US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Walter Hinteler wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
It appears negotiating with the representatives of Sunni criminals does not work.

Well, the Sunni representatives in the Iraq'a Governing Council are:

...

Who among these or who else representing the Sunnis is a criminal? Or are all Sunnis criminals per se?

Sigh! I'll try again! Rolling Eyes

I actually posted this (emphasis added)!

It appears negotiating with the representatives of Sunni criminals does not work.

There is zero in that statement that states or implies that the representatives of Sunni criminals are themselves criminals!

Lawyers, who represent domestic criminals, are not usually perceived by anyone as criminals themselves. I have zero reason to believe the representatives of the Sunni criminals (i.e., malignancy) are themselves criminals. On the contrary, they appear to be exceptionally fine people. The Sunni they represent are both malignancy and Iraqi civilians.

How about this way of saying the samething?

It appears negotiating with the non-criminal representatives of those Sunni who are both criminals and non-criminals, does not work.

0 Replies

Well, ican, in my opinion it is the very same with some criminal and non-criminal A2K'ers here.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

This ican guy really doesn't do his homework before he spews his ill-founded comments.

"He founded the Independent Democratic Movement in February 2003 to provide a platform for Iraqis who back a secular, democratic government, and returned to Iraq in May2003 after 32 years in exile. Experts say he is respected."

It seems ican disagrees with the goal of Bushco who thought they would bring a "secular, democratic government" to Iraq. .

CI, your reading comprehension needs to be improved dramatically!

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, ican, in my opinion it is the very same with some criminal and non-criminal A2K'ers here.

Interesting!

Is it your opinion that some of the members of A2K are malignancy? Or perhaps,it's your opinion that some of the members of A2K are merely slanderers or libelers or frauds or so ignorant as to be criminals on that account?

If so, name 'em.

0 Replies

It takes being one to know one malignancy, and you seem to be an expert. LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It takes being one to know one malignancy, and you seem to be an expert. LOL

I'm going to ask you to do something you may find very difficult.

You posted: "takes being one to know one."

That of course is bunk! Is one a child because one knows a child? Is one a fool because one knows a fool? Is one a jackass because one knows a jackass? Is one a woman because one knows a woman? Is one an engineer because one knows an engineer? Is one an aviator because one knows an aviator? Is one a genius because one knows a genius? I think not! But ...., what the hell, let's assume anyway "takes being one to know one" is true.

You seem to allege that I am an expert in knowing malignancy.

That seems to imply that you are an expert in knowing an expert in knowing malignancy.

Please answer the following questions.

If that be true, how did you come by this expertise of yours?

Do you too define malignancy to be those persons who mass murder civilians or are accomplices of persons who mass murder civilians?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Is it your opinion that some of the members of A2K are malignancy? Or perhaps,it's your opinion that some of the members of A2K are merely slanderers or libelers or frauds or so ignorant as to be criminals on that account?

Sorry that my response wasn't clear enough.

I was only responding to your

ican711nm wrote:
It appears negotiating with the non-criminal representatives of those Sunni who are both criminals and non-criminals, does not work.

ican711nm wrote:
If so, name 'em.

Even if you had written that more politely and not used your commanding tone .... but see above.

0 Replies

Walter doesn't understand where you're coming from Ican. C.I. rarely understands where you're coming from. I understood it perfectly the first time I read the article and it's hard to fathom that some can't (or is it won't) see after you explained it.

Let's see if we can break it down.

It's simple.

1. The vast majority of the current Iraqi criminals (terrorists, insurgents, whatever you wish to call them) are from the Sunni sect.

2. There are also quite admirable Sunnis in Iraq and a number of these are among the leadership.

3. It appears that negotiating with the Sunnis in the leadership has little or no influence on the criminal element among the other Sunnis.

Does that clear it up?

0 Replies

double post

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

...
Sorry that my response wasn't clear enough.

I was only responding to your ...
...

Even if you had written that more politely and not used your commanding tone .... but see above.

: shall I

or

0 Replies

Well, Foxfyre, ican is - according to his avatar - from Texas (or at least living there now).

If that explains it, okay, thanks.

0 Replies

Walter writes

Quote:

Well, Foxfyre, ican is - according to his avatar - from Texas (or at least living there now).

If that explains it, okay, thanks.

Hey I know Texas speak is a challenge, but it's worth getting the hang of it. (Texas is our next door neighbor here so you have to know a bit of the language.)

0 Replies

Yeee Hawww!

Foxfyre, as usual you have it right. Thanks for the help.

There is also an implication of my statement that is relevant to the claim of some here that one should discuss and/or negotiate differences with mass murderers and not go to war against them to resolve such differences.

It appears negotiating with the non-criminal representatives of those Sunni who are both criminals and non-criminals, does not work.

I'd appreciate any help you can give to try and help them understand that too?

0 Replies

I understand that - know some Dutch, French, Letzelburgisch, Swiss and Austrian myself to understand our next door neighbours. :wink:

0 Replies

Okay, let's add a fourth point:

1. The vast majority of the current Iraqi criminals (terrorists, insurgents, whatever you wish to call them) are from the Sunni sect.

2. There are also quite admirable Sunnis in Iraq and a number of these are among the leadership.

3. It appears that negotiating with the Sunnis in the leadership has little or no influence on the criminal element among the other Sunnis.

4. It further appears that negotiating with the Sunni leadership isn't having much good effect on the non-criminal Sunnis who are not among the leadership either.

0 Replies

Thanks.

Ali al-Adib, a Shi'ite member of the committee drafting the document, said earlier today that U.S. President George W. Bush had called on Shi'a to make concessions.

So Bush is trying to support the criminal element among the Sunnis?

0 Replies

I certainly didn't interpret it that way. Why would anybody interpret it that way?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay, let's add a fourth point:
...

Yee Haw!

Thanks, right again!

I wonder what it would take to get the anti-Iraq-war folks to understand why what you wrote is true and, more importantly, what are the true implications of all four of your points.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Thanks.

Ali al-Adib, a Shi'ite member of the committee drafting the document, said earlier today that U.S. President George W. Bush had called on Shi'a to make concessions.

So Bush is trying to support the criminal element among the Sunnis?

Of course not!

Unfortunately, Bush may think that getting the Shi'ite members to make concessions to the Sunni, will win the support of the Sunni for the Constitution. What Bush does not appear to understand is that the criminal element among the Sunni control what the non-criminal element among the Sunni will dare support. So the Shi'ite concessions must satisfy the Sunni criminal element in order to obtain that criminal element's support. I'm betting that the only concessions that will satisfy the Sunni criminal element is a constitution that they believe will allow them to re-establish or re-evolve their Baathist government.

On the otherhand, Bush may be attempting one last effort to make the 1st Strategy work before he tries another strategy he thinks more likely to work.

I hope so!

0 Replies

Ican writes

Quote:

I wonder what it would take to get the anti-Iraq-war folks to understand why what you wrote is true and, more importantly, what are the true implications of all four of your points.

It will take massive terrorists attacks in their own yards I think, because most want to be able to believe what they want to believe and refuse to consider the testimony and/or evidence of others. It's so easy to think that if we just didn't tick off these terrorists, if we were just nicer to them, if we just gave them what they demanded or if we stopped buying their oil or if we would shut down Halliburton or if we would impeach George W. Bush, then they would love us and become model citizens of the world. Those who blame us most for it all can't seem to learn from either ancient or modern history.

And learning the hard way is an option I really would like to avoid here. So the rest of us will just have to work around them the best we can. They mean well. They just don't quite grasp how it is I think.

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know