Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<On the contrary, it is your claim that they are that is unsupportable.>> <Except that I just supported it.> You think so, but that dog won't hunt, as we'll see. <<You provided links to four bombings that may have been commited by Al Qaeda.>> Correction. The four most recent bombings. The four most recent bombings in the whole country? Correction. Nope. Just in one of your own links, there was amplification... "Southeast of Baghdad, two more people were killed by a roadside bomb in the town of Madaen, an Iraqi Interior Ministry source said. In central Baghdad, a roadside bomb detonated in Bab al-Muadham about 1:30 p.m., killing two civilians and wounding three others, a police official said. Five more people were killed when a mortar round slammed into Bayaa in southwestern Baghdad, the official said. Two people were wounded in the Bayaa attack, according to the official. On Sunday, a bomb inside a parked car exploded in a market in the Bayaa neighborhood, killing 33 people and wounding 74 others, an Interior Ministry official said." And there's no indication if those bombs were set by Sunni, Shia, or if they had any Al Qaeda connection whatsoever (although it is unlikely, since Al Qaeda typically claims responsibility for their mayhem). <<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.> You do not have a shred of evidence that that is that case, of course. <<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.> Those are targeted assassinations, not indiscriminate car bombs killing randomly. But thanks for playing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You do not have a shred of evidence that that is that case, of course.> I've provided more than you have. <Those are targeted assassinations, not indiscriminate car bombs killing randomly.> Is a car bomb that targets a police station truly "random"? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You do not have a shred of evidence that that is that case, of course.>> <I've provided more than you have. > Since you haven't provided ANY that your statement to which I referred is true ("Or it reflects the consensus of most people in Iraq"), that would be a logical impossibility. There cannot be less than nothing. <<Those are targeted assassinations, not indiscriminate car bombs killing randomly.>> <Is a car bomb that targets a police station truly "random"? I don't think so.> Are all car bombs going off inside Iraq outside police stations? I don't think so - in fact, not even close.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Since you haven't provided ANY that your statement to which I referred is true ("Or it reflects the consensus of most people in Iraq"), that would be a logical impossibility.> You haven't provided any evidence that any of your statements are true; I have. <Are all car bombs going off inside Iraq outside police stations?> Of course not. But the people who know all the details say that most car bombs are the work of insurgents trying to incite sectarian violence, and not the result of it. If you have any evidence that this is not the case, please present it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Since you haven't provided ANY that your statement to which I referred is true ("Or it reflects the consensus of most people in Iraq"), that would be a logical impossibility.>> <You haven't provided any evidence that any of your statements are true; I have.> Just the opposite, as usual. I provided evidence of bombmaking in Shia controlled areas and even within a Shia-controlled ministry. Al Qaeda is obviously not behind that. What evidence did you present to back up your claim that most car bombs are the work of Al Qaeda? None, really. A few links to reports of bombings, with no indication that al Qaeda was behind them. But, as usual, you claim to provide proof of your assertions, when actually you're doing nothing of the sort. <<Are all car bombs going off inside Iraq outside police stations?>> <Of course not. But the people who know all the details say that most car bombs are the work of insurgents trying to incite sectarian violence, and not the result of it. If you have any evidence that this is not the case, please present it.. LOL!! I almost can't believe that you're trying to get away with that. Oh, wait, it's you. So of course I can. It was YOUR original assertion that al Qaeda was behind the majority of bombings. So it is up to YOU to prove that. You can't. I provided evidence of bombers who were obviously not tied to al Qaeda; you have provided nothing more than unnamed "people who know all the details." It's really laughable.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A few links to reports of bombings, with no indication that al Qaeda was behind them.> Each report indicated that al Qaeda was probably behind each car bombing. <I provided evidence of bombers who were obviously not tied to al Qaeda> You produced one blog entry, and then you made several logical leaps from it. <It was YOUR original assertion that al Qaeda was behind the majority of bombings.> Well, no. It was the Bush administration's that car bombs are not the best indicator of the level of sectarian violence. If you have evidence that actually disputes that claim, then please present it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<A few links to reports of bombings, with no indication that al Qaeda was behind them.>> <Each report indicated that al Qaeda was probably behind each car bombing.> No they didn't. You're reading "probably" into them. And, again, they are hardly the only car bomb attacks. Even in your own links, as I pointed out, there are reports of OTHER bombings besides the one they led with, and no indication who was behind them. In fact, since al Qaeda typically likes to take credit for its atrocities, the more logical response is to assume it was not behind most of them. <<I provided evidence of bombers who were obviously not tied to al Qaeda>> <You produced one blog entry, and then you made several logical leaps from it. > Incorrect. The first link was to a blog, but it referenced an incident that was reported on major news organizations also. And it's hardly a leap of logic to assume that since it was found in an area controlled by Shia, that it was probably run by Shia. The second link was from cnn, not a blog, and you didn't even really respond to it. Not surprising, since it was about the sectarian violence carried out or enabled by elements of the very government we're propping up. <<It was YOUR original assertion that al Qaeda was behind the majority of bombings.>> <Well, no. It was the Bush administration's that car bombs are not the best indicator of the level of sectarian violence. If you have evidence that actually disputes that claim, then please present it. You're not getting away with that. When asked how you could justify Bush not including car bombs, you did indeed make the assertion that al Qaeda was behind most of them, so it made sense to not include them. You haven't been able to back up that assertion, and it's up to YOU to do so, not up to me to prove a negative - although I have presented evidence of Shia, non-al Qaeda bombing and other sectarian violence activity anyway.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Even in your own links, as I pointed out, there are reports of OTHER bombings besides the one they led with, and no indication who was behind them.> There is certainly no indication they are the result of sectarian violence. <The second link was from cnn, not a blog, and you didn't even really respond to it.> Since it had nothing to do with car bombing, it was irrelevant to the discussion. Again, the Bush administration, who has much more access to data than you do, had said they don't think car bombs are the best indicator of sectarian violence. If you have some evidence that actually disputes that, then please present it. Otherwise you're just casting aspersions.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Again, the Bush administration, who has much more access to data than you do, had said they don't think car bombs are the best indicator of sectarian violence. If you have some evidence that actually disputes that, then please present it. Otherwise you're just casting aspersions." Absolute bull. If it isn't sectarian violence, then what is it? 1500 years of discord strongly suggest it IS sectarian violence. If you're going to presume Bush has access to all this other information, then let's hear some of it. To say it isn't related with nothing more is simply this Adminstrations's way of trying to find a way out of their mess, nothing more. People quit laughing at the ineptitude a while ago. Now the country is just angry. I just spent several days on a cruise ship and then in Canada. I must have talked to 50-75 different people from countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Japan, Scotland and Canada. When conversation got around to our politics, there was not one Bush supporter, all because of this war. If these people are a microcosm, the rest of the world dislikes Bush intensely.
