like Sheehan either. I think she's wrong and I think she's basing her decisions on emotions and not on any form of logic or with any thought for consequences of the actions she endorses. I think her general dislike for the military and for the United States has never been more apparent than in her recent letter. What she doesn't get is the reason those military personnel are travelling in groups and carrying weapons in New Orleans is that they have already been fired upon and for them to behave in a manner that does not keep them and other innocents safe just doesn't make any sense. They are trying to clear out New Orleans so it can be cleaned up. They are not their to shoot anyone on site and the machine gun nests is a clear and blatant appeal to emotion. I would love to see pictures of these machine gun nests she witnessed. They're not there. She lost any credibility with me when she wrote that letter.

That said, she's welcome to excercise her right to free speech. The problem people have is that Bush is being attacked for not being willing to talk to this woman. I'm sorry her son died, but if Bush took even ten minutes to talk to the parents of each soldier that died individually he would spend two weeks straight doing so with not breaks, no sleep, no pauses. I, personally, think he's got more important things to do than talk to the parents of the deceased. I don't think that is the President's role.

Before you think I'm defending Bush, I'm not. Bush is a ridiculous representation of our country and his democratic counterpart, Kerry, would have been just as bad. I will be happy when I have people who aren't in the pocket of big business and who aren't ALWAYS rich, white men to vote for. I will be happy when we choose the best available person to be the President of the US and not the best available person who happens to be rich and white and is endorsed by big business.

You know Canuck, while I can accept your data, the fact remains that the insurgents are NOT fighting a defensive fight, and as I stated, since they are not solely fighting "the occupiers" then they still can't really be called "Freedom Fighters".

So it remains that they are simple terrorist thugs.
Let me put it to you this way....

If a foreign power invaded the US and was occupying your country, I assume that you would do everything in your power to rid your country of the invaders?

While you are "defending" YOUR country, other US citizens start to follow the orders of the occupiers. Now you are faced with two enemies? If you continue to resist the occupiers, then your status goes from "freedom fighter" to "terrorist thugs"?

While I don't agree with the tactics of either side 100% of the time, the fact remains that the US invaded a sovereign country for dubious reasons and the consequences are there for everyone to see.

The shortsighted views of the Bush administration has created a hell hole and slapping labels on those defending their country doesn't make it any better. As a matter of fact, I am willing to bet that if the insurgents were able to read these derogatory "labels", and I am sure they hear of them, then it would inspire them more to defend their country and their honour?

These misnomer tags just might be what you would call aiding and abetting the enemy?

It is this whole "faith based government" if you are not with
the "christian" fundamentalist terror regime then you are against it.

If you want to live in a nation ruled by religion, MOVE TO IRAN!
WE DO NOT WANT YOU IN AMERICA! THIS IS THE LAND OF THE FREE!
IF YOU DO NOT RESPECT THE FREEDOM OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS THEN
LEAVE! BEFORE WE START ANOTHER REVOLUTION AND KILL ALL OF YOU! :sniper:

While I wholeheartedly share your views, here's a thing that I was told by a wise friend once:

"The more civilly our arguments are expressed, the more feasible they will seem to others."

Resorting to this kind of ranting is falling down to their level.

Bingo. To make it painfully clear, understanding the motovations and root causes for the insurgency's actions will allow us to defeat and quell the insurgency much faster that throwing bombs and money at it.

There is a significant difference between looking at their reasoning and defending their reasoning. CTOAN suggesting the only a flaw in logic could allow one to come up with any other reason for Al Queda attacking Westerners in anything other than defense of their homeland.

also when a Neo..err a guy-who-support-Bush says

"....bitch should shut her fat ugly mouth!" (page1 post#4)

Do not I repeat do not answer like I did here below

Because that reply offended Jocaiba and...he went calling the Mods http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445468

Pls friends... be careful...I do not want this thred locked.

Calling people names is never justified. Pointing out what you were replying to only suggests that you let another poster drag your debate to the level of name-calling and ad hominems. Do you think that helps your arguments or hurts them? Problems like this are easy to avoid by focusing on arguing your points instead of attacking the poster.

It appears both sides of the debate need to bring their more radical proponents back into line. :p

It appears both sides of the debate need to bring their more radical proponents back into line. :p
Heh. Can I shoot them? Please?

Let me put it to you this way....

If a foreign power invaded the US and was occupying your country, I assume that you would do everything in your power to rid your country of the invaders?

While you are "defending" YOUR country, other US citizens start to follow the orders of the occupiers. Now you are faced with two enemies? If you continue to resist the occupiers, then your status goes from "freedom fighter" to "terrorist thugs"?

While I don't agree with the tactics of either side 100% of the time, the fact remains that the US invaded a sovereign country for dubious reasons and the consequences are there for everyone to see.

The shortsighted views of the Bush administration has created a hell hole and slapping labels on those defending their country doesn't make it any better. As a matter of fact, I am willing to bet that if the insurgents were able to read these derogatory "labels", and I am sure they hear of them, then it would inspire them more to defend their country and their honour?

These misnomer tags just might be what you would call aiding and abetting the enemy?

Now if that foreign power said, "here is your country back. Sorry, but we felt the need to remove your old government because they were murdering their own citizens and burying them in mass graves all over the country and attacked with intention of annexing another sovereign nation. Feel free to install your own government created by your own people and we'll set up a vote to decide how you'd like to do that."

Then we had that vote and we installed our own government and, afterwards, people from other nations came pouring in and attacking our new government. I think I would accept that the old government would not be coming back as it is being tried for crimes in an international court and I would want my country to be controlled by my people rather than falling into chaos under the foreign insurgency. So I would stop fighting and begin cooperating with the new government.

Now, what does that sound like... hmmmmm... exactly what happened as posted in the only source presented that is from the past eight months (it's a week old).

Don't accept his data. It's dated. And if the captured or killed insurgents were 95% iraqi a year ago and that number is closer to half and half, what does that tell you about the percentage of foreign insurgents over the past year? Hint: it pretty much says that numbers have flipped the other way.
Hint: your data is inconclusive. Your conclusion is not accurate.

<snip>
While you are "defending" YOUR country, other US citizens start to follow the orders of the occupiers. Now you are faced with two enemies? If you continue to resist the occupiers, then your status goes from "freedom fighter" to "terrorist thugs"?If I took to indiscriminately killing innocents rather than/along with the occupiers, then damn skippy it does.
While I don't agree with the tactics of either side 100% of the time, the fact remains that the US invaded a sovereign country for dubious reasons and the consequences are there for everyone to see.No real quarrel here.
The shortsighted views of the Bush administration has created a hell hole and slapping labels on those defending their country doesn't make it any better. One does not "defend" by agressively attacking innocents. One defends by focused violennce towards an attacker (occupier). As a matter of fact, I am willing to bet that if the insurgents were able to read these derogatory "labels", and I am sure they hear of them, then it would inspire them more to defend their country and their honour? Then they should attack the Coalition forces, and the coalition forces only - and take great pains to not kill their own children.
These misnomer tags just might be what you would call aiding and abetting the enemy?Until such time as the insurgents engage in actual warfare - even the guerilla tactics of the VietCong - then these "tags" are not misnomers.

Hint: your data is inconclusive. Your conclusion is not accurate.

Really? The data doesn't suggest an increase in foreign insurgents to be equal to or greater than the number of Iraqis involved.

Okay. Let's assume your source is correct.

A year ago: 95% Iraqis captured or killed, 5% foreign
Today: Killed - 70% foreign, 30% domestic
Captured: 60% domestic, 40% foreign

Assume the number captured is 9 times that killed (90% captured, 10% killed) which is fairly close to accurate. And assume the number captured or killed is now 5 times the number it was a year ago (which is grossly inflated in your favor).

x = the number captured or killed a year ago.
.05x = the number of foreigners captured or killed a year ago
.95x = the number of domesitics captured or killed a year ago
5x = the number captured or kiled today
.9(5x)=the number captured today
.4(.9(5x)) = the number foreigners captured today
.6(.9(5x)) = the number domestics captured today
.1(5x) = the number killed today
.7(.1(5x)) = the number foreigners captured today
.3(.1(5x)) = the number domestics captured today
.4(.9(5x))+.7(.1(5x)) - .05x = the number of foreigners captured or killed in the past year.
1.8x+.35x-.05x
2.1x = the number of foreigners captured or killed in the past year

.6(.9(5x) + .3(.1(5x)) - .95x = the number of domestics captured or killed in the past year
2.7x + .15x -.95x = the number of domestics captured or killed in the past year
1.9x=the number of domestics captured or killed in the past year

4x total number captured or killed in the past year
2.1/4 = the percentage of foreigners captured or killed in the past year.
53% foreigners in the past year captured or killed with grossly skewed numbers.
The more you push the numbers toward what they accurately are the more they lean towards me since the less people that were captured or killed in the insurgency in the past year when compared to the total insurgency the higher the percentage of foreigners it has to be in order to reach the current numbers. My conclusion stands and is mathematically verifiable.

Now I've explained why your numbers are no longer valid and posted a current source that supports my conclusion. You wanna address the point or just pretend like my conclusions can't be reached.

Disclaimer: I didn't want to post all the math, but Canuck doesn't like obvious conclusions without a mathematical proof apparently.

Calling people names is never justified. .
Calling someone NeoCon is that insulting?

Calling you Jewish (or the Mayor of NY)...is that insulting?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445468

"Flaming makes you look like an 8 years old"..
I said it and i stand by that statement. SUE ME Jocaiba!!! :D

Calling someone NeoCon is that insulting?

Calliing you Jewish (or the Mayor of NY)...is that insulting?

Nope, just wrong and uncalled for. Yes, I find being called a NeoCon insulting and you meant it that way, just like chickenhawk was meant to be an insult. The chickenhawks you referred to, Syniks and I, served in the armed forces and were honorably discharged. We stood up for our beliefs and our country. Did you?

Nope, just wrong and uncalled for. Yes, I find being called a NeoCon insulting ....
NeoCon by wikipedia...With a nice picture of Paul Wolfowitz :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States#Neoconservatism_as_a_.22Jewish.22_movement

NeoCon by wikipedia...With a nice picture of Paul Wolfowitz :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States#Neoconservatism_as_a_.22Jewish.22_movement

What's your point? I'm not Jewish, the Mayor of New York or a NeoCon. That's the point. If you said that to Paul Wolfowitz, that's between you and him, but I'm not him, related to him, similar to him, I don't share beliefs with him, etc.

Now you were asked to discontinue this line, why do you persist?

I'm sorry that you find people that disagree with you so offensive and I'm sorry that it's easier for you to call them names than to argue on the points, but name-calling isn't accepted on this forum. You weren't warned or punished, just asked to stop. Why are you making such a big deal out of it? Support your arguments or don't, but otherwise drop the namecalling and defending said namecalling.

"Defense" is a term that definitionally and semantically implies moral and/or ethical justification. Any human is morally/ethically Just in "Defending" themselves from agression. By saying that there is no rational way to look at the insurgents/al-qeada's actions as anything other than "defense" you are implying their actions therefore have moral justification and are to be applauded, or at least condoned.

So Yes, accepting their "root cause" as valid IS defending, apologizing for and encouraging them.

It is your core inability to understand this basic semantic concept that is most telling throughout this.

Now, had you said that the Insurgents/al-qeada were fighting an agressive war to repulse foreign occupiers, I could agree, insofar as attacks on US and British troops are involved. But that is NOT The same as defensive fighting - which ended when the Coalition ceased attacking Iraqi infrastructure.

