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

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

... British ambassador to Italy Sir Ivor Roberts said at a private meeting (as leaked to Italian newspaper today) that George Bush was the best recruiting seargant for al Qaeda.

That if anyone had reason to celebrate his re election it would be al Qaeda and bin Laden.

And you believe this, don't you? Why? Because it fits the dogma to which you appear fused?

Open your brain! Al Qaeda's recruitment was accelerating long before Bush ever decided for us to invade Afghanistan in reaction to 9/11/2001. Al Qaeda's size was growing rapidly, is growing rapidly and will continue to grow rapidly until we exterminate all their recruiters. Failure to work to accomplish that extermination will accelerate that growth more.

9-11 Commission, page 12 wrote:

Are We Safer?

Since 9/11, the United States and its allies have killed or captured a majority of al Qaeda's leadership; toppled the Taliban, which gave al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan; and severely damaged the organization. Yet terrorist attacks continue. Even as we have thwarted attacks, nearly everyone expects they will come. How can this be?

The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue.

...

0 Replies

Just like I thought you would, you ignored every bit of my post that was important (and contradictory to the case you were making, Icann).

You see, Bush has given AQ everything they wanted. Everything. Legitimacy, media attention, and a bunch of new recruits thanks to our adventures in the middle east. He treated AQ as idelogical enemies, instead of what they really are - criminals.

He's attacked AQ using the old-style war approach, and not the way it should have been done; a sophisticated, cross-country police action to get the bastards. This heavy-handed approach only shows other muslims how right OBL was (at least, to them) when he talked about American nation-building. <--- Me

THAT'S the point. Bush is going about things all wrong. Iraq has done nothing, NOTHING, to make us safer.

Quote:

First to you, catching bin Laden may be the most important thing that needs to be accomplished. Even if he has somehow survived his kidney desease, finding bin Laden will solve little more than a propaganda victory, and the 9-11 Commission and Bush (and I) know that.

BULL SH*T. And you know it. This is the most retarded justifaction for the failure of our senior management I have ever seen.

How does Bin Laden go from being the devil, to a 'propaganda victory' only, in just a few years? He was the mastermind behind 9/11 and several other attacks against us. There is no other man directly responsible for the deaths of more American civilians in the last twenty years, period. But now you are saying it's not important to get him? You don't believe that he is plotting to attack America, right now?

You are off your rocker, Icann..... just like the admin, you don't want to admit that we've fucked up as a nation in prosecuting AQ and OBL.

You talk about how Bush is following the 9/11 commission, when many are saying his proposals fall clearly short of the recommendations in Key ways. And shall we forget that Bush OPPOSED the creation of the 9/11 commission in the first place, and then opposed their report, only to give in both times to massive amounts of pressure from the media and his own party? And you are holding the 9/11 commission up as something Bush chose to do, instead of being FORCED to do?

You can say what you want to about the 9/11 commission and the changes that will be made, but the fact is that we have less resources committed to stopping AQ now than we did BEFORE 9/11 in many of our intelligence agencies. We aren't focusing on the true enemies anymore, and you know it.

Quote:

I propose a scale, 0 through 100, for measuring relative competence of Bush and Kerry. If you insist that Bush is a 1, then I will insist Kerry is a 0.01. If you were to insist Bush's competence were 0.01 then I would insist Kerry's competence would be) 0.0001. Your problem as I see it, is you focus only on your perception of Bush's competence and not on a rational comparison of Bush's competence versus Kerry's competence. As I see it, changing to that which is clearly worse, cannot ever make any improvement.

You write something like this, and then have the gall to state that it is I who have a problem with perception? You really need to face reality and realize that no matter how much you hate Kerry, Bush is just as bad....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

ou can say what you want to about the 9/11 commission and the changes that will be made, but the fact is that we have less resources committed to stopping AQ now than we did BEFORE 9/11 in many of our intelligence agencies. We aren't focusing on the true enemies anymore, and you know it.

Can you back this up or is it a 'heat of the moment' statement?

0 Replies

Heard it the other day on the news. Let me chase down a source.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Just like I thought you would, you ignored every bit of my post that was important (and contradictory to the case you were making, Icann).

You see, Bush has given AQ everything they wanted. Everything. Legitimacy, media attention, and a bunch of new recruits thanks to our adventures in the middle east. He treated AQ as idelogical enemies, instead of what they really are - criminals.

Your hyperbole is a poor substitute for facts and logic. One more time with a short addition!

9-11 Commission, page 12 wrote:

Are We Safer?