Originally Posted By jonvn I have to echo that. I speak to people from all over the world, all the time. These are people who come to this country to visit, so they are predisposed to liking us. They think the President is an unmitigated disaster on every level, and the feeling I get most often from people is pity, and feeling sorry for our country due to its inept leadership. Then when I meet people from Texas, it's fun. I tell them "It's all your fault." They laugh, so does everyone else in the car (or whatever we're in). Everyone knows the guy has been absolutely ruinous to this nation. It's really a shame we had such a failure in office when we needed someone who could do their job so badly. In WWII, we had a Roosevelt, who has gone down in history as one of the greats. Now, we have Bush. He's not going to be viewed in quite the same way as Roosevelt. Or even Nixon.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Even in your own links, as I pointed out, there are reports of OTHER bombings besides the one they led with, and no indication who was behind them.>> <There is certainly no indication they are the result of sectarian violence.> Since most of the violence in the country IS sectarian violence now, it's axiomatic. It's worth mentioning also, that sometimes there's a "chicken and egg" quality to the tit for tat. If car bomb A goes off, and actually was set by al Qaeda in a Shia neighborhood in order to incite sectarian violence, and then Shias set off car bomb B in a Sunni neighborhood just to kill as many Sunnis as they can, is that not sectarian violence? Of course it is. And when Sunnis not affiliated with al Qaeda set off a bomb in a Shia area to retaliate for THAT, is that not sectarian violence? Of course it is. <<The second link was from cnn, not a blog, and you didn't even really respond to it.>> <Since it had nothing to do with car bombing, it was irrelevant to the discussion.> It dealt with the larger question of sectarian violence and how it did not relate to Al Qaeda, so yes it was relevant. <Again, the Bush administration, who has much more access to data than you do, had said they don't think car bombs are the best indicator of sectarian violence. If you have some evidence that actually disputes that, then please present it. Otherwise you're just casting aspersions.> If by "casting aspersions" you mean "pointing out the duplicity of the Bush administration" then sure, I'll cop to that! It's really laughable to try to give them a pass on this because "they know access to data." Come on. This is a transparent attempt to try to MANIPULATE the data so that things look better than they are. You seem to be the only one fooled.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "In WWII, we had a Roosevelt, who has gone down in history as one of the greats. Now, we have Bush. He's not going to be viewed in quite the same way as Roosevelt. Or even Nixon." Since it seems to be the style to rip him anymore, I'd say Carter as well.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This is a transparent attempt to try to MANIPULATE the data so that things look better than they are.> And yet you are completely unable to present any data to the contrary. Telling. <You seem to be the only one fooled.> I'm not the one being fooled.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And yet you are completely unable to present any data to the contrary. Telling." I saw this act in a club once. It bombed, too. If it isn't sectarian violence, what is it?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If it isn't sectarian violence, what is it?> It would be non-sectarian violence, wouldn't it? As I said earlier, most car bombs are the work of insurgents trying to incite sectarian violence.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It would be non-sectarian violence, wouldn't it?" This has to be called for what it is, utterly ridiculous.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It was appropriate for the utterly ridiculous question." Ah. Asking you that if it isn't sectarian violence, then what is it, is ridiculous? That's pretty funny.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Considering I'd already answered it, yes, it is ridiculous. And not very funny.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<This is a transparent attempt to try to MANIPULATE the data so that things look better than they are.>> <And yet you are completely unable to present any data to the contrary. Telling.> Doug, are you okay? Your arguments have gotten really weak lately. We're talking about them omitting part of the data that relates to sectarian violence. There doesn't need to be any "data to the contrary" that this is happening, because there's no debate that it's happening. We're talking about them omitting data and pretending as though it's inconsequential. If the assertion is that this omission/manipulation is justified because bombings aren't really sectarian violence, that's just ridiculous on its face, and I've presented plenty of links to show that. You haven't presented anything that proves your assertion that "most car bombs are the work of insurgents trying to incite sectarian violence." You've presented a few links about bombings, but a). there are bombings nearly every damn DAY there, and b). even in your links there was usually no indication who was behind them, and c). it makes no sense that Sunni insurgents would be setting off bombs in Sunni neighborhoods, except perhaps at police stations, but that is only a minority of them. I'm sorry Doug, but your arguments here simply don't hold any water. <<You seem to be the only one fooled.>> <I'm not the one being fooled.> You're being fooled by the most seductive force of all - yourself, and your increasingly desperate need to believe in this mission.
