53
   

Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

 
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 08:29 am
@revelette,
I think the explanation offered by the BBC is more realistic -- that the rebels were firing celebratory anti-aircraft rounds into the air and a coalition plane then opened fire on the convoy, destroying 5 vehicles (4 pickup trucks and 1 ambulance). No tanks were involved.

A spokesman for the opposition forces later admitted this.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 10:07 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
How many was Sadly Insane killing ?


Gee, I wonder how you forgot to mention, with the full support of the US.

Get somebody to read the following to you. Have them explain any big words that you don't understand and then try, TRY, as the big W writer that you claim to be, address the issues in the article.

Quote:
Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein

by Jacob G. Hornberger

www fff.org, June 18, 2004

Given all the indignant neoconservative "outrage" over the financial misdeeds arising from the UN's socialist oil-for-food program during the 1990s, when the UN embargo was killing untold numbers of Iraqi children, one would think that there would be an equal amount of outrage over a much more disgraceful scandal - the U.S. delivery of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein during the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

After all, as everyone knows, it was those WMDs that U.S. officials, from President Bush and Vice-President Cheney on down, ultimately used to terrify the American people into supporting the invasion and war of aggression against Iraq, a war that has killed or maimed thousands of innocent people - that is, people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington.

In an October 1, 2002, article entitled "Iraq Got Germs for Weapons Program from U.S. in '80s," Associated Press writer Matt Kelly wrote,

"[The] Iraqi bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records that are getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq. "

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, saying it needed them for legitimate medical research.

The CDC and a biological-sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin, and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including West Nile virus.

The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States backed Iraq in its war against Iran.
In a December 17, 2002, article entitled "Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program," the Associated Press stated,

"Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its nuclear program...."

Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program.

It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonation, implosion testing and warhead construction....

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.

In a September 26, 2002, article entitled "Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail," columnist Robert Novak wrote,

"An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran."

In a September 18, 2002, ABC article entitled "A Tortured Relationship," reporter Chris Bury wrote,
Indeed, even as President Bush castigates Saddam's regime as "a grave and gathering danger," it's important to remember that the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weapons that administration officials are now citing as justification for Saddam's forcible removal from power.

In a March 16, 2003, article entitled "How Iraq Built Its Weapons Program," in the St. Petersburg Times, staff writer Tom Drury wrote,

"Yet here we are, on the eve of what could turn into a $100-billion war to disarm and dismantle the Iraqi dictatorship. U.N. inspectors are working against the clock to figure out if Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons, the systems to deliver them, and the capacity to manufacture them. "

And here's the strange part, easily forgotten in the barrage of recent rhetoric: It was Western governments and businesses that helped build that capacity in the first place. From anthrax to high-speed computers to artillery ammunition cases, the militarily useful products of a long list of Western democracies flowed into Iraq in the decade before its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Unfortunately, the U.S.-WMD connection to Saddam Hussein involved more than just delivering those WMDs to him. In an August 18, 2002, New York Times article entitled "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," Patrick E. Tyler wrote,

" A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program. "

Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for regime change in Iraq.

As writer Norm Dixon put it in his June 17, 2004, article "How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons,"

"While the August 18 NYT article added new details about the extent of US military collaboration with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran, it omitted the most outrageous aspect of the scandal: not only did Ronald Reagan's Washington turn a blind-eye to the Hussein regime's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and Iraq's Kurdish minority, but the US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs."

Immediately prior to the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein delivered a WMD declarations report to the United Nations in an attempt to avert a U.S. invasion. Do you recall that U.S. officials intercepted the report and removed special sections of it, based on claims of "national security"? Well, it turned out that the removed sections involved the delivery of those WMDs by the United States and other Western countries to Saddam Hussein, information that obviously caused U.S. officials a bit of discomfort on the eve of their invasion.

In a February 3, 2003, Sunday Morning Herald article entitled, "Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have Sown," writer Anne Summers wrote,

" What is known is that the 10 non-permanent members had to be content with an edited, scaled-down version. According to the German news agency DPA, instead of the 12,000 pages, these nations - including Germany, which this month became president of the Security Council - were given only 3,000 pages."

So what was missing?

The Guardian reported that the nine-page table of contents included chapters on "procurements" in Iraq's nuclear program and "relations with companies, representatives and individuals" for its chemical weapons program. This information was not included in the edited version.