[emphasis added]

Since 9/11, the United States and its allies have killed or captured a majority of al Qaeda's leadership; toppled the Taliban, which gave al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan; and severely damaged the organization. Yet terrorist attacks continue. Even as we have thwarted attacks, nearly everyone expects they will come. How can this be?

The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue.

Because of offensive actions against al Qaeda since 9/11, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today. But we are not safe. We therefore make the following recommendations that we believe can make America safer and more secure.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Three years after 9/11, the national debate continues about how to protect our nation in this new era. We divide our recommendations into two basic parts: What to do, and how to do it.
...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

He's attacked AQ using the old-style war approach, and not the way it should have been done; a sophisticated, cross-country police action to get the bastards. This heavy-handed approach only shows other muslims how right OBL was (at least, to them) when he talked about American nation-building. <--- Me

THAT'S the point. Bush is going about things all wrong. Iraq has done nothing, NOTHING, to make us safer.

No, the point is you think (or perhaps more accurately, hope and pray) that Bush is wrong and ridding ourselves of the TMM is more properly the work of "a sophisticated, cross-country police police" (e.g., a jazzed up Interpol). I do not know why you believe that. You offer zero evidence to support your claim. You offer only expletives as evidence. I've offered my evidence (see above) why I think otherwise.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... This is the most retarded justifaction for the failure of our senior management I have ever seen.

How does Bin Laden go from being the devil, to a 'propaganda victory' only, in just a few years?

Now that is a just plain stupid interpretation of what I wrote. We didn't need to capture Hitler or Hirohito to win WWII and we don't need the capture of bin Laden to win this one. Bin Laden's deviltry is not changed whether captured or not. The value of his capture is what equates now to little more than a propaganda victory.

Again for emphasis!

911 Commission, Exec Summary, page 12 wrote:

The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue.

Yes, bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11 and several other attacks against us. But his capture will not solve our problem according to the 9-11 Commission.

The rest of your post sinks to the level of childish tirade. You prefer Kerry because you prefer Kerry. I prefer Bush because I perceive him less incompetent than Kerry by a factor of at least 100.

While its clear to me you disagree with me, it is not clear to me why. You have recently shoveled your opinions at me sans evidence like they were self-evident granules of wisdom. They are not. The only reason I have bothered to reply to these recent arguments of yours thus far was my hope that you might provide some evidence to offset mine that would support your beliefs. So far your arguments are a sad disappointment.

0 Replies

Yours are hardly better, my friend. You favorite tactic is to take a hatchet to the preceding post and simply ignore those parts which contradict what you wrote.

For example; you repeatedly hold up the 9/11 commission as support for Bush, but he opposed said commission, underfunded it massively, opposed the findings until pressured to do otherwise, and now has decided to NOT fully implement the recommendations. How do you reconcile that with Bush taking positive action? He has opposed what you are holding up as proof every step of the way.

You tell me that I provide zero evidence to support my claim that invading Iraq hasn't made us safer. What evidence do you need? World levels of terrorism have risen. Many Americans are dead in Iraq, it's certainly not safer for them. We haven't caught those responsible for attacking our country, and you don't think that's important? There's little doubt in my mind that OBL is out there plotting more attacks against us; you don't think it's important to catch the man responsible for the deadliest attacks on America?

Quote:

While its clear to me you disagree with me, it is not clear to me why. You have recently shoveled your opinions at me sans evidence like they were self-evident granules of wisdom. They are not.

Before pointing out the mote in thy neighbor's eye, you might want to examine the beam in thy own, Icann....

You present your opinions as facts, use silly repeated quoting to make your arguments seem legitimate, and ignore evidence against your case more than anyone I've ever seen on this board...

You offer the 9/11 commission findings that AQ is an ideology as evidence of your positions. But in fact, they support mine (that catching members of AQ, especially Bin Laden, will mean more than going to war in Iraq!).

It's not just me that thinks this. Your ability to spin arguments into incoherence, and your repeated hatchet jobs on posts whilst ignoring that which hurts your position, is the reason why most people won't debate with you anymore in this thread.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Somewhere, in a parallel world, Gore was elected President and a million Americans are dead because he didn't have the balls to invade Iraq. Instead, he contained Iraq and Osama purchased a Sarin nerve gas bomb from Saddam that was secreted into a large event in America, the DNC perhaps and it was set off by a suicide bomber killing everyone.

Fotuneatly that is a parallel universe and not this one. Here, we have stopped Saddam from ever having WMD's and replaced a madman's murderous regime with a government meant to better the station of all Iraqi's.