But since the "insurgents" seem to not be interested in actually restricting their attacks to military and interim Iraqi government targets, they do not even merit the title of "freedom fighter" (oddly against the freedom elect a government...). They are interloping foreign terrorist thugs who indiscriminately kill innnocent Iraqi women and children in their PR attempt to give the US a black eye.
Wow, look at all of those split hairs. Make sure the language is there to demonize the enemy, it's more important than anything, even intellectual honesty...

Calling someone NeoCon is that insulting?

Calling you Jewish (or the Mayor of NY)...is that insulting?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=445468

"Flaming makes you look like an 8 years old"..
I said it and i stand by that statement. SUE ME Jocaiba!!! :D
December 03, 2003

The "Neocon" Slur

I'm tired of the word "neocon." It's not just that the word has no fixed meaning, which is irritating enough. It's that it's a slur.

To understand this word, we must know its origin. Back in the early 1970s, a group of left-wing intellectuals started questioning some left-wing dogma and began saying that, in at least some areas, the right had some good points. The main departure point was communism, which too many on the left tended to deal with softly, or in morally relativistic terms. There were other areas of questioning of extreme left dogma, but national defense was the core of it. Some of these people who questioned left-wing dogma eventually formed their own political journals because, even though they still considered themselves members of the left, they were often ostracized in traditional left-wing circles.

In fact, one of the ways they were ostracized by the left was by giving them a snotty, derisive name. The left dubbed them "neocons," as a way of implying that they were once liberal but had newly become conservatives instead.

By the way, by coincidence, a large number of these renegade liberals, these "neocons," were Jewish intellectuals. I only mention that because it becomes important later.

Anyway, by 1980, most of the neocons had walked out of the Democratic Party, and away from the Left. A few latched on to the "neocon" slur and made it their own (sort of the way gay people have latched on to "queer"). After all, anyone who really looked at what they believed would have a hard time calling them truly conservative, since most of them were still broad-minded reformers and not traditionalists. A few decided to call themselves libertarians. Eventually, though, most of them just went ahead and started calling themselves "conservatives."

Arguably, there hasn't been any such thing as a neocon in 20 years. Unless, I suppose, you call anyone who walks out of the Democratic Party and starts voting Republican a "neocon," the word just doesn't mean anything.

What's bizarre is that, since 9/11, angry left-wing critics have started dubbing just about everyone who disagrees with them on defense matters a "neocon." Democrat, Republican, socialist, capitalist, it doesn't matter. If you supported the effort to liberate Iraq, you are a "neocon."

People who've considered themselves conservative Republicans their whole lives, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, are now routinely called "neocons." Democrats who support the war effort get called "neocons." People who voted for Gore who think Iraq was the right thing to do are called "neocons." Pretty much anybody who thinks that America needed to take out Saddam Hussein and start the process of reforming the thug-regimes of the Middle East, or who thinks the liberal democratic state of Israel has a right to exist and is not the moral equivalent of Yassir Arafat's terrorist-regime, is now dubbed a "neocon."

There is also a subtle undercurrent among some (not all, but some) who use the term that a "neocon" is really someone who's either Jewish, or secretly influenced by Zionist thinkers.

It's bugged me for some time, though: why "neocon?" Why label people with a 30 year old slur that described a group of people who are now either very old, or dead? Why is it so popular now, all of a sudden? Then something occurred to me.

"Con," supposedly short for "conservative," also sounds like "con" as in "con artist" or "liar."

Furthermore, by adding the term "neo" to it, you have a word that sounds more sinister, as in "Neo-Nazi."

I don't get mad when someone calls me a "neocon." It's like someone calling me a Communist. I recognize it as a snotty, somewhat bizarre non-sequitur. I also don't much care, since people who have to descend to juvenile name-calling and cheap labeling are obviously not very bright anyway. It's like having a 9-year-old say, "you're just a big stupid-head!"

Still, I think it's worth noticing that "neocon" is so popular among the lefty hatemongers precisely because it makes you sound like a Neo-Nazi liar. Or just a tool of scheming Jews.

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005616.html

This thread is amusing to watch, but rather pointless. People try and express their opinions, attempt to change the views of others, put down opposing views, flame, and verbally attack the ignorant children here. This wasn't a friendly topic to begin with and the quality of this thread declined exponentially. It's turned into an massive cut-throat scream fest, which is what all political discussions on message boards turn into. It's just a fact.

Spam? Yeah I'm a spammer.

NeoCon by wikipedia...With a nice picture of Paul Wolfowitz :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States#Neoconservatism_as_a_.22Jewish.22_movement


Despite 'definitions', calling someone a NeoCon can be considered very offensive, especially when the player is clearly not of that belief. Someone saying that they are a NeoCon is fine, obviously, because that's their belief. You really don't need to call anyone a NeoCon at all. Just continue on with the debate.

What's your point? My point is that...
NeoCon, Liberal, Democrat ,Conservative, Catholic, Protestant, etc...

in my book they cant be considered Insults ...But...I will follow the Forum Rules.

Despite 'definitions', calling someone a NeoCon can be considered very offensive, especially when the player is clearly not of that belief. Someone saying that they are a NeoCon is fine, obviously, because that's their belief. You really don't need to call anyone a NeoCon at all. Just continue on with the debate. Fine I will no longer call Jocaiba a NeoCon...If he fids it insult him so much..as to make it a moderation issue.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9682782#post9682782
.

My point is that NeoCon, Liberal, Democrat ,Conservative, Catholic, Protestant, etc ARE NOT INSULTS...

That is my freaking point....Get it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States#Neoconservatism_as_a_.22Jewish.22_movement

Unless you're saying them to someone who is not of that particular belief. If I walked up to a black man and talked about how white he is, he would be offended not because there is something wrong with being white but because he's obviously not white and the person saying it is suggesting he's somehow being untrue to himself.

You are suggesting the term as an ad hominem to paint my arguments with a brush of being part of a system of beliefs so you can dismiss them and it's a logical fallacy. Again, please argue on point or don't argue, but leave name-calling and ad hominems out of the argument entirely.

Now, you complained about hijacking, would you like to drop this and continue with the debate or continue hijacking your own thread.

Unless you're saying them to someone who is not of that particular belief. If I walked up to a black man and talked about how white he is, he would be offended .If he looked like a white man ...If his skin whas White...I would assume he was a White man...
If his skin was black...I would assume he was a Black man.

From your posts I assumed you were a "rigth wing" poster.

In regards to flaming, I have been posting here since Feb. 2004, and I have been told where to go, been called everything from retarded to moron to stupid, and have been called a hippy, commie, and on one strange occaision, a facist (made me chuckle). All of that and lots more, and I have never dreamt of running to the Mods to complain. If one is going to debate here, one needs thick skin, especially on some of the more sensitive subjects.
been called some of those.. and then some...

and I do not like to complain either.

I he looked like a white man ...If his skin whas Whita...I would assume he was a White man...
If his skin was black...I would assume he was Black.

From your posts I assumed you were a "rigth wing" poster.

What gave me away? My disdain for Bush? The part where I said I would never vote for a Democrat or a Republican? The part where I said I support gay marriage and am pro-choice? Maybe you should spend more time reading the posts and replying to the context and less time trying to find a way to dismiss a poster because you've placed them in a box (whether your placement is correct or not).

Let's see a couple of my 'right-wing' posts.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9677451&postcount=39
'Hahaha!! Ok, I dislike Bush, Hillary and Sheehan and I think Shehan should shut up.'

Less than ten posts later you called me a NeoCon. What part of 'I dislike Bush' was it that convinced you of such a thing? Later, you pointed out that NeoCon is actually a Jewish slur. What part of my post suggested I was Jewish?

Here is some more of my 'NeoCon' posts -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9678340&postcount=80
'I'm not defending the war. In fact, I haven't seen anyone here defend the original entry into Iraq. We're there now. And we can't run away and leave Iraq to be taken over by foreign insurgents.'

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9678926&postcount=101
'The point is want the US to clean up its mess(regardless of fault) is not arguing in defense of the initial decision to remove Hussein from office.
...
However, I don't agree with the idea of going into Iraq because they have WMDs that may someday become a threat to the US. Preventative military actions are a dangerous slope to start down and I don't approve.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9682422&postcount=141
'First, I don't like Bush. I don't like Sheehan either.
...
Before you think I'm defending Bush, I'm not. Bush is a ridiculous representation of our country and his democratic counterpart, Kerry, would have been just as bad. I will be happy when I have people who aren't in the pocket of big business and who aren't ALWAYS rich, white men to vote for. I will be happy when we choose the best available person to be the President of the US and not the best available person who happens to be rich and white and is endorsed by big business.'

Yep, those posts are right out of the NeoCon handbook, they are. :rolleyes: While I agree that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then... however, when it's swooping down on mice and hooting, it just looks silly to call it a duck just because it has feathers. Now if you can't tell the difference between an owl and a duck perhaps its best to just stop trying to categorize altogether.

Now, again, would you like to stop hijacking your own topic? It seems like there are many here who would actually like to talk about the Iraq war and Cindy Sheehan rather than your spurious ad hominems.

--snip--

If you can't recognize the internal conflict in your post, there is no help for you.

(hint, it has to do with the..ahem...liberal use of the term "left".)

Maybe you should spend more time reading the posts and replying to the context and less time trying to find a way to dismiss a poster because you've placed them in a box.If you are suggesting that I do not know you enough...I plead Guilty.

About 8% of the dead insurgents have been identified as Iraqi nationals. About 61% have been identified as Saudi nationals.What????
"61% of the dead insurgents have been identified as Saudi nationals"...thats crazy!!!...got a source for that?

What????
"61% of the dead insurgents have been identified as Saudi nationals"...thats crazy!!!...got a source for that?

A study of 154 dead insurgents names posted on anti-western websites.

Yeah, so from 154 self selecting members of avowedly anti-western groups, he's conflated that to mean "all of the insurgents".

Basically.

Where to begin ?

I think I'll start with an Easy Question.

Who is Mrs Dyer?

While some of you scurry off to google to find out, I'll start into what the media is doing to our country. That's right - the media, Not Sheehan, Not Durbin, Not Mayor Nagin - But the Media.

The media is interested only In Money and Advertising, and the easiest way to do that is to cause controvercy.

How many of you think FEMA dropped the Ball on Hurricaine Katrina? Hands please. Why?

48 hours after it was obvious that Nagin and Blanco dropped the ball , FEMA had 1800 trucks rolling. Logistically, this was one of FEMA's fastest responses to a Hurricaine. And what was not mentioned in the media, is that FEMA wasn't supposed to be a first Responder. When Blanco said "Send Everything" she says she meant the military too.

Problem, the Military is not supposed to be utilized as a police force , It hasn't unless it's an insurrection. The national Guard, Controlled by Blanco was supposed to be doing that. The Media forgot to mention that. End result - Bush Failed. That's the message heard round the world. Even though Brownie and He Really historically were not supposed to have done more than had been done. Go ahead, study Hurricaine relief. Check the stats.

Dick Durbins Remarks about the "gulag" and how pol pot was running Gitmo were heard with wide open ears in the Middle east - not because Durbin is a democrat or even particularly smart, but because it again illustrated a "Failure" on Bush's part to treat the prisoners with respect. Later when it was revealed that the prisoners were treated with respect and over 180 news agencies had toured Gitmo, and it wasn't the secretive hell hole made out by the media - that too was Hushed up.

