0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:16 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
So are you saying that Saddam shot the repubs? Give me your reasoning on this.


Our terms 'Republican' and 'Democrat' don't transalate to Iraq at all. Therefore, you can't say that he shot all of one or the other; there aren't any republicans or democrats in Iraq as far as we use the term (other than the ones we sent there).

Ican't:
Quote:
Why the double standard, Cyclo? You repeatedly express your undeclared opinion by making disparaging declarations about the Bush administration without even the pretense of offering some evidence to support such declarations. Why then do you demand that RexRed do that which you yourself don't do. RexRed too was merely expressing his opinion?

Here's my opinion. You pretend to a moral conduct you yourself do not exhibit.


My disparaging declarations against the administration have a large body of evidence behind them. I'm by far not the only one who feels that we are being controlled by thugs and thieves.

This is quite a different example than saying 'Saddam shot all the Democrats.' I can say that Bush is a liar and show you reams of evidence that he and his people lie constantly for their own gain; you can disagree if you want; but you could never show that Saddam shot or didn't shoot all the Democrats, as the concept of our Democratic party doesn't transalate to Iraq. It doesn't make any sense.

Your argument would be valid if I claimed that Bush rounded up and shot all the baathists here in America that were against him... wait a minute; you are so far out of touch with reality, I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer you, as I'm sure it will lead to a post full of infers and probably and assumptions and other odd tactics you fall back upon when your argument is shot; and I don't have time to waste on it today, sorry Smile

Cycloptichorn


I can reason with you that there are liberals/dems and conservatives/repubs in every country... you are incorrect.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:19 am
I don't think you CAN reason that with me, Rex. I don't believe you are capable of it. It would involve an argument with specifics, evidence, links, and other things that you don't think are neccessary. I'd invite you to try.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:19 am
RexRed wrote:
I can reason with you that there are liberals/dems and conservatives/repubs in every country... you are incorrect.


That would be very interesting to read!

My previous comment, which you didn't understand was pointing exactly in that direction: the Labour Party, led by Tony Blair, is a SOCIALISTIC party - and the French government as well as their president (not great friends of yours) are CONSERVATIVE Laughing
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:24 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't think you CAN reason that with me, Rex. I don't believe you are capable of it. It would involve an argument with specifics, evidence, links, and other things that you don't think are neccessary. I'd invite you to try.

Cycloptichorn

The internet is full of "links". I have been linking to them for years... Suddenly over time one gets it. You see patterns and trends in the links and it hits you... I have my way/links for assimilating the truth and you yours. You choose to believe Italian communist reporters. I choose to believe US soldiers. To each their own...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:26 am
Red Rex wrote:

Quote:
I will continue... the democrats have four more years to try and make this war blow up in George's face and our own, and of course help cut off our sacrifices in the middle east and elsewhere, for democracy, if possible... all out of partisan hatred and I guess idiocy. Then where will the dems be? They will not have gas for the car to go out and pick up crack for their kids? Dean is against the war? Look how many dems love him! He can write them a prescription for something real strong... But it can make one feel faint... ask Hillary




Personally I am not going to waste my time on this one. I can see pages of more of the same if I do.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:28 am
So, you are not able to make the argument you claimed you could make. Gotcha.

I really don't think there's any point in conversing with you any more, Rex; you can believe whatever you want to believe, but it seems you can't format a coherent argument with at least a basic application of logic, and I'm simply not interested in shouting beliefs back and forth in that manner.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:29 am
Cyc, will that be 'Marquis de Queensbury' or 'Zell Miller'? Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:29 am
I don't think there are democrats and republicans (as westerners think of them) in Arab countries. I think that was cylop's point which is really obvious.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:29 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
RexRed wrote:
I can reason with you that there are liberals/dems and conservatives/repubs in every country... you are incorrect.


That would be very interesting to read!

My previous comment, which you didn't understand was pointing exactly in that direction: the Labour Party, led by Tony Blair, is a SOCIALISTIC party - and the French government as well as their president (not great friends of yours) are CONSERVATIVE Laughing


That is true but when it comes to human rights and terrorism it should transcend both parties. Besides that is what England and America do... they team up for wars, not because they want to but because simply... they get attacked more if they don't.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:29 am
En Garde!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:31 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
So, you are not able to make the argument you claimed you could make. Gotcha.

