Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <In other words, I have no response, so I'll do just as Dabob predicted, pick up my ball, go home, and tell mommy everyone's been mean to me.> Well, no. What I'll do is note that you're making personal attacks again because you can't argue with facts and logic. <These people are dead, Douglas. But it's all a game to you.> It's not a game. They are dead because they were murdered. I want to stop the murders and catch the murders. You apparently want to leave them to murder more. I'm sorry you can't understand that.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Well, no. What I'll do is note that you're making personal attacks again because you can't argue with facts and logic.<< Sorry, that would be you. Telling me I want murderers to go free because I haven't swallowed your Kool-aid is a personal attack. It's the Bush cronies who can't argue with logic and facts, hence their need to simply toss out meaningless words like "victory", "defeat", "winning", "losing", etc. They can't define what those things are and so we continue in the Iraqi quagmire. They are brilliant at lip service, terrible at results. How else could they, and their followers, be so callous about motherless and fatherless children in Iraq and in the United States, as a result of their actions. Of course, you too love to throw around words - words like facts and logic. Of course, when called out, as you so often are by Dabob (someone with the patience of Job who puts up with your word games and curious, almost obsessive need to have the last word) you simply switch tactics and say that facts are now opinions, and logic is just repeating oneself.
Originally Posted By DAR <<They really aren't few and far between. DlDug, DAR, vbdad55 and others post here all the time, and don't seem so delicate about what you rather broadly term as a "personal attack." And I don't see any of them defending the administration's latest "creative accounting" scheme.>> Honestly I had and still have no energy to debate this particular subject. Most of these debates on Iraq really go nowhere.
Originally Posted By DAR And honestly here's my feelings four years later. We were right to go in, Saddam was a tyrant, an point which everyone here seemed to agree on. The world is better off without him in it. At the time Iraq didn't have WMD's but who is to say nothing would have happened. We do nothing over there and(I know I know strawman, just hear me out)a small nuclear weapon from Iraq gets smuggled in and is detonated here. People would be attacking this administration for doing nothing just like people went after Clinton for not grabbing Bin Laden. I will admit that the planning of the war was disatrous when dealing with the insurgency. We have a bickering government. The Iraqi government is not stepping up to the plate and doing their part to curb any of this violence. But despite all of this, most of our soldiers have performed in this war at near perfection levels. Granted the Abu-Gharab situation was a black eye. Though I will never be against tortuing known and guilty terror suspects. But after four years I think it's time to tell Iraqis privately to get their crap together or else we're out.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Every time someone makes a good point lately, you have been taking your ball and going home, sniffing "you're still wrong" as you go.>> <Well, no. I'm just would rather not waste my time trying to engage in a debate with those who keep repeating the same mistaken opinions and being insulting.> Gee, if all anyone had to do was say "you're wrong, I'm right, nanny nanny boo boo" and then repeat that ad naseum even as facts are presented... we'd have a board full of Douglasses. <That said, I will try once again to enlighten you.> What's the emoticon for sticking one's hand down one's throat? <<But, car bombs are a huge part of the sectarian violence in Iraq.>> <The Bush administration does not believe this is true. Rather, they believe that car bombs are being set by those, like foreign al queda agents, who trying to incite sectarian violence.> Nice try. How does that explain car bombs going off in Sunni neighborhoods, typically not long after one has gone off in a Shia neighborhood? How does it explain the car-bombing equipment found in the homes of home-grown Iraqi Shias arrested (occasionally) by the Iraqi authorities? General after general has said that the percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq is quite low. Most of the violence is, sadly, carried out by native Iraqis. <If you can show that they are wrong, please do so. Otherwise, your argument is based on a flawed premise.> See above. If the Bushies really believe that, they are once again letting wishful thinking get the better of them. <You may not agree with the idea that sectarian violence is not the primary factor causing car bombs, but there is nothing inherently dishonest in that belief.> It's either dishonest or willfully ignorant. There's a nice choice.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes it is. It's either dishonest because they're trying to calve off car bombs from sectarian violence when car bombs are a big part OF sectarian violence; or if they really don't think car bombs are part of sectarian violence, that's just ignorant - because they are. And you didn't answer my questions: "How does that explain car bombs going off in Sunni neighborhoods, typically not long after one has gone off in a Shia neighborhood? How does it explain the car-bombing equipment found in the homes of home-grown Iraqi Shias arrested (occasionally) by the Iraqi authorities?"