Enter Sheehan. Who has EVERY right to say what she wants to say. That's American. That's her right. The Media picked up that trumpet call and ran with it to Stir Anti-war sentiment. FRONT PAGE NEWS on how Bush was "Wrong".

And the middle east listens.

So who's Mrs Dyer? Why was her message a half piece couple with a half piece of Ms Sheehan? And nothing more? Why was her voice less important than Ms Sheehan's, and not carried as long or as loud as Ms Sheehan's?

The middle east would hear a different story. A story of a mother who lost her son. A son that was proud in what he was doing. A son that was Proud to Serve In Iraq. A story told by a grieving Mother, Using what she believed her sons words would of been had he been there to speak them.

Instead our media is sending a clear message to the insurgents and Foreign Fighter. Keep up the bloodshed - Keep Blowing up innocent Iraquis. We're about to give up.

And people die. And the media Makes money.

And while we sit here and fight over Sheehan and Bush and the reasons for Iraq . Iraquis are stepping up to be trained, and fighting for a constitution, and picking up the damage, and dying daily - because we're sending the clear message of "It's Hopeless".

So now - to close - Look what we have. Another Hurricaine Barreling in, and Bush and FEMA are excersing new Powers, and have preemptively taken over and declared the emergency, and have taken control from the States.

While we bicker over Sheehan, we're losing our rights, and we'll lose a war unless we wake up.

God Bless you Mrs Dyer.

Where to begin ?

I think I'll start with an Easy Question.

Who is Mrs Dyer?

While some of you scurry off to google to find out, I'll start into what the media is doing to our country. That's right - the media, Not Sheehan, Not Durbin, Not Mayor Nagin - But the Media.

The media is interested only In Money and Advertising, and the easiest way to do that is to cause controvercy.

How many of you think FEMA dropped the Ball on Hurricaine Katrina? Hands please. Why?

48 hours after it was obvious that Nagin and Blanco dropped the ball , FEMA had 1800 trucks rolling. Logistically, this was one of FEMA's fastest responses to a Hurricaine. And what was not mentioned in the media, is that FEMA wasn't supposed to be a first Responder. When Blanco said "Send Everything" she says she meant the military too.

Problem, the Military is not supposed to be utilized as a police force , It hasn't unless it's an insurrection. The national Guard, Controlled by Blanco was supposed to be doing that. The Media forgot to mention that. End result - Bush Failed. That's the message heard round the world. Even though Brownie and He Really historically were not supposed to have done more than had been done. Go ahead, study Hurricaine relief. Check the stats.

Dick Durbins Remarks about the "gulag" and how pol pot was running Gitmo were heard with wide open ears in the Middle east - not because Durbin is a democrat or even particularly smart, but because it again illustrated a "Failure" on Bush's part to treat the prisoners with respect. Later when it was revealed that the prisoners were treated with respect and over 180 news agencies had toured Gitmo, and it wasn't the secretive hell hole made out by the media - that too was Hushed up.

Enter Sheehan. Who has EVERY right to say what she wants to say. That's American. That's her right. The Media picked up that trumpet call and ran with it to Stir Anti-war sentiment. FRONT PAGE NEWS on how Bush was "Wrong".

And the middle east listens.

So who's Mrs Dyer? Why was her message a half piece couple with a half piece of Ms Sheehan? And nothing more? Why was her voice less important than Ms Sheehan's, and not carried as long or as loud as Ms Sheehan's?

The middle east would hear a different story. A story of a mother who lost her son. A son that was proud in what he was doing. A son that was Proud to Serve In Iraq. A story told by a grieving Mother, Using what she believed her sons words would of been had he been there to speak them.

Instead our media is sending a clear message to the insurgents and Foreign Fighter. Keep up the bloodshed - Keep Blowing up innocent Iraquis. We're about to give up.

And people die. And the media Makes money.

And while we sit here and fight over Sheehan and Bush and the reasons for Iraq . Iraquis are stepping up to be trained, and fighting for a constitution, and picking up the damage, and dying daily - because we're sending the clear message of "It's Hopeless".

So now - to close - Look what we have. Another Hurricaine Barreling in, and Bush and FEMA are excersing new Powers, and have preemptively taken over and declared the emergency, and have taken control from the States.

While we bicker over Sheehan, we're losing our rights, and we'll lose a war unless we wake up.

God Bless you Mrs Dyer.
Question: Do you watch Al-Jazeera? Do you read the Jerusalem times?
if you said no, why do you think that someone who's in the middle of a war will take the time to listen to the US media?

The assumption that decrying the war bolster the insurgent is just that: an assumption. And I think it holds as much water as the assumption that there were WMD in Irak.

Question: Do you watch Al-Jazeera? Do you read the Jerusalem times?
if you said no, why do you think that someone who's in the middle of a war will take the time to listen to the US media?

The assumption that decrying the war bolster the insurgent is just that: an assumption. And I think it holds as much water as the assumption that there were WMD in Irak.

Yes to both - as well as watching the blogs in Iraq, The military news from Iraq, and scanning daily for updates.

You're entitled to your opinion on how much water is needed - but wasn't the WMD that didn't explode properly enough to show all of them weren't accounted for? and that the dual use "Hydrogen Vehicle" could be used for making something other than hydrogen? Or that all of the items in the Blix Report (not the blix speech) still haven't been explained?

You did Read the Blix Report right? Not the Speech where he softballed - But the actual report right?

What do you think of the accusations in there? How much water do you think that holds?

And yes, the foreign Fighters, and Insurgents are reading the web, they use the web for planning and co-ordination. Does that add any water to your point?

Yes to both - as well as watching the blogs in Iraq, The military news from Iraq, and scanning daily for updates.

You're entitled to your opinion on how much water is needed - but wasn't the WMD that didn't explode properly enough to show all of them weren't accounted for? and that the dual use "Hydrogen Vehicle" could be used for making something other than hydrogen? Or that all of the items in the Blix Report (not the blix speech) still haven't been explained?

You did Read the Blix Report right? Not the Speech where he softballed - But the actual report right?

What do you think of the accusations in there? How much water do you think that holds?

And yes, the foreign Fighters, and Insurgents are reading the web, they use the web for planning and co-ordination. Does that add any water to your point?
I'll say this: at least you are keeping informed.

Yes, I've read the Blix report. Yes there are things that went unaccounted for. But I figure that they were unaccounted for because they weren't there anymore. But that is besides the point since the US invaded before the report was made public, unless I'm very much mistaken.

And to say that *all* insurgent use the web and take the time to read the american media is a stretch. And that's with them knowing the english language.

I'm sorry but you can't convice me that the denounciation found in the media has any impact on what the insurgent feel. It could possibly lower the morale of the US troops, but it will do nothing for the morale of the insurgents.

All of them don't have to watch. Only a few do - many of the foreign fighters watching have been to America or England, laptops have been recovered showing how extensive the communications network is. And that's enough to communicate to the leaders of the insurgents and Foreign Fighters. Besides, Iran has been flooding Iraq with Information and weapons - they aren't in the middle of the war, they also hear what the media is saying.

Watch the pattern, Before any election or vote, the violence will surge. After a Key Figure steps up showing how demoralized we are, violence will pick up.

As to the Blix report - congratulations for reading it. Can you believe the media gave a pass on the missle because they were promising not to fully fuel it before launching?

"No Really, We won't fill it all the way up so it goes farther - That's just plain silly".

Don't accept his data. It's dated. And if the captured or killed insurgents were 95% iraqi a year ago and that number is closer to half and half, what does that tell you about the percentage of foreign insurgents over the past year? Hint: it pretty much says that numbers have flipped the other way.
Actually, my point is that regardless of data, the actions of the "insurgents/al-qeada" preclude any rational definition of self defense, defense of nation or defense of way of life...

Wow, look at all of those split hairs. Make sure the language is there to demonize the enemy, it's more important than anything, even intellectual honesty...
As someone once said... "Words Mean Things". Strip away Meaning and we are nothing but hairless apes.

Please explain what is intellectually dishonest about being consistant on the definition, semantic use and theory of Defense.

If I shoot you first, I cannot call it defense. Period. Preemptive action, maybe, but not defense.

What????
"61% of the dead insurgents have been identified as Saudi nationals"...thats crazy!!!...got a source for that?

It was a study of the dead insurgents from the last six months which I've since discovered leans more toward foreign than the group in its entirety, but it's still descriptive of the fact that the insurgency is now made up of a majority of foreigners.

The source was posted a few posts before the statement.

If you can't recognize the internal conflict in your post, there is no help for you.

(hint, it has to do with the..ahem...liberal use of the term "left".)
And which post is that? You seem to have removed all context... :rolleyes:

A study of 154 dead insurgents names posted on anti-western websites.

Yeah, so from 154 self selecting members of avowedly anti-western groups, he's conflated that to mean "all of the insurgents".

Basically.

It was a study of the 154 insurgents who were found dead in the last six months of the insurgency campaign (last six months before the study). 154 is a huge percentage of all the insurgents who died in any six month period. Certainly significant enough to validate the study.

I've since posted the DoD's report that 70% of dead insurgents are foreign since the beginning of the campaign and that there has been a steady decrease in domestic agents, particularly deaths of domestic agents, since the election. This suggests that then numbers of the DoD resemble the study. The General in my source was speaking about ALL insurgent deaths and ALL insurgent captures. Is that significant enough for you?

More importantly, you haven't posted a source that discounts my source and the only other person who posted sources (Canuck) posted year-old sources that actually support my claim that the insurgency since the election is primarily foreign agents. In fact assuming his source is correct the number of deaths would have to increase over the last year four fold just to make the percentage of foreign deaths over the last year anywhere close to being less than 90%, considering the overall percentage of foreign deaths is 70% and his source claims that a year ago the insurgency was dramatically dominated by Iraqis.

Actually, my point is that regardless of data, the actions of the "insurgents/al-qeada" preclude any rational definition of self defense, defense of nation or defense of way of life...

More to the point, what's defensive about blowing up a hospital or a daycare center. Admittedly, the US has injured civilians, but they are causalities that were accidental. We've avoided attacking non-military targets whereever possible for 50 years. But we're considered aggressors. They've specifically targeted civilians because they make easier targets. Targeted children because it upsets and demoralizes. Chopped the heads off of people that are trying to make sure that water is flowing to the people of Iraq again because they know it will demoralize the supporters and the troops and because it will frustrate the iraqis into action. If that's defense then the next time I feel like my pro-choice rights are going to be violating can I go and chop up the kids next door saying I was defending myself against the fascist government? Will CTOAN stand up and claim that no reasonable person could make any argument other than it was a justified defense of my rights? I suspect no to both questions.

But we're considered aggressors... you are the agressors...You are the occupation Army.

you are the agressors...You are the occupation Army.

We were talking about foreign insurgents. If they didn't attack them and they don't live there, we're not aggressors towards them. They are killing Iraqi civilians and Iraqi military. They are attacking the country of Iraq, its civilians and its new government. It's clear we are not acting as aggressors at this point. In fact, in the absense of hostilities we would prefer to leave.

And which post is that? You seem to have removed all context... :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Gee, I'm sorry that it was unclear that I was referring to your last post preceding mine. It's #157.

If you can't recognize the internal conflict in your post, there is no help for you.

(hint, it has to do with the..ahem...liberal use of the term "left".)

