John ( FLIPPER ) Kerry - Ayonae.com Forums

Lleauric

08-03-2004, 09:20 PM

But yet you ignore that his votes to cut coincided with Cheneys suggestions.

And I dont buy the failure of intelligence community arguement.
Garbage In/Garbage Out.
Why does it have to take a special secret agent man to tell the President, or the Vice President.. that Ahmed Chalabi, who has ties with the Iranian government, yet had been the favorite son pre war, might not be such a good source of Intelligence.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/19/wirq19.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=115677
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Newsweek/Photos/Web_Exclusives/040302_040308/040302_DickeyChalabi_vl.ss_v.jpg
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040831/site/newsweek/
Oh Gee... ooops. Wow, we had no idea that information from this guy might be bad /giggle.
Why was Chalibi there? Why was Chalibi SITTING DIRECTLY BEHIND LAURA BUSH AT THE STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH BEFORE THE INVASION?
Was THAT a failure of intelligence? Whos fault was that. Who got it wrong?
For fucks sake, THEY made the choice to trust this piece of shit, THEY got played.
Game over.
"Hey Intel guys, analyize this piece of intelligence from our good friend here, tell us what ya think"
Now they have the BALLS to tell us the INTEL people got it wrong.
Garbage In/Garbage Out.

So get bullshit information from a self interested party, with now we know, STRONG ties to Iran, a nation BTW, who must have been laughing thier asses off in glee and relief when we went after their arch enemy for 9/11 instead of THEM. WHO ACTUALLY FUCKING AIDED AL QUEDA AND LET THEM PASS THROUGH THIER BORDERS

But in a move only capable by the most obscenly inept blind idiocy, we take out Saddam, without a clear plan. The result is we come a cunt hair away from a Shia insurrection, which im SURE Iran had no part in.. right???

No lose situation for them. Take out #1 enemy, and next door neighbor is a 60% Shia majority thats looking for some pay back against the Sunni oppression. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. OFF WE GO BABY!

But its KERRY thats the liar??

George W. Bush last Feburary, on Meet The Press (emphasis added):
Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?
President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

George W. Bush June 3, 2004, Rose Garden press conference:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Chalabi is an Iraqi leader that's fallen out of favor within your administration. I'm wondering if you feel that he provided any false information, or are you particularly --
THE PRESIDENT: ....My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him. ...
Q I guess I'm asking, do you feel like he misled your administration, in terms of what the expectations were going to be going into Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't remember anybody walking into my office saying, Chalabi says this is the way it's going to be in Iraq.

Winterworg

08-03-2004, 11:25 PM

Whats going on here? You say its too bad W can't run on his record and I try to mention Kerry needs to run on his record, and you turn it back to W. What? You mean both sides have to run on their record and on the record of their opponent? Now we're talkin... so you had no point in that babble apparently. Thanks.

It was an obvious and admitted error to rely too much on the information Chalabi provided. He has been on a campaign to smear Bush though ever since we began to question some of the things he has done and remove support from him. I'm not sure how that relieves Kerry of his record of trying to cut the intelligence budget throughout his senate career. He is on record as saying that the cold war is over and we have no threats that require such an intelligence budget. Meanwhile intelligence deficiencies have been to blame in both Iraq and in not being prewarned about the 9/11 attack. So what's wrong with pointing out that Kerry would have decreased our intelligence capacity and that he apparently had no understanding of the threats that existed? Whats wrong with pointing out that Kerry and Edwards supported (and didn't support and supported and didn't support) the war in Iraq and then played a political game with the issue in order to have it both ways?

“As President, I will strengthen our intelligence capability so that we can more effectively prevent, not just respond to, another terrorist attack.

Why believe that if he did absolutely nothing for 8 years on the intelligence committee?

But in a move only capable by the most obscenly inept blind idiocy, we take out Saddam, without a clear plan. The result is we come a cunt hair away from a Shia insurrection, which im SURE Iran had no part in.. right???

No lose situation for them. Take out #1 enemy, and next door neighbor is a 60% Shia majority thats looking for some pay back against the Sunni oppression. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. OFF WE GO BABY!