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How does that explain car bombs going off in Sunni neighborhoods, typically not long after one has gone off in a Shia neighborhood? How does it explain the car-bombing equipment found in the homes of home-grown Iraqi Shias arrested (occasionally) by the Iraqi authorities?> Well, since I haven't really heard of such particulars, I'd guess that they are either uncommon or non-existent.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Well, since I haven't really heard of such particulars, I'd guess that they are either uncommon or non-existent.> LOL! Okay, here folks we have the new standard for neocons. "If I haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist." Calvinball lives! How about this incident? It's recent, and it certainly made a splash, if you were paying attention. <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/03/iraqi-intelligence-torture-center.php" target="_blank">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pap erchase/2007/03/iraqi-intelligence-torture-center.php</a> This is a about a bomb making (and torture) facility in Shia southern Iraq near Basra, and was a facility of Iraqi intelligence ITSELF, which in the Basra area has long been infiltrated by Shia militia. Who have nothing to do with Sunni Al Qaeda. Anxiously awaiting your next Calvinball change of rules.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Okay, here folks we have the new standard for neocons. "If I haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist."> Are you intentionally or unintentionally distorting my comment? <How about this incident?> I don't see where it says the men arrested were Shia, or where it says it's now a common occurence.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Okay, here folks we have the new standard for neocons. "If I haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist.">> <Are you intentionally or unintentionally distorting my comment?> Neither. Your comment, "since I haven't really heard of such particulars, I'd guess that they are either uncommon or non-existent." speaks for itself. It's illogical on its face - if person X hasn't heard of something, that doesn't mean that something is uncommon or doesn't exist. It's certainly no basis for any sort of rational argument. <<How about this incident?>> <I don't see where it says the men arrested were Shia, or where it says it's now a common occurence.> Desperation on parade, folks. It was run by Iraqi intelligence itself - dominated by Shia - in Shia-dominated southern Iraq. Do the freaking math. As to "common?" Here's an article about "The Office" a shadowy ALL-Shia group set up that US officials are complaining is worsening the sectarian divide. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.office/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/ meast/05/01/iraq.office/index.html</a> "Iraq's prime minister has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country's sectarian divide. The Office of the Commander in Chief has the power to overrule other government ministries, according to U.S. military and intelligence sources. Those sources say the 24-member office is abusing its power, increasingly overriding decisions made by the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior and potentially undermining the entire U.S. effort in Iraq." (snip) "A senior U.S. military official cited several cases in Baghdad in which Iraqi commanders considered capable by the United States were detained or forced out of their positions after cracking down on Shiite militias. Among the cases, an Iraqi colonel in Baghdad, who had made strides in controlling the Shiite Mehdi militia, was removed from his job, the U.S. military official said. The official also cited the case of an Iraqi National Police commander who was detained and then fired after ordering his men to crack down on Shiite militiamen. The same source said the Office is working to reinstate Iraqi officers the United States had successfully removed because the officers were frequently casting a blind eye to violence carried out by Shiite militiamen." Still want to claim that most of the sectarian violence in Iraq is the work of Al Qaeda? Do you think Shia militias never use car bombs? Your view is not based on the reality of what's happening in Iraq, Douglas. It's based on wishful thinking as required by your ideology.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It was run by Iraqi intelligence itself - dominated by Shia - in Shia-dominated southern Iraq. Do the freaking math.> I am. It doesn't add up to what you're claiming. <Still want to claim that most of the sectarian violence in Iraq is the work of Al Qaeda?> Considering you've shown nothing to the contrary, yes. <Your view is not based on the reality of what's happening in Iraq, Douglas. It's based on wishful thinking as required by your ideology.> I disagree. I think your view is not based on the reality of what's happening in Iraq, and instead is based on the pessimism required by your ideology.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It was run by Iraqi intelligence itself - dominated by Shia - in Shia-dominated southern Iraq. Do the freaking math.>> <I am. It doesn't add up to what you're claiming.> All I claimed was that al Qaeda is not behind most of the car bombs in Iraq. They clearly are not behind the ones happening in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq, or blowing up in Sunni neighborhoods all over the country. They are clearly not behind the Shia militia who effectively control certain areas of the country. It is you who is trying to claim something unsupported - that al Qaeda is behind most of the car bombs - and trying to say that therefore it's okay to leave the bombs out of the equation when trying to assess the level of sectarian violence. <<Still want to claim that most of the sectarian violence in Iraq is the work of Al Qaeda?