So wait, you're complaining about the term left that is used by the left to refer to themselves? The point is that so-called 'NeoCons' don't consider themselves to be that, and also don't fit within the meaning of 'NeoCon'. The liberal left and conservative right isn't meant to be an insult. 'NeoCon' is meant to be an insult. That's the point of the article. How is using a commonly-used, inoffensive term that liberals use to refer to themselves comparable to using an term intended to be offensive that means a liberal who agrees with the foreign policies of conservatives to refer to people who are not and never were liberal?

Interesting reply.

So wait, you're complaining about the term left that is used by the left to refer to themselves? The point is that so-called 'NeoCons' don't consider themselves to be that, and also don't fit within the meaning of 'NeoCon'. The liberal left and conservative right isn't meant to be an insult. 'NeoCon' is meant to be an insult. That's the point of the article. How is using a commonly-used, inoffensive term that liberals use to refer to themselves comparable to using an term intended to be offensive that means a liberal who agrees with the foreign policies of conservatives to refer to people who are not and never were liberal?

Interesting reply.

The thing is, what I define as "liberal" or "left" is not how the poster I addressed defines them. He, and many of the pundits who grace our TV screens, clearly intend the term "liberal" and "lefty" as derogatory terms, as a quick review of the context shows.

Likewise, I have no problem be called a "fucker" by a friend, but sometimes I object to being called "sir" by someone who clearly dislikes me and my views.

The thing is, what I define as "liberal" or "left" is not how the poster I addressed defines them. He, and many of the pundits who grace our TV screens, clearly intend the term "liberal" and "lefty" as derogatory terms, as a quick review of the context shows.

Likewise, I have no problem be called a "fucker" by a friend, but sometimes I object to being called "sir" by someone who clearly dislikes me and my views.

How did he define liberal and left? Perhaps you'd like to explain your point instead of making assertions with no support. I didn't see it used as a derogatory term as someone who doesn't really identify with either group. More support. Less unsupported assertion.

How did he define liberal and left? Perhaps you'd like to explain your point instead of making assertions with no support. I didn't see it used as a derogatory term as someone who doesn't really identify with either group. More support. Less unsupported assertion.

Ha ha, that's rich.

Ha ha, that's rich.

Yet, you didn't do it. Point out where he incorrectly defined it and how it should be used. Otherwise it's just saying stuff.

I say you use the word rich improperly in that post. I'm not going to explain what I mean or how you used it wrong, but it stands. Who needs to support stuff? Let's just say stuff without explaining what we mean. It'll be fun.

Meatloaf is the cure for cancer.

We were talking about foreign insurgents. If they didn't attack them and they don't live there, we're not aggressors towards them. They are killing Iraqi civilians and Iraqi military. They are attacking the country of Iraq, its civilians and its new government. It's clear we are not acting as aggressors at this point. In fact, in the absense of hostilities we would prefer to leave.
This is perhaps why the spin is so important? IF it is deemed that US forces are indeed fighting "terrorist" forces from outside Iraq, then the cause is certainly a much more noble one?

So spin the numbers, turn them upside down and inside out. Apply formulae and other criteria but make those numbers say what you want them to say. Discredit the dates of posted links, and state that the numbers have changed. Spin, spin, and more spin?

BTW, this article dated September 22, 2005 (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/09/withdrawal.html) (since my links are out of date???) suggests that the majority of insurgents are Iraqi and it is an interesting article:

Numerically, the jihadists represent a tiny minority of resistance fighters in Iraq (certainly no more than 10%). The vast majority (probably well over 90%) of the 70 or so attacks each day are conducted by the nationalist resistance. But the jihadists are responsible for the high-profile car bombings and the spectacular attacks against Shia mosques and other "soft targets." These account for the vast majority of all the civilian casualties inflicted by the resistance.

It also details why the US should leave:

1. The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war;

2. The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it;

3. Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left;

4. The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate.

Keep on spinning. :rolleyes:

Yet, you didn't do it. Point out where he incorrectly defined it and how it should be used. Otherwise it's just saying stuff.

I say you use the word rich improperly in that post. I'm not going to explain what I mean or how you used it wrong, but it stands. Who needs to support stuff? Let's just say stuff without explaining what we mean. It'll be fun.

Meatloaf is the cure for cancer.

As I said, if I have to explain it...and if you can't see the misappropriation of the term "liberal" in today's punditry...then there simply isn't any point.

As to the Blix report - congratulations for reading it. Can you believe the media gave a pass on the missle because they were promising not to fully fuel it before launching?

"No Really, We won't fill it all the way up so it goes farther - That's just plain silly".
Ummm, I read the Blix Report and I do not believe that the information that you have provided is accurate?

The last thing the UN inspectors were doing before they had to leave Iraq because of the planned US invasion, was cutting up rockets that barely exceeded the UN guidelines and we are talking about extremely short range missles.

UN Finds No Long-Range Iraqi Missiles (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0227nomissiles.htm)

The U.N. inspectors swarming over Iraq's missile industry found an infraction last week: The short-range Al Samoud 2 sometimes flies a few miles farther than allowed. But the experts have reported no sign of any longer-range missiles that could strike Israel or neighboring oil nations as Washington fears.

In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic "eyes and ears." Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.

Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix gave Iraq until Saturday to begin destroying the Al Samouds, and Baghdad was reported Thursday to have agreed in principle to go ahead with their elimination - via explosives, crushing, cutting or other means.

As I said, if I have to explain it...and if you can't see the misappropriation of the term "liberal" in today's punditry...then there simply isn't any point.

Oh, so you're not talking about in his post? Ha. You certainly made it sound like he misused the term.

This is perhaps why the spin is so important? IF it is deemed that US forces are indeed fighting "terrorist" forces from outside Iraq, then the cause is certainly a much more noble one?

So spin the numbers, turn them upside down and inside out. Apply formulae and other criteria but make those numbers say what you want them to say. Discredit the dates of posted links, and state that the numbers have changed. Spin, spin, and more spin?

BTW, this article dated September 22, 2005 (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/09/withdrawal.html) (since my links are out of date???) suggests that the majority of insurgents are Iraqi and it is an interesting article:

Numerically, the jihadists represent a tiny minority of resistance fighters in Iraq (certainly no more than 10%). The vast majority (probably well over 90%) of the 70 or so attacks each day are conducted by the nationalist resistance. But the jihadists are responsible for the high-profile car bombings and the spectacular attacks against Shia mosques and other "soft targets." These account for the vast majority of all the civilian casualties inflicted by the resistance.

It also details why the US should leave:

1. The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war;

2. The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it;

3. Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left;

4. The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate.

Keep on spinning. :rolleyes:

And what's his source? Where did he get those numbers? See the DoD would have direct knowledge of the insurgents who are captured and killed. Where did this individual get his information? For all I know, he got it from the same sources you did. What are his numbers based on?

Oh, but I'm spinning, right? Would you like to show a non-editiorial source? The DoD is the direct source.

If that's defense then the next time I feel like my pro-choice rights are going to be violating can I go and chop up the kids next door saying I was defending myself against the fascist government? Will CTOAN stand up and claim that no reasonable person could make any argument other than it was a justified defense of my rights? I suspect no to both questions.
Leave me out of this. I'm done with the whole deal.

Leave me out of this. I'm done with the whole deal.

No one forces you to post my friend. I didn't attack you or say anything that should be offensive. I was speaking directly to a point you made. If you didn't wanted it referenced you didn't have to post it.

The thing is, what I define as "liberal" or "left" is not how the poster I addressed defines them. He, and many of the pundits who grace our TV screens, clearly intend the term "liberal" and "lefty" as derogatory terms, as a quick review of the context shows. Um... the guy who wrote that considers himself a Liberal... Maybe you should follow the link and look at his site before mouthing off.
Likewise, I have no problem be called a "fucker" by a friend, but sometimes I object to being called "sir" by someone who clearly dislikes me and my views.
Ah, the old "it's OK for Blacks to use the term '******'" rubric... :rolleyes:

This is perhaps why the spin is so important? IF it is deemed that US forces are indeed fighting "terrorist" forces from outside Iraq, then the cause is certainly a much more noble one?

So spin the numbers, turn them upside down and inside out. Apply formulae and other criteria but make those numbers say what you want them to say. Discredit the dates of posted links, and state that the numbers have changed. Spin, spin, and more spin?

BTW, this article dated September 22, 2005 (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/09/withdrawal.html) (since my links are out of date???) suggests that the majority of insurgents are Iraqi and it is an interesting article:

Numerically, the jihadists represent a tiny minority of resistance fighters in Iraq (certainly no more than 10%). The vast majority (probably well over 90%) of the 70 or so attacks each day are conducted by the nationalist resistance. But the jihadists are responsible for the high-profile car bombings and the spectacular attacks against Shia mosques and other "soft targets." These account for the vast majority of all the civilian casualties inflicted by the resistance.

It also details why the US should leave:

1. The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war;

2. The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it;

3. Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left;

4. The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate.

Keep on spinning. :rolleyes:
And yet, the issue at question was whether or not the "insurgents", Iraqi or Foreign, were/are "defending" anything. If there is to be any meaning to the term "defense" they cannot be... but you failed to address that in your dash to (once again) criticize the coalition presence in Iraq (which neither Jacobia nor I are particularly fond of either. We just want to maintain some sort of Logic when discussing the actions of the "insurgents".)

As I said, if I have to explain it...and if you can't see the misappropriation of the term "liberal" in today's punditry...then there simply isn't any point.
Oh, I see it all right. As a Libertarian I am forced daily to remember that "Liberal" has been co-opted by the both the nanny-state "left" and the paternalistic "right".

But since I AM a grownup and need neither a nanny nor a daddy, I can also recognize that "left" and "right" are self-applied terms and "neo-con" is not.

Maybe you should go check out DU, Kos, or other Nanny sites to see how they self-apply the term "Left". (ditto "Right")

No one forces you to post my friend. I didn't attack you or say anything that should be offensive. I was speaking directly to a point you made. If you didn't wanted it referenced you didn't have to post it.
Well, 'friend,' you made an assumption on my position and how I would react to a constructed situation-making an extrapolation on how I would react to something.

It is exactly this kind of thing, 'pal,' that removes me from the debate. I have no desire to sit and snipe with you. Honest, respectful debate-fine. Let me know when you reach that level and you can call me in all you want.

Ummm, I read the Blix Report and I do not believe that the information that you have provided is accurate?

The last thing the UN inspectors were doing before they had to leave Iraq because of the planned US invasion, was cutting up rockets that barely exceeded the UN guidelines and we are talking about extremely short range missles.

UN Finds No Long-Range Iraqi Missiles (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0227nomissiles.htm)

The U.N. inspectors swarming over Iraq's missile industry found an infraction last week: The short-range Al Samoud 2 sometimes flies a few miles farther than allowed. But the experts have reported no sign of any longer-range missiles that could strike Israel or neighboring oil nations as Washington fears.

In fact, after three months' intensive work, the U.N. teams are looking ahead to ending their current investigative phase, and moving on to long-term monitoring via electronic "eyes and ears." Such a system could rein in missile development for years, experts say.

Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix gave Iraq until Saturday to begin destroying the Al Samouds, and Baghdad was reported Thursday to have agreed in principle to go ahead with their elimination - via explosives, crushing, cutting or other means.


reread the report, pay attention to the casting circles for the motors, and above all, don't post anymore descriptions that prove my point.

