A Lone Voice wrote:Satire is full of venom and hate? Since when? I do realize that many that used satire have lost; the Greeks, the Romans, the French, the British. But it hardly makes satire a "loser attack." Satire appears to have been a rather successful attack many times in history.
Nice try.
I throw out a few hundred words, and you come back with the typical loser attack. One sentence, full of venom and hate.
Please feel free to point out where there is any venom and hate in my first post. Keep in mind your first post should be judged by the same unbiased standard.
Quote:I wrote it as satire. You are free to ignore my statements if you so wish because your feelings were hurt. It doesn't change my obvious intent.
Now you claim it was only satire?
Quote:False logic. Just because someone agrees with something doesn't make it a valid argument. Your original claim that the dems want the US military to lose in Iraq is still unsupported with any evidence.
You think it was outlandish. Others agreed with it, didn't they?
Quote:I don't believe I attacked you first. You accused me of breathing a sigh of relief that the attacks started up again in Iraq. A claim for which you have no basis. My response to you was merely repeating back to you your statement about forgetting how to reason. You have since then filled your posts to me with ad hominem attacks. Your claim that the dems want the military to lose in Iraq is hardly an original idea. It certainly isn't well thought out nor supported with any evidence.
I think I've recognized the type of A2K troll you seem to be. A quick post here and there, belittling others and never really bringing up any original thoughts of your own. Quick to jump on the bandwagon of those who think like you, and quick to attack those you disagree with.
Quote:More ad hominem from you.
That's why people like you, if you ever came into power, scare the hell out of me. Hence, my comment about people like you putting people like me into a camp.
Quote:And again with the ad hominem, this time achieving Godwin's law. Congratulations.
You would have made a great Nazi Party member.
Actually, I would have made a horrible Nazi Party member; I don't look good in brown, I'm not good with authority, and my ancestry would have prevented me from joining.
Quote:Another ad hominem. I think you have attacked me a hell of a lot more than I ever did you. When I posted point by point, you didn't respond to any of my points. Instead you went into an ad hominem rant.
But hey, I'm glad you finally found a dictionary. You might try using it yourself so you don't sound so illiterate...
Thanks for the viewpoint from the pro-war and pro-killing crowd.
Now back to reality....
parados wrote:A Lone Voice wrote:Satire is full of venom and hate? Since when? I do realize that many that used satire have lost; the Greeks, the Romans, the French, the British. But it hardly makes satire a "loser attack." Satire appears to have been a rather successful attack many times in history.
Nice try.
I throw out a few hundred words, and you come back with the typical loser attack. One sentence, full of venom and hate.
Please feel free to point out where there is any venom and hate in my first post. Keep in mind your first post should be judged by the same unbiased standard.
Quote:I wrote it as satire. You are free to ignore my statements if you so wish because your feelings were hurt. It doesn't change my obvious intent.
Now you claim it was only satire?
Quote:False logic. Just because someone agrees with something doesn't make it a valid argument. Your original claim that the dems want the US military to lose in Iraq is still unsupported with any evidence.
You think it was outlandish. Others agreed with it, didn't they?
Quote:I don't believe I attacked you first. You accused me of breathing a sigh of relief that the attacks started up again in Iraq. A claim for which you have no basis. My response to you was merely repeating back to you your statement about forgetting how to reason. You have since then filled your posts to me with ad hominem attacks. Your claim that the dems want the military to lose in Iraq is hardly an original idea. It certainly isn't well thought out nor supported with any evidence.
I think I've recognized the type of A2K troll you seem to be. A quick post here and there, belittling others and never really bringing up any original thoughts of your own. Quick to jump on the bandwagon of those who think like you, and quick to attack those you disagree with.
Quote:More ad hominem from you.
That's why people like you, if you ever came into power, scare the hell out of me. Hence, my comment about people like you putting people like me into a camp.
Quote:And again with the ad hominem, this time achieving Godwin's law. Congratulations.
You would have made a great Nazi Party member.
Actually, I would have made a horrible Nazi Party member; I don't look good in brown, I'm not good with authority, and my ancestry would have prevented me from joining.
Quote:Another ad hominem. I think you have attacked me a hell of a lot more than I ever did you. When I posted point by point, you didn't respond to any of my points. Instead you went into an ad hominem rant.
But hey, I'm glad you finally found a dictionary. You might try using it yourself so you don't sound so illiterate...
Been gone for a couple of days. Darn work stuff....
Here's the thing:
Claiming 'wit' as a reason for an attack doesn't fly.
Quote:Thanks for the viewpoint from the pro-war and pro-killing crowd.
Now back to reality....
Lot's of opinions on this board, yet, like most of those who possess fascist thinking, you seem to believe that the only opinion that counts is yours.
Other people don't have opinions, they have 'false logic,' according to your set of beliefs.
You set the tone here. You also raise some good points. Yet your argument is lost behind your zeal to your party.
As for the rest of the thread, it looks like it has devolved into yet another 'Bush lied' discussion.
IF the military is able to get a handle on the situation in Iraq, it will be interesting to watch the dems reactions.
If there is ANY indication of success in the near future, will the dems downplay it? Will they try to turn attention away?
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A truck exploded Saturday as worshippers left a Sunni mosque west of Baghdad, killing at least 35 people and injuring more than 60 in an apparent sign of increased internal Sunni battles between insurgents and those opposing them.
The imam of the mosque in Habbaniyah, about 50 miles west of Baghdad, had spoken out against militants fighting the U.S.-backed government, including the group al-Qaida in Iraq.