I'm glad you're so gleeful and glib about it. Without a clear plan? What is unclear about the plan? It's always a risky thing, but it would be going rather well I think if not for foreign influences. You think Iran is loving seeing America on their border and demonstrating how we can roll through them if we needed to? I think it's actually 70 percent Shia. I also think you believe that these people are incapable of dealing with life without a dictator repressing them. In your world it seems, since the Shia have a majority they're going to wipe the others off the map. Maybe you're right. I can only judge from an Iraqi friend who says that the people of Iraq are nothing like that. He thinks the media goes and finds those types of people to make entertaining news. One man's opinion.

It's too late here for me to look more into your quotes from W there. Judging from those only, it looks like he's doing a tapdance there rather than just facing up to things. Sounds just like a politician.

Crist0

08-04-2004, 03:22 AM

right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim

he might have come with a group of leaders. But I haven't had any extensive conversations with him
*yawn*

I'm sorry Lleauaric, did you think there was some sort of screwup in his words?

He starts off saying he met with a group of Iraqi leaders from across the country on meet the press, he responds to the question about Chalabi saying he has only had brief conversations with him, such as meeting him as part of a group of leaders from Iraq.

Those two quotes do not disagree with each other, but then that never stops you from thinking he screwed up(Like when you called foul because he said in his campaign he would be advised by experienced people..and then actually was advised by them).

I can plainly see how you equate that sort of thing with Kerry's blatant contradictions on tape, from one extreme to the other.

Lleauric

08-04-2004, 06:44 AM

Ummm Crist0.
You dont see any problem with these 2 sentences?

My meetings with him were very brief. I mean, I think I met with him at the State of the Union and just kind of working through the rope line, and

They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, So when a reporter asks Bush, the most critical, the most core, the most urgent question about HOW he can be sure Iraq will not turn in Islamic state, and he mentions Chalabi BY NAME as a primary source of his intelligence, a man who LATER turns out to be giving Intel to the the hardline Islama-Facist state next door, in your mind, that doesnt mean he had relied on Chalabi for information?

Then when Bush says he only met him "THROUGH A ROPE LINE", you are okay with that? Dont you think the place and person where the most important question of the entire Iraq aftermath was answered in the Presidents mind would have been an important point to remember?

Those two quotes do not disagree with each other, Yes, because in some alien language, Sitting down in the Oval Office and having a discussion about the nature of post war in Iraq and a "Howdy Do" across a rope line are in every way equal.
Shit, you may be on to something here.
Maybe that IS how Bush gets most of his Intel, in 5 second snippets across a rope line from complete strangers. It probably couldnt be any worse.
btw... just for your edification.
Heres a picture of George Bush at an Intelligence meeting gathering information about Syria
http://www.alligator.org/edit/issues/00-fall/001026/bush26.jpg
and heres a picture of some random people who wandered into the Oval Office that Bush *May* have talked to in a "Hey,. how did you get in here" type way, but he cant remember for sure
http://www.usafreedomcorps.gov/dynamic_shared/images/gallery/IMG_0038.jpg

Just admit it... Bush did a... oh what do they call it? Whats the name for it? I think I heard it once or twice before... OH YA.. Bush did a WAFFLE.. or as the creator of this thread called it
FLIP FLOP

Whats going on here? You say its too bad W can't run on his record and I try to mention Kerry needs to run on his record, and you turn it back to W. What? You mean both sides have to run on their record and on the record of their opponent? Now we're talkin... so you had no point in that babble apparently. Thanks. The incumbant should run on his record... if he cant, then that in and of itself is telling. Kerry isnt running for Senate. So, what part of being in the Senate should be focus on? Seems to me his political experience is a core theme in his campaign. Should he just talk about role calls and senate votes? The role of the challenger is to present that he is a better choice. The last 4 years have not been successful.
All the President has to do is to communicate to the people that the last 4 years have been good. Thats it.. thats all he has to do, if he does that, he wins.
Unfortunatly for Bush, he cannot campaign on that... THATS WHY YOU SEE SO MUCH STUFF ABOUT KERRY.
Thats all Bush has left.
And btw, the Senate Intelligence Committee oversees the intelligence produced, it does not quantify raw material, develop sources or steer the direction of it.
The SIC only exists as a check and balance against the branch that controls the intell, the Executive. While it oversees and judges the final product of the apparatus, its only recourse when it breaks down or produces trash is to hold hearings... Which GWB fought against.