0 Replies

.... except that we are stuck in Iraq for four years, and our continued presence gives rise to the IDC, or Iraqi Defense Committee, who proceeds to smuggle a bomb onto the floor of Congress and blow it up while in session.

It does no good to remove one threat, only to create another one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

RUMSFELD MISLEADS ON IRAQI SECURITY FORCES

The ability of U.S. forces to exit Iraq is contingent on the training of Iraqi forces that can provide for their own security. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has seriously misled the American people about the number of Iraqis that have been trained.

In February, Rumsfeld touted the large number of Iraqis serving in security forces that had completed training. Rumsfeld said, "there are over 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces. That is an amazing accomplishment. There are a number of thousands more that are currently in training."[1] Rumsfeld's statement was grossly inaccurate. On Tuesday, Rumsfeld admitted, "we're training up their security forces now...about 105,000 are now properly trained and equipped."[2]

But never fear. Rumsfeld now promises that "between now and the end of the year into mid-'05...that number then will go up -- back up over 200,000."[3]

Sources:

1. "More Cooperation Needed to Secure Iraq Borders, Rumsfeld Says," The Coalition Provisional Authority, 2/23/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56683 .
2. "Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability at Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo.," U.S. Department of Defense, 9/14/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56684.
3. "Defense Department Briefing with Secretary Rumsfeld," U.S. Department of Defense, 9/07/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=56685.

0 Replies

Ican wrote

Quote:

And you believe this, don't you? Why? Because it fits the dogma to which you appear fused?

to which I reply

quote

Quote:

I am fused to no dogma, except truth

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yours are hardly better, my friend. You favorite tactic is to take a hatchet to the preceding post and simply ignore those parts which contradict what you wrote.

Well my error, if any, is failing to see adequate relevance to the topic here of all the content of posts to which I respond. If I fail to see any adequate relevance I don't respond at all. In the case of many of your posts, my responses are perceived by me to be extensive, because I perceive much of what you post to be adequately relevant. However, I do wonder why you do not respond to those parts of my posts I think are adequately relevant. But I can live with that.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

For example; you repeatedly hold up the 9/11 commission as support for Bush, but he opposed said commission, underfunded it massively, opposed the findings until pressured to do otherwise, and now has decided to NOT fully implement the recommendations. How do you reconcile that with Bush taking positive action? He has opposed what you are holding up as proof every step of the way.

While I think you over state Bush's actual opposition -- it lasted a relatively short time -- I do agree he was strongly opposed to the Commission for a while and I thought that at the time to be a big mistake. My own opposition to the Commission was only opposition to the selection of Jamie Gorelick as a member of the Commission rather than a witness before it, because of the so-called "wall directive" she issued under Clinton restricting communication among the various intelligence groups. My concerns on that score were subsequently shown to be unjustified based on the actual content of the Commissions final report.

Say what you will, Bush has definitely rectified his previous bad judgment about the Commission and is now applying its findings. That's good enough for me.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You tell me that I provide zero evidence to support my claim that invading Iraq hasn't made us safer. What evidence do you need? World levels of terrorism have risen. Many Americans are dead in Iraq, it's certainly not safer for them.

Yes, it's not safer for the dead and dieing. But the Commission thinks we in America are safer, but not safe enough: "Because of offensive actions against al Qaeda since 9/11, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today. But we are not safe. We therefore make the following recommendations that we believe can make America safer and more secure. ..." I confess I value their carefully researched opinions over your hearsay based opinions.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

We haven't caught those responsible for attacking our country, and you don't think that's important? There's little doubt in my mind that OBL is out there plotting more attacks against us; you don't think it's important to catch the man responsible for the deadliest attacks on America?

Capturing them is not necessary for us to now claim real progress has been made. Sure, I want 'em all killed/captured, but the fact they aren't all killed/captured doesn't blind me to the real progress that has been achieved toward solution of what I perceive to be a very complicated problem.

I've already pointed out that the capture of Hitler and Hirohito were not necessary to our achieving victory in WWII. Why should the death/capture of bin Ladin and other terrorist leaders be necessary to concluding we have made real progress toward victory in WWIII?

However, many have actually been captured according to the Commission:
"Since 9/11, the United States and its allies have killed or captured a majority of al Qaeda's leadership; toppled the Taliban, which gave al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan; and severely damaged the organization. Yet terrorist attacks continue. Even as we have thwarted attacks, nearly everyone expects they will come. How can this be?"

"The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people. It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs. In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force. Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror. His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue."

