0
   

The Heroic Iraqi Insurgents

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 10:58 am
http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2005/dancart2585.jpg
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:06 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Setanta was confused about whether Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. He was, and that is the point I was making.


This is pure horseshit, the retailing of which is your stock in trade. The point was very much what proximate threat Iraq posed to the security of the United States, which is why i mentioned it in my post before OE mentioned it.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:10 am
old europe wrote:
And the United States supported Saddam. So do the United States support terrorism?


Are you suggesting Saddam was a terrorist?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:11 am
DrewDad wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
And is the invasion of Iraq a contributing factor?

Would a reasonable person have been able to forsee the chaos and violence that would follow?

I certainly think so, since I anticipated the insurgency.



A reasonable person can foresee a great many things resulting from a war, but that doesn't mean Bush is responsible for everything that happens in the war.

Was Roosevelt responsible for all the deaths of the American G.I.'s that died in WWII? Certainly they were foreseeable.

Nice deflection.


Really? I answered your question. Were you going to answer mine, or just deflect?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:12 am
OMG, the kind of the stupid argument . . . you claim Hussein supported terrorists. If the United States supported Hussein, then by extensionl, the United States supported terrorists. Your posts are so goofy . . .
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:14 am
au1929 wrote:
Is the insurgency with it's terrorism the result of the Invasion by the US or isn't it. Let's have a direct answer without the BS. Yes, or No.


Yes of course it is. No need for BS ... not has been given thus far.

Where you are having your disconnect, au et al., is when you ascribe the liability for the actions of the insurgents/terrorists on Bush.

Quote:
In addition faced with the history of the region can you invision the Kurds, Shia and Sunni's able to establish a democratic, melting pot nation where all can in peace.


Yes, I can picture that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:19 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
In addition faced with the history of the region can you invision the Kurds, Shia and Sunni's able to establish a democratic, melting pot nation where all can in peace.


Yes, I can picture that.


An exercise in magnificent self-delusion . . . a sine qua non of the witless supporters of the current administration . . .
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:22 am
Setanta wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Setanta was confused about whether Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. He was, and that is the point I was making.


This is pure horseshit, the retailing of which is your stock in trade. The point was very much what proximate threat Iraq posed to the security of the United States, which is why i mentioned it in my post before OE mentioned it.


It appears you are having a disconnect of your own, Set. So allow me to recap ....

I said:

Tico wrote:
"... if Saddam had not been a madman and a supporter of terrorism, the US would not have invaded, ..."


... to which you replied:

Setanta wrote:
Hussein's support for terrorism? Got anything to support that other than your penchant for imflamatory reationary rhetoric?


... and my response was to post a couple of links to substantiate the link between Saddam and al Queda, and his support of Palestinian suicide bombers. You then claimed it has not been proven that Saddam paid money to the Palestinian bombers, and so I pointed out that the link I had previously provided appeared to do just that.


How can you possibly now try and claim you were not confused about whether Saddam was a supporter of terrorism, because you clearly were.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:22 am
Setanta wrote:
OMG, the kind of the stupid argument . . . you claim Hussein supported terrorists. If the United States supported Hussein, then by extensionl, the United States supported terrorists. Your posts are so goofy . . .


Okay, I'll bite. How did the US support Hussein?

It doesn't matter .... the clear meaning I take from your post is an attempt by you to point blame at the US. When faced with the reality that Saddam supported terrorism, you try and claim the US supported terrorism. This is a good example of why it is widely perceived that liberals like to blame America first.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:25 am
Setanta wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
In addition faced with the history of the region can you invision the Kurds, Shia and Sunni's able to establish a democratic, melting pot nation where all can in peace.


Yes, I can picture that.


An exercise in magnificent self-delusion . . . a sine qua non of the witless supporters of the current administration . . .