They were in violation of many areas, including "missles that sometime exceeded their range limitations"...

:)

Well, 'friend,' you made an assumption on my position and how I would react to a constructed situation-making an extrapolation on how I would react to something.No, he didn't need to make an assumption. Your posts are very clear, and is backed up by followup posts. You stated quite categorically that you believe that the insurgent's position is one of "defense". You did NOT say "I believe they believe", which would then allow for assumption or inference, your said quite plainly that it is irrational to believe otherwise because "that's how they see it" - which is rubbish. Would it be rational for me to believe that the world is flat simply because that's what the "flat earthers" believe?
It is exactly this kind of thing, 'pal,' that removes me from the debate. I have no desire to sit and snipe with you. Honest, respectful debate-fine. Let me know when you reach that level and you can call me in all you want.
It is unfortunate that you have taken such personal offense at someone simply pointing out how unfortunate and wrong your statement was. You could have fixed it immediately by simply rephrasing your statement(s) thus:

"Since it still supports that they believe they are defending thier way of life and it has way more to do with the presence of that military than it does with what one mother is saying in the US." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9678113&postcount=72)

or:

"Your chief error here is thinking that invading Iraq is the first time there has been western intervention in the area to resist. Honestly, they see it as defending themselves." (Period. End of comment. This statement, as written here, is true and unarguable.)

You see, we know that's how the duped splodydopes see it, but to say that we are "stretching logic" to not see it that way ourselves is simply wrong, and, in many ways, inflamatory - because it presumes to tell us that unless we hold the same worldview as those who indescriminately kill innocents, we are irrational.

I think both Jacobia and I are more than happy to have a respectful debate with you, but thus far it seems to me that only your posts have truly been "sniping" while trying to argue that what you said, in multiple places, is not what you mean.... (while a couple of Jacobia's have been a bit on the snide side, at least he never called you a "dick"... :rolleyes: Pot, Kettle, Black.)

Oh, I see it all right. As a Libertarian I am forced daily to remember that "Liberal" has been co-opted by the both the nanny-state "left" and the paternalistic "right".

But since I AM a grownup and need neither a nanny nor a daddy, I can also recognize that "left" and "right" are self-applied terms and "neo-con" is not.

Maybe you should go check out DU, Kos, or other Nanny sites to see how they self-apply the term "Left". (ditto "Right")

More of the same.

reread the report, pay attention to the casting circles for the motors, and above all, don't post anymore descriptions that prove my point.

They were in violation of many areas, including "missles that sometime exceeded their range limitations"...

:)
Several problems here:

First of all, you stated:

"Can you believe the media gave a pass on the missle because they were promising not to fully fuel it before launching?"

The media didn't give this a pass and I remind you againh that the UN inspections teams were in the process of destroying the longer range missles.

I will post the relevant part of the Blix report but please note the bolded parts that do not agree with your statement, that "they were in violation of many areas, including "missles that sometime exceeded their range limitations"

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

The fact remains that the process was moving forward and that on the subject of co-operation, Blix had this to report:

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

And about UNMOVIC’s capability he had this to report:

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

This wasn't good enough for Mr. Bush. Even though the UN was not finding ANY, as in ZERO WMD, the US decided to invade. Too bad, so sad. :(

And yet, the issue at question was whether or not the "insurgents", Iraqi or Foreign, were/are "defending" anything. If there is to be any meaning to the term "defense" they cannot be... but you failed to address that in your dash to (once again) criticize the coalition presence in Iraq (which neither Jacobia nor I are particularly fond of either. We just want to maintain some sort of Logic when discussing the actions of the "insurgents".)
What I find interesting is that you cannot make the connect here. I asked you to put yourself in their shoes, in that someone invades your country, and I think you would be shouldering up with these guys?

I don't picture you peacefully handing over your weapons to the invaders and declaring that the people have spoken, especially if you do not believe in their (your other compatriots) political ideology?

I think you might have some qualms about methodology but I picture you fighting to the death to protect your country?

And what's his source? Where did he get those numbers? See the DoD would have direct knowledge of the insurgents who are captured and killed. Where did this individual get his information? For all I know, he got it from the same sources you did. What are his numbers based on?

Oh, but I'm spinning, right? Would you like to show a non-editiorial source? The DoD is the direct source.
How about from the only 4 Star General in Iraq (http://www.political-news.org/breaking/5640/top-us-general-15000-insurgents-killed-or-caught.html)?

Casey described the insurgents as an assortment of Islamists, Saddam loyalists, common criminals and foreign fighters -- although he said the foreigners numbered less than 1,000.

Why would anyone have implicit trust in the DoD's numbers?

How about from the only 4 Star General in Iraq (http://www.political-news.org/breaking/5640/top-us-general-15000-insurgents-killed-or-caught.html)?

Casey described the insurgents as an assortment of Islamists, Saddam loyalists, common criminals and foreign fighters -- although he said the foreigners numbered less than 1,000.

Why would anyone have implicit trust in the DoD's numbers?

When numbers from before the election weren't sufficient before, why would you post them again? What part of the situation in Iraq was significantly different befoer the election are you missing? My source was Colonel Brown, Commander of the 1st Brigade in Iraq. He pointed out that your source is also correct, that at that time the insurgency was primarily Iraqi. And if today was January 25th you would have a point. But since it's nine months later, we'll look at the source from last week that said that the numbers no longer resemble what you claim.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050914-3903.html
From a teleconference last week from Mosul, Iraq.

Well, 'friend,' you made an assumption on my position and how I would react to a constructed situation-making an extrapolation on how I would react to something.

It is exactly this kind of thing, 'pal,' that removes me from the debate. I have no desire to sit and snipe with you. Honest, respectful debate-fine. Let me know when you reach that level and you can call me in all you want.

Nope, I'm perfectly happy just using your current contributions. I'll keep linking that post if you like. Want me to copy it in again? Continue to suggest that blowing up innocent civilians can't be seen as anything other than defense and expect it to be continually referenced. If your beliefs embarass you, perhaps you should examine that. If not, then what are you upset about?

Have a pleasant evening.

What I find interesting is that you cannot make the connect here. I asked you to put yourself in their shoes, in that someone invades your country, and I think you would be shouldering up with these guys?

I don't picture you peacefully handing over your weapons to the invaders and declaring that the people have spoken, especially if you do not believe in their (your other compatriots) political ideology?

I think you might have some qualms about methodology but I picture you fighting to the death to protect your country?

Which would make sense as an argument if the Iraqi insurgency had died out considerably after the elections and the major part of the insurgency wasn't now foreign. The only reliable sources you can find that say otherwise are talking about before the election. Your sources are similar to mine only mine is from last week. As you pointed out yourself a commander in Iraq is more reliable than some editorial (the only current source you've used).

Which would make sense as an argument if the Iraqi insurgency had died out considerably after the elections and the major part of the insurgency wasn't now foreign. The only reliable sources you can find that say otherwise are talking about before the election. Your sources are similar to mine only mine is from last week. As you pointed out yourself a commander in Iraq is more reliable than some editorial (the only current source you've used).
Okay, lets look at some of COL. BROWN's comments:

"Yeah. I'd say of the 550 enemy killed, I would say 70 -- 60, 70 percent foreign fighters. And a lot of those were in those large attacks prior to January. Of the 3,000 detained, over 3,000 we've detained, probably not as many detained, probably 40 to 50 percent foreign fighters, and the rest either, again, a "RPG for hire" type or one of these earlier groups earlier."

Why the discrepancy between the 70, no 60, no 70 percent foreign fighters killed and the 40 to 50 percent foreign fighters detained? You would think the ratio would be the same?

"But we're seeing more foreign fighters now, more poorly trained foreign fighters now than we did earlier, but the numbers have come down so much, it's kind of a tough comparison."

Well, are the numbers going up or down? I highlighted the "poorly trained". See below.

"But, yeah, clearly the level of proficiency is down in the foreign fighter, and clearly we see the level of complexity of attacks is way down, the level of attacks is down and the leadership is severely disrupted, no doubt about it."

So if the above holds true about level of combat, poor training, and poor proficiency, can the same be said about US troops?

Iraq War US troop casualties:

First eight months of 2004: 496

First eight months of 2005: 550

Clearly an increase in deaths, and significant because there are many more Iraqi soldiers fighting this year than there was last year.

This "teleconference" is all about propaganda?

" And this -- you know, I think it's the most evil enemy we've ever faced, because this is happening in Iraq, but they want it to spread to the United States as they -- you know, they already have. And they want it to spread everywhere. And they know how important it is here; that if they lose here and we have a democratic and free Iraq, we have a great example and it will give the people hope. And they want the people in fear. You know, freedom is the terrorists' biggest enemy by far."

And of course, Americans can read this stuff huh?

If I had more time, I would be able to pick this whole article apart.

Nope, I'm perfectly happy just using your current contributions. I'll keep linking that post if you like. Want me to copy it in again? Continue to suggest that blowing up innocent civilians can't be seen as anything other than defense and expect it to be continually referenced. If your beliefs embarass you, perhaps you should examine that. If not, then what are you upset about?

Have a pleasant evening.
I don't have any problem with what I've said. Have I erased it? Edited it? Nope. I haven't. I let it sit in the context of the argument I was having, for all to see and judge on thier own.

I certainly haven't dragged anything out of the argument, placed my own context on it and paraded it around like proud child with thier first swear word.

If you want to believe in the fairy tale of cackling evil without motivation, by all means-some people still believe in Santa Claus. If you want to continue to believe that looking at root causes realistically is tantamount to hating America and encouraging the terrorists, well-then you're a clown.

If you want to think your shaming me, continue to ride the myth. Like I said, I don't have a problem with what I said, and that you have decided to parade your lack of comprehension of it says more about you than it does me.

But to further try and bait me into continuing with someone who thinks that that is debate, it belittles both of us.

So carry your signature. It shows a core blind spot of yours that will help others who encounter you to understand. But to continue to reference me in your arguements, wastes your time.

So carry your signature. It shows a core blind spot of yours that will help others who encounter you to understand. But to continue to reference me in your arguements, wastes your time.
I do believe that if you object to the "carrying" of the signature that involves you, that you can ask the Mods to have the person remove it?

I do believe that if you object to the "carrying" of the signature that involves you, that you can ask the Mods to have the person remove it?
I don't really care if he has that in his signature or not. I did say it, he took it to mean that I love the terrorists-says more about him than it does me.

I think of it as a bell on a cat. Let's people know what thier dealing with when they see it in his sig.

Let's cut the crap about the infamous WMD issue out, shall we:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1167592004

Read that. Now. It would appear that the slogans chanted against the invasion were "No Blood for Oil." were meant for a very literal usage indeed ;) .

And the WMD predicament settled in my mind, I have no question then about the virtue of the continuation of the mission in Iraq.

And of course, Americans can read this stuff huh?

Unfortunately, no. Americans are joined by people from across the world in remaining largely ignorant of the real situation behind the WMD's of Iraq, be it by the Bush "oops" story or the liberal fairy-tale that so many intelligent people buy into in some fashion.

I don't really care if he has that in his signature or not. I did say it, he took it to mean that I love the terrorists-says more about him than it does me.

I think of it as a bell on a cat. Let's people know what thier dealing with when they see it in his sig.He has twisted your words in his sig?

there should be rules against that...

What I find interesting is that you cannot make the connect here. I asked you to put yourself in their shoes, in that someone invades your country, and I think you would be shouldering up with these guys?

