Originally Posted By inlandemporer Well, ain't that ironic? You're doing what's called projecting, DouglasDubh. Anyway, I've decided to stop feeding the troll, and suggest that others do likewise. Just ignore him if he can't contribute to the discussion. I'd like to get back to something dshyates posted in #54. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2mu2xp" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/2mu2xp</a> "Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts. " Bush was pushing for warrantless wiretaps before 9/11? That kind of gives the lie to the idea that they only "needed" to do so "in a post-9/11 world."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're doing what's called projecting, DouglasDubh.> No, I'm not. <I've decided to stop feeding the troll, and suggest that others do likewise.> What you need to do is stop being a troll. <Just ignore him if he can't contribute to the discussion.> I can contribute to the discussion, but I'm not going to sit back and be attacked or have my opinions distorted.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Bush was pushing for warrantless wiretaps before 9/11? " They were also talking about invading Iraq before 9/11. As a matter of fact they mentioned Iraq in the 2000 campaign before he was even elected.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Is it a surprise that the Bush administration thought that Iraq was a problem before 9/11? After all, the administration before them spent a lot of time talking about Iraq, as well as bombing it. And there's a very good chance this Nacchio is a bad guy attempting to shift blame.
Originally Posted By jonvn I remember this al-sadr guy from almost the first day we were in iraq. He holed himself up in a mosque, and all sorts of consternation was about trying to figure out how to placate him. The way to placate him was with a bomb. Get rid of the scumball then, and there wouldn't be a problem now. Apparently our government is so tied up in knots over doing just the perfect thing, they can no longer figure out how to do the right thing. If someone is causing you trouble in a war, you eliminate them. Not doing so increases the misery for everyone.
Originally Posted By dshyates I like how the Bush administration uses Al-Sadr as proof that Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Making it sound like Saddam and Al Qaeda were in league. When, yes, Al Sadr was there. He is a Shiite cleric, and was a thorn in Saddam's (Sunni) side. And had very limited contact with other radical Muslim groups until after Bush did his magic.
Originally Posted By jonvn Al-Sadr is shiite. Al Qaeda is Sunni. They hate each other. Sunnis have been pretty much ethnically cleansed out at this point. That works. Now the rival shiite factions are going after each other. Oh, and the name of the side we're fighting for in Iraq? The Supreme Islamic Council. That's who we're dying for.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I like how the Bush administration uses Al-Sadr as proof that Al Qaeda is in Iraq.> They haven't, and aren't.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "I like how the Bush administration uses Al-Sadr as proof that Al Qaeda is in Iraq. " That just doesn't make sense. What makes even less sense is the idea that people will believe it, but I guess some people will swallow anything. As for #82, none of it is true, but I'm not feeding the troll. "And had very limited contact with other radical Muslim groups until after Bush did his magic." I think part of the trouble with Bush/Cheney thinking is that it's all very US-centric. As though everything revolved around us and the various groups in the middle east had no local agendas. The old "you're either with us or against us" jazz. In this view, Al Sadr is anti-US; Al Qaeda is anti-US. Therefore they must be in league somehow. But it doesn't work that way. If you think that way, you also miss your enemy's real motivations. It seems to me Al Sadr's real motivations are to have a Shia-dominated Iraq and to be the leader of the dominant Shia group. Not to attack America, unless we're in the way of that. But not to attack us here, as with Al Qaeda.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As for #82, none of it is true, but I'm not feeding the troll.> While all of #82 is true, I do agree that you're not feeding a troll. <As though everything revolved around us and the various groups in the middle east had no local agendas. The old "you're either with us or against us" jazz. In this view, Al Sadr is anti-US; Al Qaeda is anti-US. Therefore they must be in league somehow. But it doesn't work that way.> While I don't believe anyone in the Bush administration has claimed that al Sadr and al Qaeda are in league, there are plenty of examples of Shias and Sunnis working together against a common enemy. For example, Iran is Persian Shia, and Syria is Arab Sunni, and yet they are allies, and they both support Hezbollah. There is also evidence that secular Saddam helped extremist religious groups, such as Ansar al-Islam, and that Iran has given support to Sunni insurgents in Iraq.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "While all of #82 is true, I do agree that you're not feeding a troll." Because it isn't true, I ain't feeding you no more. Original lyric to Hound Dog: You ain't nothing but a hound dog Been snoopin' 'round the door You ain't nothing but a hound dog Been snoopin' 'round my door You can wag your tail But I ain't gonna feed you no more
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