Yours is an example of a thick-headed anti-war liberal ... the kind that would like to massage the feet of the likes of Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:31 am
Tico
And you seem content to worship at the feet of your Messiah. Bush
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:34 am
Nah, he's content to tweak ya'll's noses.
0 Replies
 
twinpeaksnikki2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:47 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
In addition faced with the history of the region can you invision the Kurds, Shia and Sunni's able to establish a democratic, melting pot nation where all can in peace.


Yes, I can picture that.


An exercise in magnificent self-delusion . . . a sine qua non of the witless supporters of the current administration . . .


Yours is an example of a thick-headed anti-war liberal ... the kind that would like to massage the feet of the likes of Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore.


All he is left to do now is to make feeble attempts to smear posters who have a firm grasp on reality.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:24 pm
Quote:

All he is left to do now is to make feeble attempts to smear posters who have a firm grasp on reality.


Nikki please dont make him look foolish to others, it takes talent to do that. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:27 pm
I've never met Cindy Sheehan or Mr. Moore, and have no inclination to do so. I don't massage my Sweetiepie's feet, let alone those of a stranger.

Interesting visual there, though--one suspects that Tico yearns to massage the feet of his hero, the Shrub. Or maybe it's Tricky Dick Cheney who is the focus of Tico's sexual fantasies . . .
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 12:33 pm
I'll take your word that you've never met them, and don't care to. I'll also take your word that you don't massage eB's feet. And while I do massage my wife's feet, my yearning stops right there. :wink:
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 04:14 pm
Setanta wrote:
I've never met Cindy Sheehan or Mr. Moore, and have no inclination to do so. I don't massage my Sweetiepie's feet, let alone those of a stranger.

Interesting visual there, though--one suspects that Tico yearns to massage the feet of his hero, the Shrub. Or maybe it's Tricky Dick Cheney who is the focus of Tico's sexual fantasies . . .


more likely the desire is to insert his tongue into our Dear Leader's rectum.

btw: the mining of the habor of nicaragua by the US was an act of state terrorism, but since our government did it, it was okay. its only terrorism if the other side does it.

and oddly, saddam gased those kurds while he was still our ally

btw: sentanta, from what i have heard from back channels on the doggie hotline, likes to rub bellies and ears.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 04:26 pm
Miss Cleo oft approaches me with a forelorn, an almost hopeless look, and quietly says: "Nobody ever rubs my belly . . . "
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 10:26 pm
Saddam gassed the Kurds because they were in league with another of the persons of the triumvirate and trinitarian axishead of evil, Iran. And now the invasion apologists are incensed about it. By extension, like that which the invasion apologia is based on, we went after Saddam because he went after the Kurds who were in league with Iran, ergo we are in league with the Axis of Evil.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2005 11:54 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
That the direct cause is the actions of the insurgents does not remove Bush & Co.'s responsibility for being the indirect cause.

What is it in law? Proximate cause and contributing factors?


In the law, the proximate cause analysis ends when there is an intervening act to break the chain. In this case, that is the action of the insurgents who decided to bomb the hospital. If Bush did something that set of a natural and continuous chain of events that culminated in the bombing of the hospital, you could legitimately claim Bush was the proximate cause of the bombing. Hoever, in this case there is an intervening action -- that of the terrorists/insurgents -- that is the proximate cause of the event.


In this Tico has provided the most cogent of arguments on this thread and yet no one has attempted to respond to it with any real vigor.

Of course the invasion of Iraq did not inexorably lead to insurgents bombing hospitals, hotels and mosques. The insurgents have, in no way, been left with violence as their only possible response to the American occupation.

The Baathist insurgents have simply substituted one means of slaughtering innocents for another.

The jihadists have simply focused their killing ways in Iraq.

A difference between today's Iraq and the Iraq of Saddam is that in today's Iraq the killings are trumpeted by the world's news media, while in Saddam's Iraq, the killings were largely ignored.

Another difference is that in today's Iraq there is a foreseeable end to the killings while in Saddam's Iraq there was not.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/28/2021 at 09:15:30