I don't picture you peacefully handing over your weapons to the invaders and declaring that the people have spoken, especially if you do not believe in their (your other compatriots) political ideology?

I think you might have some qualms about methodology but I picture you fighting to the death to protect your country?And what I find interesting is that you continue to fail to understand that the ir "methodology" IS the problem.

Yes, I would fight an occupier... BY FIGHTING THE OCCUPIER - not blowing up my (or anyone elses) children.

I really don't care if they want to blow themselves up when attacking coalition forces. That's a viable (sort of) use of attrition troops when engaging the enemy. But they aren't doing that. They are indiscriminately killing "the occupier" AND their own innocent people. That removes the moral authority from their actions. Period.

Several problems here:

First of all, you stated:

"Can you believe the media gave a pass on the missle because they were promising not to fully fuel it before launching?"

The media didn't give this a pass and I remind you againh that the UN inspections teams were in the process of destroying the longer range missles.

I will post the relevant part of the Blix report but please note the bolded parts that do not agree with your statement, that "they were in violation of many areas, including "missles that sometime exceeded their range limitations"

These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.

In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.

Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.

Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

The fact remains that the process was moving forward and that on the subject of co-operation, Blix had this to report:

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

And about UNMOVIC’s capability he had this to report:

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

This wasn't good enough for Mr. Bush. Even though the UN was not finding ANY, as in ZERO WMD, the US decided to invade. Too bad, so sad. :(

Pay attention - I said go read the Blix REPORT. NOT the Blix Speech.

Blix was doing EVERYTHING he could to stop the war, including sofballing all of the info.

REad the REPORT to the UN, The REPORT itself is damaging to Blix when you've read it and compared it to the blix speech. The REPORT was compiled by many inspectors.

So as I said, go back, read the report about the castings, Pay attention to the fueling statement in it, and THEN respond since Blix was SOFTBALLING the issue.

He has twisted your words in his sig?No, he has not - as both CTOAN has admitted and I have shown.
there should be rules against that...There are. If the quote is intentionally deceitful because of its lack of contextural referant, it could be adjudicated Flaming.

The problem lies in the semantics of what was written. There is a sea of difference between saying "someone is" (a statement of percieved fact) "someone believes they are" (a statement of perceived belief based on data), and "I believe they believe" (a statement of personal acceptance of the authenticity of another's belief).

In this situation, the first case is demonstrably false to fact, but by using the "is of identity" (it is, they are, etc.) it presupposes the writer believes the statement's Truth. Since there is moral authority in the claim to defense, such an assertion positively affirms the writer's belief in the moral authority of the actions being declared as defensive actions. Thus, a logical reader has no choice but to infer that the writer supports such actions because of their inherent moral authrity.

As stated in my previous post, if CTOAN did NOT intend to have us understand that the insurgents truly have the moral authority of "defense" then the sentance(s) should have been written differently.

Pay attention - I said go read the Blix REPORT. NOT the Blix Speech.Blix speech at the UN has to be taken into account...

some Presidents/Kings get to give a UN Speech only once in their lifetimes...It is nor something to dismiss...

Don't Forget Collin Powell "lowest point" in his life was having to lie at the UN speech.

There has been dozens of reports form different Blix "inspectors"...but a UN speech is very rare.

You can always blame a inconclusive reports on lesser employees...and there is usually multiple conflicting reports anyways...But when you give a UN speech...you better be sure of what you are talking about...

I understand she didn't have the proper permits, and there was some resistance when Police tried to disperse the crowd.

Resisting the police in a situation like that isn't the answer.

Yes, in a free society police have absolute power to issue any commands to the public that they see fit. When police start bossing people around without enforcing any legitimate laws it's for your own good, and only a freedom hating communist terrorist would disagree. Why do the Cindy Sheehan supporters hate America?

And what I find interesting is that you continue to fail to understand that the ir "methodology" IS the problem.

Yes, I would fight an occupier... BY FIGHTING THE OCCUPIER - not blowing up my (or anyone elses) children.

I really don't care if they want to blow themselves up when attacking coalition forces. That's a viable (sort of) use of attrition troops when engaging the enemy. But they aren't doing that. They are indiscriminately killing "the occupier" AND their own innocent people. That removes the moral authority from their actions. Period.

When we wanted to 'liberate' Nicaragua in the 80's we used exactly the same methods that the terrorists are using now. We trained the terrorist groups in the middle east, they're fighting us the only way they know how. The way that we taught them. If someone is shooting guns at me, I might want to shoot guns back, but if all I have are rocks, then that's all I'm going to use. If my only infrastructure is a loose network of secret bombers then that's all I'm going to use to fight the opposing army.

You may be right in that it's preferable to fight the occupying troops directly, but as Rummy so succinctly put it, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want to have. Now it's retarded when he says it, because this is America and if they wanted a bigger, better equipped army they could have gotten it. The terrorists are operating with fairly limited means, even if there are a few oil millionares financing them.

Okay, lets look at some of COL. BROWN's comments:

"Yeah. I'd say of the 550 enemy killed, I would say 70 -- 60, 70 percent foreign fighters. And a lot of those were in those large attacks prior to January. Of the 3,000 detained, over 3,000 we've detained, probably not as many detained, probably 40 to 50 percent foreign fighters, and the rest either, again, a "RPG for hire" type or one of these earlier groups earlier."

Why the discrepancy between the 70, no 60, no 70 percent foreign fighters killed and the 40 to 50 percent foreign fighters detained? You would think the ratio would be the same?

Did you not read the entire source or are you just being difficult? He pointed out that Iraqi insurgents became much more likely to surrender after the election for several reasons, the chief of which is that they disagree with attacking other iraqis, civilian or no.

"we saw prior to January, the former regime elements and other extremist groups and other borderline terrorists groups that were working pretty well together prior to elections. What we've seen since February on is many of these former regime elements are coming forward; they want to be involved in the political process.
...
At that point, many of those -- you know, ones we captured, turned themselves in. We had many other -- you know, the former regime, some borderline Sunni groups, Ansar al-Sunni, some of these other groups that realized that this was not what they signed up for, and there was a real split there. And so the reason I'm concentrating right now so much on al Qaeda is that clearly is our biggest threat."


"But we're seeing more foreign fighters now, more poorly trained foreign fighters now than we did earlier, but the numbers have come down so much, it's kind of a tough comparison."

Well, are the numbers going up or down? I highlighted the "poorly trained". See below.

The overal number of insurgents has decreased while the percentage of foreign fighters has gone up. Relatively easy to see when not removed from context.

"But, yeah, clearly the level of proficiency is down in the foreign fighter, and clearly we see the level of complexity of attacks is way down, the level of attacks is down and the leadership is severely disrupted, no doubt about it."

So if the above holds true about level of combat, poor training, and poor proficiency, can the same be said about US troops?

Iraq War US troop casualties:

First eight months of 2004: 496

First eight months of 2005: 550

We did more negotiating in 2004. In fact, in February of 2004, there was practically a cease-fire (no coincidence you didn't include this in your numbers). 2005, particularly the election, sparked a campaign to root out the insurgency and chase them entirely out of some of the cities, obviously these wouldn't be counted as 'attacks' by the insurgents. Also, you are aware of what went on in January, prior to the election, yes? It was the bloodiest months of the year campaign for the US. He is talking about after the election. You are intentionally pre-election statistics to discredit him. Now who's spinning?

Here are more realistic comparisons -
Last nine months(post-election): 440
Nine months prior to election:522
Now if you think including the election is unfair, how about I drop back two months to not include election related fatalities.

Starting eleven months prior to the election and going to two months prior: 558 (whoops that didn't help your case).
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

"We did face well-trained foreign fighters prior to January elections. We have not faced well-trained foreign fighters since. Since February of this year until now, we have not seen any well-trained, in fact, very poorly trained foreign fighters. "

Hmmm... looks like he's talking about a change since the election. You intentionally included figures from before and during the election. You're no Clinton, but you're spinning pretty well.

Clearly an increase in deaths, and significant because there are many more Iraqi soldiers fighting this year than there was last year.

This would true if you were including important factors. You're not. I suspect you're aware of them and are propagandizing in your own way. Take into account the bloody election month (pre-election is not what he's talking about as he points out), the increase in the efforts to root out the insurgency, and the change in the style of attack from a straight out fight to bombs that can kill one Al Queda and fifteen or twenty soldiers.

This "teleconference" is all about propaganda?

You know what they say. It takes a propagandist to recognize... But let's analyze this propaganda and find who exactly is taking things out of context and making them sound like they say something different than they do.

" And this -- you know, I think it's the most evil enemy we've ever faced, because this is happening in Iraq, but they want it to spread to the United States as they -- you know, they already have. And they want it to spread everywhere. And they know how important it is here; that if they lose here and we have a democratic and free Iraq, we have a great example and it will give the people hope. And they want the people in fear. You know, freedom is the terrorists' biggest enemy by far."

And of course, Americans can read this stuff huh?

If I had more time, I would be able to pick this whole article apart.
Yes, I noticed that you left out that he is not talking about the insurgency as a whole but about Al Queda elements of the insurgency. Were you referring to your propaganda or theirs? Also, you didn't mention that his use of the word 'evil' was isolated to that one point. And his reference to it spreading here is true, given that, as he mentioned, they've already struck here. See how much different that reads when you add context.


Now let's see if I get this straight, a military leader in Iraq is a good source if you think he proves you correct and a poor source if he doesn't? Don't answer. The evidence of the answer is obvious. But I guess I'm just spinning again. I guess it's me leaving out all of these factors on purpose and posting old sources for the statistics prior to the election and pretending like they are current. Oh, wait, I'm Jocabia. That was CanuckHeaven. I get confused sometimes. :rolleyes:

How about from the only 4 Star General in Iraq?
http://www.political-news.org/breaking/5640/top-us-general-15000-insurgents-killed-or-caught.html

Clearly, you find US military leaders in Iraq to be reliable sources if they appear to agree with you. Must have been frustrating when you found out that source actually agrees with me.

This is fun. I love pointing out propaganda. Post another old source and pretend it rebuts my source. No, wait, take a bunch of quotes out of context and then misrepresent them. No, wait, how about you include numbers before the election to dispute what someone is saying after the election. Nah, you did all that. How about you try a new tactic? Try making an analysis of the available data that makes sense so you don't have to spin. That would be much more fun.

I do believe that if you object to the "carrying" of the signature that involves you, that you can ask the Mods to have the person remove it?

I don't believe there are any rules against a direct quote. I even link to the original post. I gave context by summarizing my post he was replying to. I believe I've fulfilled my obligation to CTOAN.

Let's cut the crap about the infamous WMD issue out, shall we:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1167592004

Read that. Now. It would appear that the slogans chanted against the invasion were "No Blood for Oil." were meant for a very literal usage indeed ;) .

And the WMD predicament settled in my mind, I have no question then about the virtue of the continuation of the mission in Iraq.



Unfortunately, no. Americans are joined by people from across the world in remaining largely ignorant of the real situation behind the WMD's of Iraq, be it by the Bush "oops" story or the liberal fairy-tale that so many intelligent people buy into in some fashion.

It's funny, you complain about "liberal fairy tales" but then you site Conservative ones.

a bribery strategy targeting Jacques Chirac, the President of France

It was the US who acounted for more than half of all the funds laundered through extra-oil-for-food deals. Yup, the US accounted for more of the dirty Iraq deals than all other countries put together. And yet this article still buys into the conservative France-bashing. Revisionist crap.