Alive or dead or incarcerated, bin Laden's "message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue." We must exterminate all the recruiters of terrorists. We've definitely made and are making progress toward that goal.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Before pointing out the mote in thy neighbor's eye, you might want to examine the beam in thy own, Icann....

I have definitely provided you evidence of the truth of my opinion (e.g., excerpts from 9-11 Commission Report, bin Laden's 1998 FATWA, excerpt from CNN's version of Colin Powell's speech to the UN in February 2003). You may think it insufficient, but it is nonetheless evidence. You on the other hand merely provide your opinion without any evidence whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You ... ignore evidence against your case more than anyone I've ever seen on this board...

Please review such evidence that you think I have ignored.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You offer the 9/11 commission findings that AQ is an ideology as evidence of your positions. But in fact, they support mine (that catching members of AQ, especially Bin Laden, will mean more than going to war in Iraq!).

Please show me where/how the Commission supports that assertion. Going to war in Iraq is a necessary step to catching all those al Qaeda that fled to Iraq after the invasion of Afghanistan, and before the invasion of Iraq. Oh, I think I know. You want more evidence that some al Qaeda recruiters and recruited actually fled to Iraq where some of them were previously sheltered. Many are hard to find now because they are dead. I think Logic provides sufficient evidence for now. But I'll see what more I can do.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's not just me that thinks this. Your ability to spin arguments into incoherence, and your repeated hatchet jobs on posts whilst ignoring that which hurts your position, is the reason why most people won't debate with you anymore in this thread.

Perhaps that's the reason. But perhaps they realize that unless they supply me more than their opinions or copies of Rather et al opinions, I'm going to give their opinions little or no weight.

"Before pointing out the mote in thy neighbor's eye, you might want to examine the beam in thy own," Cycloptichorn.

0 Replies

That's the thing. You give NOONE'S opinions weight besides those who agree with you. I've seen you pull the

Quote:

same

Quote:

hatchet

Quote:

quote

Quote:

job

time and time again, against very well constructed arguments, taking them out of context and simply discarding (NOT repudating) the things said inside.

But; in the intrests of civility and of further debate, I'm more than willing to put the past behind, because I was intrigued by a point you made:

Quote:

Please show me where/how the Commission supports that assertion. Going to war in Iraq is a necessary step to catching all those al Qaeda that fled to Iraq after the invasion of Afghanistan, and before the invasion of Iraq.

This brings up a question: will it be neccessary to go to war with EVERY nation that AQ flee to? If certain AQ operatives are found in America, would other countries be justified in attacking us - even if we protested our innocence and lack of connection with them (just like Iraq did)?

Quote:

Oh, I think I know. You want more evidence that some al Qaeda recruiters and recruited actually fled to Iraq where some of them were previously sheltered. Many are hard to find now because they are dead. I think Logic provides sufficient evidence for now. But I'll see what more I can do.

Yes, I do want more proof of this, as the consensus seems to be against any formal ties. And informal ones are not damning; hell, WE had informal ties to Bin Laden for years!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Not mention old Rummy grinning at Saddam when he went to Baghdad to cut the deal for Uncle Ray-gun . . . but let's not mention that . . .

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I am fused to no dogma, except truth

May you sooner than later discover your falsity.

You misread your and other's unresearched opinions for evidence

0 Replies

Set,

That's the background on my computer!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

May you sooner than later discover your falsity.

You misread your and other's unresearched opinions for evidence

That's almost as bad as..... believing that your evidence is golden and noone elses' is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Not mention old Rummy grinning at Saddam when he went to Baghdad to cut the deal for Uncle Ray-gun . . . but let's not mention that . . .

You already did! Yes, Rummy screwed up there, (and so did Reagan). I think neither will make that mistake again.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's almost as bad as..... believing that your evidence is golden and noone elses' is. So stop believing that.

I don't think my evidence is golden. I don't even think my evidence is sufficient. I merely think my evidence is more compeling, limited as it is, than your evidence.

I look forward to seeing your evidence any day now.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's almost as bad as..... believing that your evidence is golden and noone elses' is. So stop believing that. <- WTF ICANN!?

I don't think my evidence is golden. I don't even think my evidence is sufficient. I merely think my evidence is more compeling, limited as it is, than your evidence.

I look forward to seeing your evidence any day now.

Yaknow, if you compare the quote of mine that you posted, and the quote of mine that I wrote, you may notice a slight difference - 'So Stop Believing That' wasn't written by me.

Please. In arguments about how your evidence is better respected than others, don't misquote greviously and obviously....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I mean seriously. WTF.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know