At least 35 people were killed and 62 injured, said Lt. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed in Habbaniyah, which lies between the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah ?- both hotbeds of the insurgency.
Earlier Saturday, thousands of Shiites rallied in the holy city of Najaf on Saturday to protest the nearly 12-hour detention of the eldest son of Iraq's most influential Shiite politician as he crossed back from Iran. The U.S. military called the incident "unfortunate."
"Is this the way to deal with a national figure? This does not conform with Iraq's sovereignty," said Amar al-Hakim, 35, who was taken into custody Friday at the Zirbatyah crossing point southeast of Baghdad along with his security guards.
Al-Hakim said U.S. soldiers handcuffed and blindfolded him before his release and "strongly abused" his bodyguards. He said cellular phones, licensed weapons and two-way radios were among items confiscated.
"It is not a question of offering apologies," he told a news conference in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, about 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Baghdad. "We need clear and honest measures to prevent such incidents from happening again."
The convoy was using the same route Washington believes is used to keep powerful Shiite militias flush with weapons and aid.
Al-Hakim said U.S. military officials told him the detention was because his passport had expired, but he said it was valid until Sept. 17, 2007.
Even though U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad issued a rapid apology, the decision to hold al-Hakim risks touching off more backlash from Shiite leaders at a time when their cooperation is needed most to keep a major security sweep through Baghdad from unraveling.
It also highlights the often knotty relationship between U.S. military authorities and Iraq's leaders, whose ties to neighboring patrons ?- Syria backing Sunnis, and Iran acting as big brother to majority Shiites ?- add fuel to sectarian rivalries and bring recriminations from Washington about alleged arms smuggling and outside interference.
A suicide car bomb struck in the same Baghdad neighborhood as the headquarters of the political bloc led by al-Hakim's father, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI. At least three people were killed and it was not immediately clear if the attack was related to the detention.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, ducked a question about the detention during a news conference, saying only that the circumstances were unclear and still being investigated.
But Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite and a top leader in the parliamentary bloc controlled by al-Hakim's father, described the behavior of the U.S. troops involved in the detention as "inappropriate, foolish and haphazard."
He told Al-Forat television that the incident has highlighted the need to streamline security cooperation between the Iraqi and U.S. sides, adding that it was "a gross violation of an important personality that we cannot accept."
The U.S. military said Saturday that the vehicles were initially stopped because they "met specific criteria for further investigation in an area where smuggling activity has taken place in the past."
Al-Hakim was detained after members of the convoy "did not cooperate with coalition forces and displayed suspicious activities," but he was released to Iraqi authorities and his possessions were returned after further investigation, the military said.
"Mr. Hakim was treated with dignity and respect throughout the incident," the military said. "Unfortunate incidents such as this occasionally occur as Iraq endeavors to secure its borders."
Shiite reaction to the detention was quick and sharp on the streets, and some officials suggesting it was a veiled warning about the limits of ties to Iran.
About 8,000 people demonstrated near the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf against the detention, raising Iraqi flags and pictures of al-Hakim and his father, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim. Banners warned that such acts jeopardized the political process.
"The detention of al-Hakim represents an insult to the Iraqi people," said Hassan al-Shebli, a 45-year-old store owner who was among the protesters. "The Americans should avoid such irresponsible acts if they want to establish stability in the country."
Hundreds also took to the streets in Baghdad's main Shiite district of Sadr City and the southern Shiite cities of Karbala and Basra to protest the detention and call for an investigation.
But the protests were relatively small considering the influence of the al-Hakim family, indicating they were mainly aimed at sending a warning to the Americans.
"What happened is unacceptable," Shiite lawmaker Hamid Majid Moussa told Al-Forat television. "The Iraqi government and the American forces must put an end to such transgressions," Shiite lawmaker Hamid Majid Moussa told Al-Forat television.
The station is just one part of the multilayered clout of the al-Hakim family.
Al-Hakim's father, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, met with U.S. President George W. Bush at the White House in December. He is the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, the country's largest political force.
The bloc carries the strongest voice in the 275-seat parliament and holds critical sway over the fate of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It also maintains very close ties to Iran, which hosted the elder al-Hakim and other SCIRI officials before the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
In December, American forces seized two Iranian security agents at the elder al-Hakim's compound in Baghdad. Six other Iranians were arrested Jan. 11 at an Iranian liaison office in northern Iraq. The U.S. military said they were members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard. Tehran denies the charges.
Washington has repeatedly accused Iran of funneling weapons to militants, including lethal roadside bombs that have targeted U.S. troops.
The U.S. ambassador to Iraq tried to defuse any showdowns with Shiites that could upset a 10-day-old offensive seeking to reclaim Baghdad's streets from militants and sectarian deaths squads. Shiite militias appeared to clear the way for the effort by rolling back fighters and checkpoints.
"I am sorry about the arrest," Khalilzad said. "We don't know the circumstances of the arrest and we are investigating and we don't mean any disrespect to Al-Sayed Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim or his family."
Khalilzad promised: "We will find out what has happened."
The U.S. Embassy said al-Hakim "was not singled out" and "soldiers were following standard procedure" at the border crossing.
"There were some serious allegations made here about the way that the arrest was conducted and the investigation is going to examine how the event unfolded," embassy spokesman Lou Fintor said Saturday.
Amar al-Hakim heads a charity dedicated to the memory of his uncle, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, who was killed along with scores of others in a car bombing in Najaf in August 2003. His father took over SCIRI after the killings, and Amar is apparently being groomed to take his place someday.