In a June 9, 2004, article "Reagan Played a Decisive Role in Saddam Hussein's Survival in Iran-Iraq War," Agence France Presse points out,

" In February 1982, the State Department dropped Baghdad from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, clearing the way for aid and trade. "

A month later, Reagan ordered a review of US policy in the Middle East which resulted in a marked shift in favor of Iraq over the next year.

"Soon thereafter, Washington began passing high-value military intelligence to Iraq to help it fight the war, including information from US satellites that helped fix key flaws in the fortifications protecting al-Basrah that proved important in Iran's defeat in the next month," wrote Kenneth Pollack in his recently published book "The Threatening Storm." ...

By March 1985, the United States was issuing Baghdad export permits for high tech equipment crucial for its weapons of mass destruction programs, according to Pollack.

In his June 8, 2004, article "Reagan and Saddam: The Unholy Alliance," Alex Dawoody states,

"By 1982, Iraq was removed from the list of terrorist sponsoring nations. By 1984, America was actively sharing military intelligence with Saddam's army. This aid included arming Iraq with potent weapons, providing satellite imagery of Iranian troops deployments and tactical planning for battles, assisting with air strikes, and assessing damage after bombing campaigns."

One of the most fascinating parts of this entire sordid U.S. foreign-policy episode is that none other than Donald Rumsfeld played a key role in it. Yes, the same Donald Rumsfeld who, as U.S. Secretary of Defense, scared the American people to death with the thought that Saddam Hussein was about to employ the WMDs (which the U.S. had delivered to him) against them.

A December 31, 2002, CBS story entitled "U.S. and Iraq Go Way Back," put it this way:

"Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports."

It was Rumsfeld, now defense secretary and then a special presidential envoy, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein led to the normalization of ties between Washington and Baghdad, according to the Washington Post.

In an August 18, 2002, MSNBC article entitled "Rumsfeld Key Player in Iraq Policy Shift," Robert Windrem wrote,

" State Department cables and court records reveal a wealth of information on how U.S. foreign policy shifted in the 1980s to help Iraq. Virtually all of the information is in the words of key participants, including Donald Rumsfeld, now secretary of defense. "

The new information on the policy shift toward Iraq, and Rumsfeld's role in it, comes as The New York Times reported Sunday that the United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan - even though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons.

In a February 24, 2003, article entitled "Who Armed Saddam?" writer Stephen Green wrote,

" And he'd probably read the front page Washington Post story ("U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup," 12/30/02) based upon recently declassified documents, which revealed that it was Rumsfeld himself who, as President Reagan's Middle East Envoy, had traveled to the Region to meet with Saddam Hussein in December 1983 to normalize, particularly, security relations."

In her article "Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have Sown," Anne Summers reinforced this point:

" In December 1983, Rumsfeld, then a special envoy to the Middle East appointed by President Reagan, travelled to Baghdad to inform Saddam Hussein that the United States was ready to resume full diplomatic relations with Iraq. A lengthy report in the Washington Post on December 30, 2002 - based on analysing thousands of pages of declassified government documents and interviews with former policy-makers - said that "US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defences" following Rumsfeld's visit."

So, what is Rumsfeld's response to all this? Unfortunately, he suffers a malady that commonly afflicts Washington officials when a whiff of scandal is in the air: selective memory lapse. According to Matt Kelly's article (cited above),

" The disclosures put the United States in the position of possibly having provided key ingredients of the weapons it is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D., W.Va.), who entered the documents into the Congressional Record last month. "

Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein in 1983, when Rumsfeld was President Ronald Reagan's Middle East envoy.

"Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?" Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.

"I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it," Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defense Department and other agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.

Or as Robert Novak put it in his column (cited above),

"Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes."

According to the article by Anne Summers (cited above),

"These days Rumsfeld likes to downplay or even deny his role in helping arm Iraq with the makings of weapons of mass destruction. He has been quoted as saying he had "nothing to do" with helping Iraq fight Iran in the '80s. However, the Washington Post says, "The documents show that his visits to Baghdad led to closer US-Iraqi cooperation on a wide variety of fronts."

Given that the WMDs that were used to justify the invasion and war against Iraq never materialized, one would think that the neoconservatives who pushed and misled America into the war, and those members of Congress who complacently rubber-stamped the president's actions, and those members of the press who served as the administration's cheerleaders would be at least mildly outraged over how Saddam Hussein acquired his WMDs in the first place - from the United States and other countries during the Reagan administration. Unfortunately, the response has been the standard ho-hum one hears whenever the rot at the center of the empire surfaces: "It was just a policy mistake; it happened a long time ago; we need to put it behind us; and it's now time to move on."