>> <Considering you've shown nothing to the contrary, yes. > But I have. They're clearly not behind the examples I gave. They're clearly not behind the all-Shia "The Office," which is allowing the Shia militia to do their dirty work with little interference. And you provided no supporting evidence whatsoever for your claim that Al Qaeda IS behind the majority of the car bombs, let along the majority of the sectarian violence. I'm officially asking you for that now. Put up or shut up. <<Your view is not based on the reality of what's happening in Iraq, Douglas. It's based on wishful thinking as required by your ideology.>> <I disagree. I think your view is not based on the reality of what's happening in Iraq, and instead is based on the pessimism required by your ideology.> And I think when all you can do is reverse a statement, it indicates a paucity of ideas in general, let alone realistic ones.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <All I claimed was that al Qaeda is not behind most of the car bombs in Iraq.> And that claim is unsupportable. <They clearly are not behind the ones happening in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq, or blowing up in Sunni neighborhoods all over the country. They are clearly not behind the Shia militia who effectively control certain areas of the country.> That's not clear at all. <And you provided no supporting evidence whatsoever for your claim that Al Qaeda IS behind the majority of the car bombs, let along the majority of the sectarian violence.> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 70509/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/07/iraq.main/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/ meast/05/07/iraq.main/index.html</a> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070506/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070503185490;_ylt=AgprsytXcaJBiQYadfWEHhJX6GMA" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 70506/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070503185490;_ylt=AgprsytXcaJBiQYadfWEHhJX6GMA</a> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070502/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 70502/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq</a> "No group claimed responsibility, but suicide bombings are generally associated with Sunni religious extremists led by al-Qaida."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<All I claimed was that al Qaeda is not behind most of the car bombs in Iraq.>> <And that claim is unsupportable.> On the contrary, it is your claim that they are that is unsupportable. <<They clearly are not behind the ones happening in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq, or blowing up in Sunni neighborhoods all over the country. They are clearly not behind the Shia militia who effectively control certain areas of the country.>> <That's not clear at all.> You've got to be kidding me. You DO know that Al Qaeda is Sunni, right? And not just Sunni, but the kind of Sunni who consider Shia to be heretics. So you're claiming that Al Qaeda is behind the Shia militias who are killing Sunnis every day? That's wacky even for you. Or just plain ignorant, perhaps. <<And you provided no supporting evidence whatsoever for your claim that Al Qaeda IS behind the majority of the car bombs, let along the majority of the sectarian violence.>> <<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200</a> 70509/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/</a> meast/05/07/iraq.main/index.html <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200</a> 70506/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070503185490;_ylt=AgprsytXcaJBiQYadfWEHhJX6GMA <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200</a> 70502/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq> Congratulations. You provided links to four bombings that may have been commited by Al Qaeda. Out of HOW many car bombs in Iraq over the last 4 years? <"No group claimed responsibility, but suicide bombings are generally associated with Sunni religious extremists led by al-Qaida."> First "led by" is ambiguous (and probably just laziness on the part of the AP writer). There are plenty of Sunni groups not affiliated with Al Qaeda. Second, suicide bombs are not the only kind of car bombs - many are cars loaded with explosives and detonated remotely. Third, it makes no sense that car bombs going off in Sunni neighborhoods would have been set by Al Qaeda. So you have not supported your notion.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>You've got to be kidding me. You DO know that Al Qaeda is Sunni, right? And not just Sunni, but the kind of Sunni who consider Shia to be heretics. So you're claiming that Al Qaeda is behind the Shia militias who are killing Sunnis every day? That's wacky even for you. Or just plain ignorant, perhaps.<< I'd vote for the kind of ignorance that happens when you're wrapping yourself in the flag and donning an "America can do no wrong" attitude. It's partly what got us into this mess - sheer ignorance on the part of the Bush administration. If they're Arab, Muslim, and dislike Americans, they all must be the same. What more do we need to know about entirely different cultures before we go to war and sacrifice 3,000 + kids? Apparently, nothing. Of course, it might help to understand the Sunni/Shia dynamic. It might help to understand the difference between a tribal culture like theirs vs. an individualist culture like ours. It might help to know that no matter how much they hated Saddam and each other, they'll hate arrogant outsiders who don't share their religion just as much. But when you're humming about amber waves of grain, it's hard to lose sight of those things.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>it's hard to lose sight of those things.<< Or easy. It's hard to proof-read, apparently.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <On the contrary, it is your claim that they are that is unsupportable.> Except that I just supported it. <You provided links to four bombings that may have been commited by Al Qaeda.> Correction. The four most recent bombings. <First "led by" is ambiguous (and probably just laziness on the part of the AP writer).> Or it reflects the consensus of most people in Iraq. <Third, it makes no sense that car bombs going off in Sunni neighborhoods would have been set by Al Qaeda.> Of course. And Palestinians never kill other Palestinians who cooperate with Israel. Right.