I really don't think there's any point in conversing with you any more, Rex; you can believe whatever you want to believe, but it seems you can't format a coherent argument with at least a basic application of logic, and I'm simply not interested in shouting beliefs back and forth in that manner.

Cycloptichorn


Where is your logic against anything I have said? After all you have mountains of it.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:41 am
There are radical liberal muslims and radical conservative muslims and there are moderate muslims... I do not need a news article to confirm this do I?

There are
radical liberal X
radical conservative X
moderate X

simple logic taught in civics class...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:49 am
No, no, I'm done wasting my time with someone who doesn't understand what an argument is. Good day to you.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:52 am
Rex, In your above post, the "Muslim" can be replaced with any group, and it still makes sense. LOL
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:54 am
I think I short circuited Cycloptichorn.

Maybe there is nothing written about what I am saying because I am the first to think of it and say something.

referring to the thing about Saddam killing off the liberals.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 12:16 pm
Back to a more substantive debate,

Did anyone else wonder how the blame for the Hariri assassination was laid on Syria so quickly? There seems to be some confusion as to what actually took place.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5093

Quote:
Who Killed Rafik Hariri?
And why it matters
by Justin Raimondo
The recent hate campaign against Syria is ratcheting up to a fever pitch, as exemplified by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), who told a convocation of veterans at the Suncreek United Methodist Church in Allen, Texas, of a conversation he had with our sainted chief executive in which he, Johnson, explained to the prez that those infamous "weapons of mass destruction" Saddam supposedly had were being hidden in Syria. Roll Call reports his remarks to the Texas crowd:

"'Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em, and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore.'

"The crowd roared with applause."

From "nuke Saddam" to "nuke Bashar" - the War Party's slogans allow for variation only when it comes to the choice of victims. In each case, the prelude to hostilities is marked by a barrage of war cries mixed with lies - and in the case of Syria, the lies are even more brazen than usual.

No one disputes the repressive nature of the Syrian regime - although Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian strongman, is hardly a mass-murdering maniac in the tradition of his father, Hafez, or Saddam Hussein, for that matter. Bashar was never meant to succeed to the Syrian "presidency," and only reluctantly took on the office when his elder brother, Basil, was killed in a car crash. Up until that point, Bashar had been an unassuming would-be ophthalmologist, educated in the United States and England (where he met and married his wife).

In any case, the Syrian regime is not exactly a liberal one: there's a reason we send some of our more recalcitrant terrorist suspects to Damascus for a strenuous "debriefing," a practice euphemistically known as "extraordinary rendition" (i.e., torture). But there are plenty of repressive regimes in the world, many of which enjoy American support and largess, so why pick on hapless Bashar, the Syrian Claudius?

The catalyst for all the attention on Syria's occupation of Lebanon - an occupation, by the way, that was implicitly approved by the U.S. as well as the Arab states at the time of the Taif Agreement - was the assassination of Rafik Hariri, Lebanese politician and businessman, which many - including spokesmen for the U.S. government - maintain was the work of the Syrians.

The rapidity with which this particular bit of detective work was concluded is grounds for suspicion, and, alas, it turns out that the evidence is beginning to point in an entirely different direction - a fact that the Syrian "opposition" and its American cheerleaders don't want us to examine too carefully.

We're only supposed to see the flag-bedecked "pro-democracy" demonstrators in Beirut as they scream for Syrian blood and pose for the cameras. Indeed, the whole matter of just who killed Hariri has largely been forgotten by the Western media, which would much rather focus on yet another color-coded democratic "revolution" engineered by generous dollops of U.S. tax dollars and rhetorical support from the White House.

But if we look at how the case is actually developing - if we examine the hard physical evidence that is coming out of the investigation so far - another story, apart from the mythological narrative of the "Cedar Revolution," is revealed, one that is far less simple-minded and far more disturbing.