Furtivus

08-04-2004, 11:17 AM

The last 4 years have not been successful.
Perhaps your life has gone into the shitter in the last 4 years but for me and my friends/family it's been an unprecedented success.

Bush has no trouble running on his record of (1) lowering taxes for everyone particularly the largest tax reductions for the middle and lower incomes and eliminating unfair penalties in the tax system; (2) fighting terrorism and threats against the U.S. even when our allies (for monetary Oil for Food reasons) refused to aid us; and (3) protecting children with the ban on partial birth abortions and the Laci Peterson law.

Crist0

08-04-2004, 01:01 PM

and he mentions CHALABI by name
AMONG A LIST OF OTHER NAMES OF IRAQI REGIONAL LEADERS!

Now, finish the FIRST quote Mr Moore!

he might have come in with some leaders

HOLY SHIT!

Did he just say he might have come in with a group of Iraqi regional leaders?

He did!
He did!

Wow..do you think that maybe, since he only met with the President one time and that was as part of a larger group..they haven't had extensive conversations?

Wait!

He had his picture taken with the President!

Oh..no, sorry...he takes his picture with tons of people. I remember seeing Earnhardt Jr on Letterman talking about meeting him, he came out..shook his hand and took a couple of pictures then went back to work..maybe Dale Jr is part of a secret conspiracy too!

Wake the fuck up.

Lleauric

08-04-2004, 05:09 PM

Wow, its really amazing. The level of denial is absolutly amazing, almost sociopathic really.
He flip flopped, it was an intentional move to distance himself.

You claim bad intel, and when you see where the very source of the bad intel present yourself, you deny it.

Winterworg may not agree, but at least he is being intellectually honest when he recognizes it. Sure he validates and rationalizes it by saying all politicians do it, but he at least isnt so completely self delusional as to be unable to recognize such an obvious fact.
Its amazing the leaps you will take to smear Clinton or Kerry, but then you flatly refuse to acknowledge reality when someone you like is being discussed. That's called intellectual dishonesty.
I know it, you know it. Plain and simple
Your crediblity ------> door

Winterworg

08-04-2004, 07:57 PM

As long as all are willing to recognize Kerry's flips and flops I don't mind admitting W's. If it comes down to records Bush has this won in a landslide. Kerry supported the war, which is really the thing that the democrats have to point to as a failure. That and international relations with WE, which need to be pinned on them as much as on us. The rest is just social stuff which is ingrained opinion.

We're in the midst of a very strong economy despite the left's forecasts of doom, Afghanistan is on the mend, Iraq is stabilizing, finally got the international community to address the Sudan, people are waking up to the problems in the UN. If only we could get both parties to move toward the middle a little more instead of just faking it...

Crist0

08-05-2004, 12:11 AM

You are trying to make Bush saying he knew they weren't going to turn into an Islamic fundamentalist state(again, because he sat down with ALL of the regional leaders, not just Chalabi) into Bush and Chalabi being bosom buddies and claim that when he later said he had no extensive conversations with him he was lying.

That simply isn't so.

Bush did not have any meetings with him other than when Chalabi came in with the other Iraqi leaders. He shook his hand at the state of the union speech. He sat behind Laura there. Newsflash: There were other Iraqi leaders sitting behind Laura too, and you know what? Bush shook their hands as well.

It's a rather large leap from saying we got some of our intel from Chalabi(that turned out to be as bad as our intel from Egypt, Jordan, Russia, the UK and just about everywhere else evidently, if you buy that they didn't have a will to use WMD and no stockpiles of it unaccounted for either) and your adamant claims that Bush and Chalabi were soulmates and he was the administration's only source of intelligence in Iraq.

I tell you what Lleauaric.

If you are right as to Bush lying about the extent of his relationship with Chalabi, prove it. Show us all the proof of his meetings with the President beyond what Bush already talked about, that being shaking his hand in passing and the meeting with all of the Iraqi leaders.

Don't come back here saying I need to do it myself either..you've been shown evidence over and over again by the ton about Kerry.