It is that mindset of denial, however, that is certain to doom our nation to increasing conflicts, crises, and turmoil. To restore political, moral, and economic health to our country, it is necessary to excise the cancer associated with the unrestrained - and oftentimes secret - exercise of government power. In order to excise such a cancer, however, it is first necessary to acknowledge and confront its existence.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Reagan_WMD_Saddam.html


reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 10:22 am
@JTT,
JTT I do wonder what the reason is behind all of this terrorism, some people claim that they know it for certain!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmaes5-Mg8g&feature=related

I find this one interesting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qQQNZOzFo8&NR=1
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 11:24 am
@revelette,
So saith the baby sitter.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 11:28 am
@JTT,
It shows the media has become a propaganda machine much like Goebbels' time. Ha, ha the woman who got raped reminds of the Iraqi woman who recited infants being killed by Saddam before Bush I invaded Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 06:41 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It was predictable that that is what Gadaffi would do.
that that ??? We dont double words....one is always sufficient . It means the same thing .
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 06:44 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Gee, I wonder how you forgot to mention, with the full support of the US.
The USA was supporting him during the First Gulf War ?? Are you sure ? Very Happy
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 08:03 pm
@Ionus,
Is this reality or conspiracy theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba977AQ8Mr8
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 08:52 pm
@Ionus,
It was predictable that that is what Gadaffi would do.

Quote:
that that ??? We dont double words....one is always sufficient . It means the same thing .


Who's we? It's certainly not native speakers of English. One is so very often not sufficient. Speakers and writers use two quite frequently.

A Google exact phrase 'that that' yields About 147,000,000 results

A Google exact phrase 'that that' limited to the New York Times website yields About 42,900 results

Many times, it's absolutely essential to meaning. Here's a sentence, marked 1), from the NY Times.

1) “There's no requirement that that trade results in a gain to the defendant."

2) “There's no requirement that trade results in a gain to the defendant."

When you remove a 'that' you have a different meaning.

Don't get caught up in nonsensical prescriptions. Spendius, like every native speaker, knows how to use his language.

revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 07:04 am
@talk72000,
Quote:
So saith the baby sitter


What does me baby sitting have to do with anything? My explanation came from the article from the guardian in which I left earlier

here.

Apparently (though I haven't checked it out) BBC had another view. I think there is some confusion in our posts as there has been more than one instance where coalition forces have killed or fired on rebel forces.

0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 07:26 am
I have to admit that the promising "Arab Spring" is looking pretty bad right now in most of the areas of interest.

Middle East

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 09:01 am
@Ionus,
My second "that" Io was shorthand for "firing weapons from tanks and snipers on them for protesting." Which was the last part of the post I was replying to.

I could have written "It was predictable that firing weapons from tanks and snipers on them for protesting is what Gadaffi would do". I simply forced the reader to look at the previous post to find out what the that that Gadaffi would do actually was. I chose the formulation deliberately. It wasn't mere sloppiness. It was an emphasis. Pedantically I take your point in this instance but, as JTT has demonstrated, there is no general rule as you imply.

What I was meaning was that that predictability in Gadaffi's response to rebellious citizens seeking to overthrow him leaves those who encouraged the uprising with an amount of responsibility for the fate of the rebels in proportion to the accuracy of the predictability which has now been shown, admittedly with hindsight, to be 100%. And that that encouragement has talked us into a corner from which I think we might have some difficulty extricating ourselves with the degree of dignity to which we are accustomed to expect in our leaders and their lickspittals and lackeys.

Now Algeria is supplying tanks to Gadaffi. Who is supplying Algeria? We are. So we supply tanks so we can knock them out and get some dramatic footage for the news broadcasts and those panel discussions between military experts.

I once saw a social science-fiction play on the BBC in which were depicted two employment stations for gamma plusses. Managed by Beta minuses of course. In the first one we saw they were assembling trucks from racks of parts. The trucks were shown driving off the production line and thence to the other employment station where they were disassembled and all the parts placed in racks ready to be returned to the assembly plant of the first part. It was a spoof about job creation schemes and it made me smile that anybody could be so silly as to take it literally.