Reuters reports on the current status of the investigation into Hariri's death with this clarifying leak, courtesy of a Lebanese judge:

"Lebanon's investigations show that ex-Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri was almost certainly killed by a suicide car bomb, a judicial source close to the probe said on Friday. The source said results of the probe would be released next week. He expected them to show that a Muslim militant who had appeared in a video tape claiming responsibility for the attack was in the car that ripped through Hariri's motorcade in Beirut on Feb. 14. 'The attack happened when a car slowed up to allow Hariri's motorcade to pass it. As the motorcade passed it, the car blew up,' the source said. He said evidence came from a security camera at a nearby bank which caught parts of the incident. "

The "Syria did it" school of thought has suffered a huge blow from which it will never recover. A suicide bomber is not the usual method of assassination favored by state intelligence agencies, and, in any event, Syria's accusers - led by Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader whose father "won" the 1972 Lenin Peace Prize - have constructed an entire conspiracy theory based on the supposition that the bomb was placed underneath the road, in a secret tunnel, and that therefore the Syrian secret police must have known about it and had some hand in it. They also theorized that Hariri's motorcade, which was equipped with jamming devices to stop a radio-controlled bomb from detonating, was blasted anyway because the Syrians utilized anti-jamming technology, which disabled the devices. Yet more "proof" of a Syrian conspiracy, they yelped. (By the way, the Iranians also made this assertion - and offered it as "proof" that the Mossad was behind the whole affair).

Baloney.

It turns out that no such tunnel exists, and, in any event, the bomb was not planted in the road. Not only was it a car bomb, but the identity of at least one of the assassins has been established: he is Ahmed Tayseer Abu Adas, a 24-year-old Palestinian refugee living in the poor Beirut neighborhood of Tarik Jadida. Adas disappeared around Jan. 15, and later showed up in a video broadcast by al-Jazeera claiming responsibility for the assassination on behalf of a previously unknown jihadist outfit, the Group for Advocacy and Holy War in the Levant. According to Reuters, "authorities did DNA tests on the remains of a body found at the scene to establish they belonged to Abu Adas."

In the mad rush to blame Syria, the casual brushing aside of a videotaped confession was no problem for Jumblatt, various self-appointed Lebanese "experts," and Israel's Likud government, which launched an international propaganda and diplomatic campaign to seize the chance to target Syria. But as the facts come out about the assassination, and the word "Jumblatt" becomes a synonym for bullsh*t - as in, "Don't Jumblatt me!" or "Oh, Jum-blatt!" - the feverish triumphalism of the War Party, which looks forward to "regime change" in Syria as well as Lebanon, is bound to subside. The reaction is already setting in, with the Shi'ite majority in Lebanon flexing its muscles and Hezbollah - Lebanon's largest political party - calling a rally in Beirut on Tuesday.

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, chief of the Iranian-supported Hezbollah ("Party of God"), which continues its war to "liberate" Palestine from Israeli control, is cited by Reuters as saying:

"'The aim of America and Israel is to spread chaos in Lebanon and bring back Lebanon to a state of chaos to find excuses for foreign intervention and to push some Lebanese to call for international intervention.' … In the name of loyalist parties, he called for a mass rally Tuesday at a square in central Beirut close to another square where opposition protesters have been demanding Syria quit Lebanon for the past three weeks. 'I call on all Lebanese to this peaceful popular gathering to reject foreign intervention that is contrary to our independence, sovereignty and freedom,' he said."

The pictorial representations of the "Cedar Revolution" that have so far appeared in the Western media have mostly been close-up shots of the comelier females waving flags and smiling coquettishly for the cameras, although this one shot of "pro-democracy" demonstrators dancing 'round a bonfire of what the caption describes as "pro-Syrian newspapers" has certain unfortunate historical connotations. We will doubtless see the Hezbollah/pro-Syria demonstrators depicted in an entirely different manner: no comely lasses and fearless lads here.