EDIT - Moved Swift boat topic to new thread

Lleauric

08-05-2004, 07:06 AM

Crist0.
What more evidence do you need than Bush's own words
He mentioned 3 people by name... unscripted, was Chalabi a random name? Heck, he could have mentioned anyone.
Also explain the fact that his INC was recieving about $335,000 PER MONTH from the Defense Intelligence Agency, the intel section of the pentagon. If he wasnt considered to be a significant source of intel? 4 Million a year seems like a lot of money to be given from an intel office for a tertiary source. That payment wa finally stopped on May 20th, 2004.
Chalabi is SPECIFICALLY credited with the totality of the evidence about Mobile Weapons labs in Powells speech.
From the New York Times
Shortly after President Bush declared war on terrorism in the fall of 2001, the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, sent out a simple, urgent message to its network of intelligence agents: find evidence of outlawed weapons that would make Saddam Hussein a prime target for the United States.

Inevitably, that request reached Muhammad al-Zubaidi, himself an Iraqi exile who had been working to undermine Mr. Hussein for 24 years from posts in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq. Under the playful name of Al Deeb - Arabic for The Wolf - Mr. Zubaidi, now 52, served as a field leader for about 75 to 100 people who collected information on the machinations of Iraq's police state.

Over the next three months, Mr. Zubaidi and his associates gathered statements from defectors who said they had knowledge of Mr. Hussein's military facilities and who had fled Iraq for neighboring countries.

In short order, that same group of defectors took their stories to American intelligence agents and journalists. The defectors spoke of a nation pocketed with mobile weapons laboratories, a new secret weapons site beneath a Baghdad hospital, a meeting between a member of Mr. Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden - accounts that ultimately became potent elements in Mr. Bush's case for war.

Those accusations remain unproven. In fact, Mr. Zubaidi said in interviews last week in Lebanon, the ominous claims by the defectors differed significantly from the versions that they had first related to him and his associates. Mr. Zubaidi provided his handwritten diaries from 2001 and 2002, and his existing reports on the statements originally made by the defectors.

According to the documents, the defectors, while speaking with precision about aspects of Iraqi military facilities like its stock of missiles, did not initially make some of the most provocative claims about weapons production or that an Iraqi official had met with Mr. bin Laden.

The precise circumstances under which the stories apparently changed remains unclear. The defectors themselves could not be reached for comment.

Mr. Zubaidi contends that the men altered their stories after they met with senior figures in the Iraqi National Congress. Mr. Zubaidi, who acknowledged that he had a bitter split with the I.N.C. in April 2003, said officials of the group prepped the defectors before allowing them to meet with the American intelligence agents and journalists.

"They intentionally exaggerated all the information so they would drag the United States into war," Mr. Zubaidi said. "We all know the defectors had a little information on which they built big stories."

So basically, Chalabi was providing the intel apparatus with coached defectors.
Add to this
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/8740716.htm

By JOHN WALCOTT

Knight Ridder Newspapers

....Chalabi's assurances that he had a secret network of allies inside and outside Iraq, meanwhile, encouraged Pentagon planners to ignore a State Department effort to prepare for a post-Saddam Iraq. Instead, Pentagon officials assumed that with their help, Chalabi, a Shiite Muslim like 60 percent of Iraq's population, could assemble a new government and get the battered country back on its feet.

Chalabi, however, turned out to be a divider, not a uniter, and allegations of corruption further damaged his credibility among Iraqis. In one poll this year, Chalabi finished behind Saddam.

As a result, when American troops were greeted by improvised explosives and rocket-propelled grenades rather than rose petals, and when Chalabi's return from 46 years in exile was less than triumphant, the administration was unprepared to cope with a widespread insurgency and political chaos.

Why did Chalabi and the INC's defectors, despite the warnings about them, as well as several troubling polygraph tests, get such a ready hearing in the Pentagon and the White House? There were four main reasons, said senior military and intelligence officials and diplomats who tried in vain to debunk Chalabi's information:

# "Chalabi told people in high places what they already believed - that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction and that he might give them to (Osama) bin Laden," said one intelligence official.