Blix speech at the UN has to be taken into account...
.

Then it's obvious you haven't read the report itself - because after reading it you'll realize that Blix's SPEECH should be summarily DISCOUNTED from consideration.

He essentially pointed to an air craft carrier, and said it was one man canoe.

REad the report - I'm patient, see the questions that were ignored, minimized, or parsed to make the Blix speech a farce.

I don't really care if he has that in his signature or not. I did say it, he took it to mean that I love the terrorists-says more about him than it does me.

I think of it as a bell on a cat. Let's people know what thier dealing with when they see it in his sig.

That's exactly why I put it in my signature. And they are welcome to see the original post and draw their own conclusions. I changed it since you didn't like it. I now summarize my post (I would include it, but there are rules on sig length) and then give your post in its entirety with a link to the original post. What more could you possibly want?

You could have stated it differently and I would have agreed with you. As was pointed out by another poster, you could have said that they believe themselves to be under attack and are defending against that attack. I could have agreed with that. You didn't. You said no reasonable person could come to ANY other conclusion than these people are defending themselves against Western aggression that began prior to Iraq (since I mentioned the 911 attacks, England and Spain, et al). You weren't just defending the insurgents or there would have been no need to include the first sentence about how Western aggression wasn't started in Iraq. You were defending all of the actions that I listed with the excuse that Westerners were attacking them prior to their defensive actions against the West. That is the context of your post. Just in case anyone wonders if I'm making it up, I'll post it again. I wouldn't want to be intellectually dishonest, now would I?

More to the point, as I pointed out, the insurgents are the same people responsible for 911, the attacks in England, Spain, and various other places including the USS Cole and several US embassies. You're ignoring the fact that these 'insurgents' have been attacking US and European targets for a decade.

Your chief error here is thinking that invading Iraq is the first time there has been western intervention in the area to resist.

Honestly, anything other than defending themselves, which is how they see it, takes an enormous stretch of logic.

And there it is folks. Notice it doesn't say, "look at the fact that they believe they are defending themselves." Notice it doesn't even say, "I believe, as they do, they are defending themselves." It says that one must stretch logic in order to reach any other conclusion than that they are defending themselves. Also, notice that by my post we're discussing Al Queda and by the first sentence of his he wasn't just talking about in Iraq.

When we wanted to 'liberate' Nicaragua in the 80's we used exactly the same methods that the terrorists are using now. We trained the terrorist groups in the middle east, they're fighting us the only way they know how. The way that we taught them. Um.. no. At no time, in no way did we ever train anyone to blow themselves up. Nor did we ever train anyone to indiscriminately kill civillians. EVER. It is quite possible, even likely, that we taught VietCong style guerilla tactics, but this whole splodydope thing is entirely a middle-eastern homegrown phenomenon.
If someone is shooting guns at me, I might want to shoot guns back, but if all I have are rocks, then that's all I'm going to use. If my only infrastructure is a loose network of secret bombers then that's all I'm going to use to fight the opposing army.Then they should attack the opposing army, not innocents.
You may be right in that it's preferable to fight the occupying troops directly, but as Rummy so succinctly put it, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want to have. Now it's retarded when he says it, because this is America and if they wanted a bigger, better equipped army they could have gotten it. The terrorists are operating with fairly limited means, even if there are a few oil millionares financing them.And that prevents them from only attacking military targets in what way?

*blink blink*
Wow! What dazzling rhetoric! What repartee! *applauds lightly*

So happy to support Hillary, and yet it would have been less than a year ago that you would have been amongst those crying for her head, just because Bill O'Reilly, Ann "Thrax" Coulter, Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh etc told you so. And yet, if she falls into line and SELLS OUT, she's your fairytale princess.

So you support that fuckwit's war, do you?
Well, then...let me ask you this:
If you support it so much, why aren't YOU there?

Cindy LOST a kid in Iraq, where he was fighting a shit shit war where he had no place being in the first place.

You rank on an innocent woman who has the guts to stand up for her principles i.e. that this war is WRONG, but YOU don't have the guts to stand up for YOURS i.e. JOIN the army and die for this cause that you believe in.

You think that she should shut her MOUTH?
Well, why don't YOU - and any of you who complain that she's getting in the way of your war - put your money where your MOUTH IS? Join the army! Go to Iraq!

But I sincerely doubt you'd do it. You don't have the cojones...

Chickenhawks...you're all alike!
*spits in disgust*
Maybe there's a reason I don't join the army? Like, maybe because I'm NOT OLD ENOUGH!
And what's with all the flaming? I though liberals were supposed to be compassionate? Well, that blows that theory to shit.

sheehan needs to get off her high horse, she got some media attention and now she thinks she can take on everyone. her son died, its sad, it happened, its over. she made her point she doesnt like the war, now she is just an annoyance. if she wants everyone to stop their lives to mourn her son, then she needs to realize her son is not the only one. mothers of other soldiers that died there are becomming even more upset, because of her. they dont like her. some may support her, but the rest would preffer her to shut up.

she also needs to realize her son signed up out of free will. he was not drafted, and he was not sold as a slave to it. he signed up like everyone else over there. there is no garuntee made to you that you will come back alive.

Maybe there's a reason I don't join the army? Like, maybe because I'm NOT OLD ENOUGH!
And what's with all the flaming? I though liberals were supposed to be compassionate? Well, that blows that theory to shit.

true liberals are compassionate, most "liberals" today are liberals for a few reasons, to be annoying, just so they can protest something, and they dont know any better.

I don't have any problem with what I've said. Have I erased it? Edited it? Nope. I haven't. I let it sit in the context of the argument I was having, for all to see and judge on thier own.

I certainly haven't dragged anything out of the argument, placed my own context on it and paraded it around like proud child with thier first swear word.

I added exactly the proper context and linked back to the original post in my signature.

If you want to believe in the fairy tale of cackling evil without motivation, by all means-some people still believe in Santa Claus. If you want to continue to believe that looking at root causes realistically is tantamount to hating America and encouraging the terrorists, well-then you're a clown.

First of all, I haven't called you any names. Namecalling is unnecessary. I've excercised patience throughout your attacks, even changing my signature according to your desires. But I'm not erasing it unless ordered to. I think it's to everyone's benefit to see exactly what platform you're arguing from.

Second, we weren't talking merely about their motivation. You said plainly that you see it as defensive actions as well as them. You agree that they need to defend themselves. In the same post you said this was necessary before Iraq in defense of the other terrorist actions I listed.

I believe it's likely that many of the individuals terrorists do believe they are defending themselves against an assault from the west, but I don't think it's a physical assault. If one reads the letters from Osama, one finds that he is talking not just about their complaints about Isreal, etc., but also about the Western cultural assault on decency. He outlines what is required for the attacks on Western countries to cease and that is for us to accept Islam, to destroy Isreal, to depose the invalid leaders in the Middle East, et al. Al Queda's top leader points out that they are not only motivated by what they view to be physical attacks.

I have examined their motivation. I just don't defend their motivation. You said that anyone who believes that they are not acting defensively is enorumously stretching logic. That is much different than analyzing their motivation. The only one of us that is try to make it seem different than it is, is you.

If you want to think your shaming me, continue to ride the myth. Like I said, I don't have a problem with what I said, and that you have decided to parade your lack of comprehension of it says more about you than it does me.

But to further try and bait me into continuing with someone who thinks that that is debate, it belittles both of us.

So carry your signature. It shows a core blind spot of yours that will help others who encounter you to understand. But to continue to reference me in your arguements, wastes your time.
Yes, it outlines my blind spot towards people saying that Al Queda attacking civilians can't be seen as anything other than defense. Again, be as upset as you like. I gave it as much context as I could fit in the signature and linked to the original post. I can't give people more ability to analyze it themselves than that.

The difference between analyzing the motivation of a group and siding with that group has been outlined to you several times, but I'll throw it out there again.

"Can you believe that white lynch mob hung that black man for sleeping with a white woman?"

one answer:
"Honestly, anything other than defending the purity of the white race, which is how they see it, takes an enourmous stretch of logic."
Aligning with a mob of racists and suggesting that anyone that doesn't agree with them is incapable of basic logic.

"Honestly, it's obvious that they see it as defending the purity of the white race."
Examing the motivations of the mob.

See the difference there.

I'm not trying to bait you. I'm trying to get you to see your folly and correct it. I doubt you really believe that Al Queda is justified, but that you are so anti-US that you figure the enemy of your enemy is your friend (yes, I'm trying to examine your motivations as well). Because if you're not anti-US, I can't see any reason why anyone would suggest that targetting innocent civilians (we'll ignore 'collateral damage' for the purposes of this point), regardless of who the civilians are and who is doing the targetting, and regardless of the motivations of those targetting, is defensible. Like I said, if you were just pointing out their motivations, we wouldn't be having this argument now.

Cindy Sheehan called Bush a hypocrite (I forget exactly how), but she's the biggest hypocrite ever. One of my friends' brother died in Iraq and they went to one of her rallies, and tried to take out the cross with his name on it. Now, when Sheehan was on-stage, she was crying and bawling about "all these innocent young men and women who are victims of pre-meditated murder by Bush" (WTF!!!), but when they tried to take the cross, Sheehan snapped her fingers and a bunch of her cronies surrounded the family, picking on them and saying things like "Your son/brother was a murderer and deserved his death! You will burn in hell for bringing up such a horrible person! I'm glad the Iraqis killed him!". And I'm not making this up, because it happened more than once.

Cindy Sheehan called Bush a hypocrite (I forget exactly how), but she's the biggest hypocrite ever. One of my friends' brother died in Iraq and they went to one of her rallies, and tried to take out the cross with his name on it. Now, when Sheehan was on-stage, she was crying and bawling about "all these innocent young men and women who are victims of pre-meditated murder by Bush" (WTF!!!), but when they tried to take the cross, Sheehan snapped her fingers and a bunch of her cronies surrounded the family, picking on them and saying things like "Your son/brother was a murderer and deserved his death! You will burn in hell for bringing up such a horrible person! I'm glad the Iraqis killed him!". And I'm not making this up, because it happened more than once.

im not sure about at that level, but i am pretty certain she doesnt care about anyone else but her own son. she has supporters that think she is doing this for the people in iraq now, if she cared about them she would stop.

Cindy Sheehan called Bush a hypocrite (I forget exactly how), but she's the biggest hypocrite ever. One of my friends' brother died in Iraq and they went to one of her rallies, and tried to take out the cross with his name on it. Now, when Sheehan was on-stage, she was crying and bawling about "all these innocent young men and women who are victims of pre-meditated murder by Bush" (WTF!!!), but when they tried to take the cross, Sheehan snapped her fingers and a bunch of her cronies surrounded the family, picking on them and saying things like "Your son/brother was a murderer and deserved his death! You will burn in hell for bringing up such a horrible person! I'm glad the Iraqis killed him!". And I'm not making this up, because it happened more than once.
The reason we go after North Korea and Iran for making nukes and not India and Pakistan is simple. India and Pakistan are all like "Hey, we're going to make some big bombs now, is that okay with you guys?", while Iran and North Korea take a different approach.