Now--if Milo Minderbinder was in charge he would have us knocking out easy to find mocked-up tanks positioned well away from any civilians, which look just the same as real ones in cockpit videos and when exploding, and charging Gadaffi for a new tank everytime he, Gadaffi, sees a tank explode on Sky News. And selling the tanks on to anybody in the market. Or even being content to leave them as a paper transaction.

It is the newsreader's task to convince us that the exploding tank is a Gadaffi tank.

But without such puissant enterprise we are supplying tanks to Gadaffi, via Algeria, to keep it simple, and then knocking them out. The message of the play was sound enough. Illich accuses the medical profession of something similar. Making you sick then it can cure you. Your Life in Their Hands. Dr Kildare with Richard Chamberlain and Raymond Massey at their piss taking best. Is There A Doctor in the House?

A bloke gets knocked down by a car. A crowd is gathered round to watch. Another bloke barges through the crowd shouting "make way, make way, I'm an underpant salesman.

revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 09:48 am
@spendius,
Quote:
What I was meaning was that that predictability in Gadaffi's response to rebellious citizens seeking to overthrow him leaves those who encouraged the uprising with an amount of responsibility for the fate of the rebels in proportion to the accuracy of the predictability which has now been shown, admittedly with hindsight, to be 100%. And that that encouragement has talked us into a corner from which I think we might have some difficulty extricating ourselves with the degree of dignity to which we are accustomed to expect in our leaders and their lickspittals and lackeys.


From what I can tell from reading (which all I got to go on) articles, all these protesting and getting fired on/killed and/or arrested, are not sorry they did it and are not giving up. America didn't gain its freedom from Britain without loss of life and from what I remember from my history books, we were not exactly professional fighters.

What worries me is that Libya is not the only place where those protesting oppressive regimes are getting killed and obviously, NATO can't be everywhere.

African Union panel, due to visit Benghazi, appeals for "an immediate end to hostilities" as fighting rages in Ajdabiya.

Quote:
Nabila Ramdani, a French journalist and Middle East expert, said the situation with regards to Libya had reached not only a military but also a political deadlock.

"It's quite worrying," she told Al Jazeera. "Unfortunately, my view about the African Union is that it will appear as not being a credible group of people to be in a position to broker a deal on behalf of [Muammar] Gaddafi.

"They're a group of dictators themselves and they won't be taken very seriously given that they're from very brutal regimes which are in many ways far worse than the Gaddafi regime."

Ajdabiya shelled

Meanwhile, opposition fighters said forces loyal to Gaddafi had killed four rebels in a battle for control of the strategic east Libyan town of Ajdabiya.

"I saw the four this morning. Their throats were slit and they were all shot through the chest and dumped on the road. Their car was also riddled with bullets," Mohammed Saad, a rebel at a checkpoint on the eastern edge of Ajdabiya, told Reuters.

Al Jazeera's Sue Turton, reporting from just north of Ajdabiya, confirmed that fighting was ongoing.

"We're seeing plumes of smoke and constant shelling ... There are pockets of Gaddafi's forces in the city."

She said she had been told that there were patients in a hospital who appeared to have been shot by sniper fire.

She described the city as something of a "ghost town" as many residents have fled since fighting erupted a few weeks ago.

On Saturday, rebels fought off an assault by Gaddafi's forces on the besieged western city of Misurata, losing up to 30 men.

Mustafa Abdulrahman, a rebel spokesman, said Saturday's fighting centred on a road to Misurata port, while NATO carried out several attacks on forces loyal to the Libyan leader.

Abdulrahman praised what he called a positive change from NATO. Rebels have complained for days that NATO has been too slow to respond to government attacks.

NATO said armoured vehicles firing on civilians had been targeted in air strikes, and that its jets had also struck ammunition stockpiles being used to resupply forces involved in the shelling of Misurata and other population centres.

A rebel who identified himself as Abdelsalem told Reuters that government troops had attacked Misurata on three fronts.

"Medical workers and rebels told me that at least 30 rebel fighters were killed," he said.

Residents fleeing

Misurata, Libya's third largest city, has been under siege by Gaddafi's forces for weeks. Rebels say people are crammed five families to a house in the few safe districts to escape weeks of sniper, mortar and rocket fire.

There are severe shortages of food, water and medical supplies and hospitals are overflowing.

Residents used boats to flee to the eastern city of Benghazi on Saturday.

"There is not a word in the dictionary to describe this. 'Disaster' is not enough," Ali Spak, the captain of one of the ships, said.

There is very bad destruction. This man [Gaddafi] is killing his own people. There's shelling everywhere, even on the people trying to leave. People need help," one man on the boat said.