# The CIA had little or no good intelligence and few human sources of its own to debunk what Chalabi's defectors said. Moreover, Chalabi's allies in and around the Bush administration "trusted him more than they trusted the CIA," said one U.S. intelligence official.

# Chalabi had cultivated the friendship of key legislators, neoconservative leaders and journalists. Providing his defectors to reporters and columnists as well as to the Defense Intelligence Agency helped create the illusion that there were multiple sources of the same information.

# Chalabi's rosy postwar scenario sidestepped the hard questions raised by the State Department and others that might have undermined public support for invading Iraq.
He had STRONG ties to Wolfowitz, one of the leading advocates for war.
Then after the invasion, this staged scene
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ddww.jpg

and one more picture for the road.
http://bottleofblog.typepad.com/bottleofblog/chalibisux.jpeg

This is kind of a good experience though Crist0, this must be kinda like what trying to explain to the Iraqi Minister of Information that American forces REALLY were in control of Baghdad. Sure he knows the truth, but is unable to admit it.
Hopefully you wear a beret when you type.

Crist0

08-05-2004, 11:02 AM

Ok, Lleauaric..let me say it again:

Show us the proof that Bush is lying when he said he had no extensive meetings with Chalabi - show us the other meetings he had.

You're saying he lied about that, back up your statement.

Its amazing the leaps you will take to smear Clinton or Kerry, but then you flatly refuse to acknowledge reality when someone you like is being discussed. That's called intellectual dishonesty.
Actually it's amazing the leaps you take to smear Bush, while you flatly refuse to acknowledge the reality about Kerry. That is indeed called intellectual dishonesty Lleauaric, and if you looked it up in the dictionary there would be a picture of you and Halo arm in arm.

Here you are still reaching to label Bush as a liar..but when I asked you to show proof what he said was a lie you change the subject and go on about how much the US gave Chalabi(money's been tossed around everywhere, INC is not alone in having been paid), or that Bush said his name when he listed the leaders he met with.

Heck, he could have mentioned anyone.
No, he really couldn't. When he rattled off the list of names of Iraqi leaders in that meeting, he actually had to stick to the names of people that were actually there - he's not Kerry.

Now then, if you would care to step back to the plate, and show us all the proof of other meetings Bush had with Chalabi to support your allegation that Bush lied about the extent of their relationship..by all means.

Lleauric

08-05-2004, 05:26 PM

So are you saying Chalabi wasnt a major source of US intelligence about Iraq?
Or are you just trying to say Bush PERSONALLY never had extensive conversations with him?
Or Both
You want to assert that Bush never PERSONALLY met extensively with Chalabi? Ok, fine, Ill give ya that, Ill totally accept that. What does that change?
It is a CLEAR and deliberate back peddle and attempt to distance himself from the fiasco that this man is.

Chalabi is obviously the genesis of MUCH of the bad and faulty data we went to war on. Chalabi was given access by the Bush administration. He was given a voice and access. The administration is directly accountable for him and the belief and trust they placed in him AND the product of this trust. There is no avoiding this.

Crist0

08-05-2004, 07:27 PM

No one at all is denying that Chalabi was a source of intelligence or that it turned out to be poor intelligence.

The entire point is simple:

Bush said he'd met with Iraqi leaders, mentioning Chalabi and others. When later questioned about his relationship with him, Bush said that he'd had no extensive conversations with him, maybe shaken his hand and met with him along with other Iraqi leaders.

You quote these, and say

Just admit it... Bush did a... oh what do they call it? Whats the name for it? I think I heard it once or twice before... OH YA.. Bush did a WAFFLE.. or as the creator of this thread called it
FLIP FLOP
then you go out of your way to show that Chalabi sat behind Laura Bush at the SotU speech, and show a photo of Bush with Chalabi and others in the oval office.

You then proceed to tell me I'm going to extreme measures to attack Kerry.

Then you pulled the Halo trick to try to make it seem as though I were arguing something I wasn't and pull attention away from your baseless "flip flop" accusation.

You want to assert that Bush never PERSONALLY met extensively with Chalabi? Ok, fine, Ill give ya that, Ill totally accept that.
In other words, the entire premise of your accusation is admittedly false.

Thanks.