As Assad announces a "partial" withdrawal of Syrian troops to the Bekaa valley, and the White House undercuts the legitimacy of its sock puppets in Baghdad by correctly maintaining that no free and fair election can be carried out under the terms of a military occupation, the question of who murdered Hariri has gotten lost in all the shouting. Yet it is vitally important, because the investigation is taking place against the backdrop of the battle for Lebanon - and, by implication, the whole of the Middle East. All the world's chief actors are being drawn into this proxy war: the Russians, the Iranians, the Saudis, the Americans, and certainly the Israelis. Heck, even the French are involved, in alliance, for once, with the U.S.



It seems there is more to this than we origionally thought.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 12:23 pm
RexRed wrote:
I think I short circuited Cycloptichorn.

Maybe there is nothing written about what I am saying because I am the first to think of it and say something.

referring to the thing about Saddam killing off the liberals.


Dys usually jumps in by now to point out there is a difference between a liberal and a Democrat. He must be napping.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 12:24 pm
my comments are in blue
Cycloptichorn wrote:
... My disparaging declarations against the administration have a large body of evidence behind them. I'm by far not the only one who feels that we are being controlled by thugs and thieves.
How you feel is about your opinion and not about evidence to support your opinion. You do not provide a copy or a reference to your alleged "large body of evidence." Therefore, it is merely your opinion that there is a "large body of evidence" that supports your declarations.
This is quite a different example than saying 'Saddam shot all the Democrats.' I can say that Bush is a liar and show you reams of evidence that he and his people lie constantly for their own gain; you can disagree if you want; but you could never show that Saddam shot or didn't shoot all the Democrats, as the concept of our Democratic party doesn't transalate to Iraq. It doesn't make any sense.
You do not provide a copy or a reference to your alleged "reams of evidence." Therefore, it is merely your opinion that there is a "large body of evidence" that supports your opinion that "Bush is a liar". The evidence you claim that shows "Bush is a liar" is evidence only that President Bush was wrong to believe the same things that many others including President Clinton believed. Therefore, if you have evidence that President Bush had some reason for not believing what President Clinton believed, post it.

Your argument would be valid if I claimed that Bush rounded up and shot all the baathists here in America that were against him... wait a minute; you are so far out of touch with reality, I don't even know why I'm bothering to answer you, as I'm sure it will lead to a post full of infers and probably and assumptions and other odd tactics you fall back upon when your argument is shot; and I don't have time to waste on it today, sorry Smile
In my opinion, this which you wrote here is the standard refuge of the scoundrel who dispairs of his lack of ability to refute anothers argument. Attack the other with irrelevant opinions about the other's presumed short comings.

In my opinion you bothered to respond because you think I might be right: you think that maybe you do express your opinion without evidence while demanding others do otherwise.

In my opinion, based on the Encyclopedia Britannica among other sources, Saddam murdered his opposition after gaining power. Those murdered were judicial, executive and legislative members of the Iraqi government. Also, Saddam murdered thousands of non-governmental people. Were those murdered democrats (i.e., advocates of a pure democracy), or republicans (i.e., advocates of a representative democracy, or even a limited representative democracy)? I guess probably not. RexRed on the otherhand guessed they did.

In my opinion, you play the pseudo-intellectual game of Maybe. By that I mean you hide your true opinions behind a screen of maybes attemting to persuade your readers that your pretended objectivity is truly objective. Your response to The Italian Shot-Car Incident is an excellent example. Maybe you said our troops blasted that car because they knew who its occupants were; Maybe the Bush administration ordered that.

Well anything is possible except that which has been proven to a certainty to be impossible. So Maybe you're right and Maybe you're wrong. However, in my opinion, in the real rational world what may be true is not what is important: in the real rational world what is most probably true is what is important, because what Maybe true offers little more than an opportunity and excuse for demagoguery. In my opinion, until I encounter evidence to the contrary, I am obligated to believe that those soldiers who shot the car did so for the reasons they said they did.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 12:24 pm
Tico, Dys is right, you know.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 12:25 pm
So, If Cycloptichorn is not still fuming... according to all of your reputable sources, is Saddam a liberal? After all, his love for money and guns are a sure sign of that. If you are unsure, could someone else answer that question for me?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/08/2024 at 06:34:00