Bush: Kim, are you building nukes?
Kim Jong Il: What are you talking about? *shifty eyes*
Bush: We have pictures of uranium enriching facilities in your nation. And you don't have any nuclear power plants. What are you doing with that uranium?
Kim Jong Il: Uh... Baking a cake?
Bush: You're building nukes, aren't you!
Kim Jong Il: Uh, no?
Bush: *cracks knuckles*
Kim Jong Il: Alright! I am! And I'm pointing them at YOU! Muhahahahahahaha!!!!
hey wait a minute.... Jonnhy Wadd !!!... is that you?

Cindy Sheenan is no different than the other scum I work with on a daily basis: turning a profit from the suffering and hardluck of others. Bush and his administration are no better and does it on a far larger scale. I see scum attacking scum, different agendas, same methods.

Cindy Sheenan is no different than the other scum I work with on a daily basis: turning a profit from the suffering and hardluck of others. Bush and his administration are no better and does it on a far larger scale. I see scum attacking scum, different agendas, same methods.

Now, I would say that is fairly accurate, but could be extended to the vast majority of federal politicians.

Cindy vs Hillary.
Who will win?

Hmm.....

I guess the only way we can be sure is an all-out wrestling match. Anyone got a big pool of jello? Winner takes on Condi.

hey wait a minute.... Jonnhy Wadd !!!... is that you?
Nope.

I added exactly the proper context and linked back to the original post in my signature.



First of all, I haven't called you any names. Namecalling is unnecessary. I've excercised patience throughout your attacks, even changing my signature according to your desires. But I'm not erasing it unless ordered to. I think it's to everyone's benefit to see exactly what platform you're arguing from.

Second, we weren't talking merely about their motivation. You said plainly that you see it as defensive actions as well as them. You agree that they need to defend themselves. In the same post you said this was necessary before Iraq in defense of the other terrorist actions I listed.

I believe it's likely that many of the individuals terrorists do believe they are defending themselves against an assault from the west, but I don't think it's a physical assault. If one reads the letters from Osama, one finds that he is talking not just about their complaints about Isreal, etc., but also about the Western cultural assault on decency. He outlines what is required for the attacks on Western countries to cease and that is for us to accept Islam, to destroy Isreal, to depose the invalid leaders in the Middle East, et al. Al Queda's top leader points out that they are not only motivated by what they view to be physical attacks.

I have examined their motivation. I just don't defend their motivation. You said that anyone who believes that they are not acting defensively is enorumously stretching logic. That is much different than analyzing their motivation. The only one of us that is try to make it seem different than it is, is you.


Yes, it outlines my blind spot towards people saying that Al Queda attacking civilians can't be seen as anything other than defense. Again, be as upset as you like. I gave it as much context as I could fit in the signature and linked to the original post. I can't give people more ability to analyze it themselves than that.

The difference between analyzing the motivation of a group and siding with that group has been outlined to you several times, but I'll throw it out there again.

"Can you believe that white lynch mob hung that black man for sleeping with a white woman?"

one answer:
"Honestly, anything other than defending the purity of the white race, which is how they see it, takes an enourmous stretch of logic."
Aligning with a mob of racists and suggesting that anyone that doesn't agree with them is incapable of basic logic.

"Honestly, it's obvious that they see it as defending the purity of the white race."
Examing the motivations of the mob.

See the difference there.

Nope. I don't. What I see is a bunch of bullshit. Self created distinction. I don't see anything in either phrase that endorses the actions.

I'm not trying to bait you.
Bullshit.
I'm trying to get you to see your folly and correct it. I doubt you really believe that Al Queda is justified, but that you are so anti-US that you figure the enemy of your enemy is your friend (yes, I'm trying to examine your motivations as well). Because if you're not anti-US, I can't see any reason why anyone would suggest that targetting innocent civilians (we'll ignore 'collateral damage' for the purposes of this point), regardless of who the civilians are and who is doing the targetting, and regardless of the motivations of those targetting, is defensible. Like I said, if you were just pointing out their motivations, we wouldn't be having this argument now.

And there is the GIANT logic hole you can't seem to get out of. Saying they are defending themselves, at least how they see it IS NOT DEFENDING THEM. It is not being anti-US. But, you seem to be unable to seperate the two. It's alright, though. Cause now you have that signature to let other people know about your blind spot.

Nope.awww damn
that guy was hilarious :D

Nope. I don't. What I see is a bunch of bullshit. Self created distinction. I don't see anything in either phrase that endorses the actions.


Bullshit.


And there is the GIANT logic hole you can't seem to get out of. Saying they are defending themselves, at least how they see it IS NOT DEFENDING THEM. It is not being anti-US. But, you seem to be unable to seperate the two. It's alright, though. Cause now you have that signature to let other people know about your blind spot.

Self-created distinction? You seriously can't see the difference between saying the only logical way to see their actions is as a defense to western aggressions and saying that they see their actions as a defense to western aggressions? I know you're angry with me, but honestly ask yourself if there couldn't POSSIBLY be a difference between saying "they believe" and "anyone who believes otherwise is enormously stretching logic". "Honestly, anything other than seeing it as a defense of terrorism, which is how Syniks sees it, takes an enormous stretch of logic."

Self-created distinction? You seriously can't see the difference between saying the only logical way to see their actions is as a defense to western aggressions and saying that they see their actions as a defense to western aggressions? I know you're angry with me, but honestly ask yourself if there couldn't POSSIBLY be a difference between saying "they believe" and "anyone who believes otherwise is enormously stretching logic". "Honestly, anything other than seeing it as a defense of terrorism, which is how Syniks sees it, takes an enormous stretch of logic."
They both say they are defending themselves. Niether makes a judgement on how they go about it. You seem stuck.

They both say they are defending themselves. Niether makes a judgement on how they go about it. You seem stuck.

The point isn't what is being said about the person who is doing the action, the point is what it says about the person saying it. Both say they are defending themselves, but one aligns the speaker with the action and one doesn't.


"Why is Bush angry at Iran?"
Responses:
"Iran is evil!"
"Bush believes Iran is evil"

You can't see the difference between making a distinction in your answer between what you believe and what the subject believes and not doing that?

I'm actually curious on this point so I removed it from my signature and posted a thread asking other people how they read it. I removed your name and mine from the the posts and used no links. I linked to the posts in their entirety and added context. Go look at it and then come here and let me know if you'd like me to change anything about what I said of the context. I really am trying to be fair and examine if it's really possible to read your post the way you say it should be read. I really don't see how you could suggest other than what I've said, but I'm willing to accept the views of others who aren't so entrenched in this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9689167#post9689167

Please, don't get upset over this. I really want to see if it's just me or others see it the same way I did.

They both say they are defending themselves. Niether makes a judgement on how they go about it. You seem stuck.

Well, I think I got enough of an answer from the other thread. Some people read it my way, some people read it your way. But that's not what I found most helpful.

It was pointed out in the thread that whether you are suggesting that are actually acting in self-defense or just perceive themselves to be acting in self-defense, you say nothing about their methods, which is an excellent point. I treated you as if you defended their methods when at worst you defended their motivations. I'm not sure even in the context of the whole thread that you ever suggested their actions are justified. You only said (as I read your post) that their motivations are justified. If their methodology was just to assist anyone who worked against the US military for example (rather than blowing up civilians) I would have likely been agreeing with you. Is that intellectually honest enough for you?

I still think their actions are indefensible but I can see how their motivations could be defended and even in the worst interpretation of your post the most anyone should get (in my opinion) is the latter. I apologize for the grief I've caused you. I was serious when I said I wasn't trying to bait you. I was simply floored by what I perceived your statement to mean. I suspect there are aspects of this debate that we will never agree on, but perhaps we can just leave this argument here.

When Rose met Cindy
23 September 2005
On both sides of the Atlantic, two mothers who lost sons in Iraq have launched campaigns to end the conflict. One camped outside George Bush's ranch. The other stood in the general election. This week, they came face to face for the first time.
*snip..

Mrs Sheehan said she would like to accept Mrs Gentle's invitation to tour the UK and share her message with British audiences. It was important that the anti-war message was as loudly heard in Britain as the US because "they have troops in Iraq. They are part of it", she told The Independent.

The families' descent upon Washington to participate in three days of anti-war protests this weekend organised by the group United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ) comes at a time when public support in the US for the war stands at an all-time low. A recent poll conducted for The New York Times suggested that only 44 per cent of Americans now believe the invasion of Iraq was the correct thing to do. Around 80 per cent are concerned that the spiralling costs of the occupation are diverting resources needed in the US.

Mr Bush's own ratings have similarly sunk to record lows. A Gallup poll released this week suggested only 40 per cent approve of his performance, down from almost 90 per cent in the aftermath of 9/11.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314492.ece

Pay attention - I said go read the Blix REPORT. NOT the Blix Speech.

Blix was doing EVERYTHING he could to stop the war, including sofballing all of the info.

REad the REPORT to the UN, The REPORT itself is damaging to Blix when you've read it and compared it to the blix speech. The REPORT was compiled by many inspectors.

So as I said, go back, read the report about the castings, Pay attention to the fueling statement in it, and THEN respond since Blix was SOFTBALLING the issue.
Did you for once think that Blix was "softballing" (for a reason) because Bush wanted to play "hardball", and despite ALL of the rhetoric, Colin's fancy pictures and slides, Bush's bluster, and the faulty intel, that there were no WMD to be found in Iraq?

What did Blix say after the US did the dirty deed?

Blix attacks Iraq weapons 'spin' (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Blix_attacks_091803.htm)

Blix Attacks 'Spin and Hype' of Iraq Weapon Claims (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-02.htm)

The U.N.'s former chief weapons inspector has attacked the "spin and hype" he says the United States and Britain used when warning about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Blix says Bush, Blair insincere salesmen on Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/iraq-040210-pla-daily03.htm)

Damn straight that Blix was "softballing". Blix knew the truth. Bush lied and the rest is history.

I though liberals were supposed to be compassionate? Well, that blows that theory to shit.I guess you were wrong :D :D :cool: :D

OOC: Hilary Clinton must die! She's destroying our love of violent videogames. she thinks she's protecting children but it's the other way around. Without violent games, where do we go to express our rage? We wouldn't do it at a public place because that would get them in serious trouble. But in games it's pretty safe for us. It's like she wants more violence than peace. I mean, I'm pretty evil in this online game, but in RL, I'm a very sweet guy. Not that I only use this place to express rage, but you probably get my point.
:) :sniper:

Did you for once think that Blix was "softballing" (for a reason) because Bush wanted to play "hardball", and despite ALL of the rhetoric, Colin's fancy pictures and slides, Bush's bluster, and the faulty intel, that there were no WMD to be found in Iraq?

What did Blix say after the US did the dirty deed?

Blix attacks Iraq weapons 'spin' (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Blix_attacks_091803.htm)

Blix Attacks 'Spin and Hype' of Iraq Weapon Claims (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-02.htm)

The U.N.'s former chief weapons inspector has attacked the "spin and hype" he says the United States and Britain used when warning about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Blix says Bush, Blair insincere salesmen on Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/02/iraq-040210-pla-daily03.htm)

Damn straight that Blix was "softballing". Blix knew the truth. Bush lied and the rest is history.

All you had to say was that you weren't fully informed - had not read the report, and just relied on the media for your position.

It's not my fault that you have a sieve when you're looking for water. When and if you actually read and speak to the Blix Report compiled by the inspectors for the U.N. I'll be waiting.

:)

I'm pretty evil in this online game, but in RL, I'm a very sweet guy. Not that I only use this place to express rage, but you probably get my point.
:) :sniper:we get your point :D

BTW was Hilary in Washington this weekend?