Doctors said last week that 200 people had been killed in Misurata since fighting broke out there in late February.

The Red Cross on Saturday ferried emergency medical supplies and five staff for 300 people wounded in the city.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the commander of the alliance's operations in Libya, accused Gaddafi's forces of using civilians as human shields, adding to similar charges made by other Western commanders.

"We have observed horrific examples of regime forces deliberately placing their weapons systems close to civilians, their homes and even their places of worship," Bouchard said in a statement.

"Troops have also been observed hiding behind women and children. This type of behaviour violates the principles of international law and will not be tolerated."

As his troops engaged rebels in new fighting, Gaddafi made his first television appearance in five days. He was last seen on April 4.

Gaddafi smiled and pumped his fists in the air as he received an ecstatic welcome at a school in Tripoli, where women ululated and pupils chanted anti-western slogans.



cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 09:50 am
@spendius,
Hey, spendi, what goes around comes around. The NATO air force knocked out some of those tanks yesterday - that we supplied to Algeria. I'm just wondering who paid for those tanks?
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 11:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
From what I can tell on google, apparently last year, Algeria halved US sale of arms deal and went with Russia.

Algeria to halve arms purchases from U.S., buy from Russia - paper

According to another article Libya rebels captured 15 Algerian mercenaries.



15 Algerian mercenaries seized in Libya
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 05:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I'm just wondering who paid for those tanks?


The American motorist is the most likely suspect I should have thought.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 05:26 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
One is so very often not sufficient. Speakers and writers use two quite frequently.
And they are incorrect . Like people who use "much more" .

Quote:
A Google exact phrase 'that that' limited to the New York Times website yields About 42,900 results
And a Google search for bad english produced 45, 400,000 results .

Quote:
When you remove a 'that' you have a different meaning.
Bullshit . You get exactly the same meaning, you just think it is different .

Quote:
It was predictable that that is what Gadaffi would do.
It was predictable that is what Gadaffi would do. How are they different ?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 05:31 pm
@revelette,
Still on the "independence" illusion are you revelette?

NATO could be everywhere but for taxpayers and bankers.

Grown men in shorts were ululating in Augusta this evening. And there was some chanting too. There's nothing wrong with women ululating imo. I've see South African women ululating when they are hanging the washing out.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 11:12 pm
@Ionus,
It was predictable that that is what Gadaffi would do.

Quote:
And they are incorrect . Like people who use "much more" .


No, they are not incorrect. And neither are people who say or write 'much more'.

I don't know how you can state such nonsense.

I want more.

does not equal

I want much more.

Quote:
jtt: When you remove a 'that' you have a different meaning.


Quote:
Ionus: Bullshit . You get exactly the same meaning, you just think it is different .


You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension, but I've suspected that for some time.

I didn't say that in Spendy's sentence there was a difference. Here is what I said:

Quote:
Many times, it's absolutely essential to meaning. Here's a sentence, marked 1), from the NY Times.

1) “There's no requirement that that trade results in a gain to the defendant."

2) “There's no requirement that trade results in a gain to the defendant."

When you remove a 'that' you have a different meaning.


And you do, have two different meanings. Anyone that doesn't have a reading comprehension problem knows that.

And that, right there, refutes your 'rule'.

Where did you come up with this nonsense? Did you read it in some style manual?

As Spendius noted, it's also more emphatic.

Quote:
A Google exact phrase 'that that' limited to the New York Times website yields About 42,900 results


Quote:
And a Google search for bad english produced 45, 400,000 results.


I saved this gem for last. What in heaven's name has this got to do with any of the issues that we are discussing? You obviously don't know your ass from a volcano when it comes to the English language.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Apr, 2011 07:24 pm
@JTT,
Of course you dont underdstand english rules of grammar....they didnt bother teaching you that in North Korea . Much is qualitative....more is quantifying . Putting them together is pointless . It is the same, or more, or most . What is the point of saying it is a better quality quantity ?

Quote:
Many times, it's absolutely essential to meaning.
Many times ??? Absolutely essential ??? So it cant be said better ? Not by you anyway, that that is obvious .

You have a history of hysterically exagerating .

Quote:
What in heaven's name has this got to do with any of the issues that we are discussing?
You understand nothing . You show 42,900 hits for "that that" to prove you are right....I show 45,400,000 hits for bad english and you dont see the connection ? Thats rather sad .....
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 11:45:12