Lleauric

08-05-2004, 09:10 PM

Not at all..
Bush still definitly tried to distance himself fom Chalabi and tried to create an illusion that he wasnt a source of intel. This is dishonest. No matter how you look at it, or how it seems, it is 1000X worse than some chinese guy sleeping in the lincoln bedroom.

Bush trusted an Iranian agent. He met with personally, and valued the advice so much of a man that would later tell the Iranians we had broken their communications code.
This is a failure. The entire premise of our invasion can then be seen as influenced by a nation that had a strong hand in enabling 9/11 to happen.
I concede the point to you not because I cant make a strong arguement for it, but because it is not that important. It's Semantics. Ill give that point to you because I want to get to the REAL issues. Of course Bush backpeddled. He has no choice, its survival at this point. And by the narrow definitions applied here, it would qualify if Kerry did it, so I included it as a statement on unfair charaterizations. The backpeddling doesnt make him a bad President. Thats not the issue.

The issue is Ahmed Chalabi and his influence on the decision to go to war, and the post war planning.
It is a known fact that he befriended Wolfowitz first, and then Cheney. The access to them and their dependance on him for intelligence from both his sources and from the stream of coached defectors he was providing poisoned the well.
He convinced them, they convinced the President.
Now who is responsible? The unnamed and permantatly anonomous analysts who they say got it wrong? Or the people who had a strong hand in determining what the information was, and how they got it.

Another interesting issue is to notice that we dont hear much from Chalabi. Once he threatened to volunteer to come to the US and testify before congress, we didnt hear about him anymore. So he is a free man, actively pursuing a role in the Iraqi Government. His nephew, btw, is the organizer of Saddams trial, who coincidently is under investigation for murder.
This is the guy we wanted to turn Iraq over to, this was our big plan.
"PARTNERSHIP YIELDED $40 MILLION FOR GROUP,
BOGUS INTELLIGENCE FOR U.S.,"
AND IT WAS SEALED WITH A PRIVATE WALK IN JUNE 2001
BETWEEN DICK CHENEY AND A. CHALABI.

These new revelations of the Vice President's role
as the center of the Chalabi operation
were published in at least two Knight-Ridder newspapers
this Memorial Day weekend.

The article opens:

"In June 2001, at an annual retreat in Beaver Creek, Colo.,
for current and former world leaders, Pentagon adviser Richard
Perle introduced two men to each other.

"Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi and Vice President Dick
Cheney went for a two-hour afternoon walk, according to a former
senior U.S. government official who was present.

"That day marked a turning point in the budding alliance
between Chalabi and prominent U.S. conservatives. Both sides were
eager to see Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein ousted. After the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, they pushed that goal
relentlessly, although there was no evidence that Hussein was involved.

"The partnership involved overt and covert U.S. support for
Chalabi's bid to be Iraq's next leader. His Iraqi National
Congress in turn provided intelligence about Hussein's weapons
programs and links to terrorism -- most of which turned out to be bogus or unproved.

"The alliance with Chalabi is now in ruins...."

The former official who witnessed the Cheney-Chalabi
introduction did not wish to be named.

Retired CIA officer Robert Baer, however,
told reporters Strobel and Landay on the record,
that the CIA "always assumed" that Chalabi's security chief,
Arras Habib, "was an Iranian agent."

Habib's family was in Iran,
he depended on Tehran for survival, and "our conclusion was that
he was working more for Tehran than for anybody."

Another senior administration official,
who spoke only with anonymity, reported
that counterintelligence experts in the Defense Intelligence Agency
circulated a warning in mid-2002 that Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress
had been deeply penetrated, this time by Saddam Hussein's agents.

So can we stop the charade of saying this failure of intelligence wasnt Bush's fault. Because it was, and maybe he can take ownership of the fact that he was the architect of his own demise when he reflects as to why he was a one term president.

The United States was as together and unified and had more global backing than at any other time for the last 60 years. We COULD have changed the world, instead, we became the pawns in an Iranian scheme. We blew an opportunity that we cannot get back. Wasted, squandered. Alliances nearly shattered, global reputation in ruins and the break our enemies needed to get back on their feet and start rebuilding power bases.
14,000 Soliders in Afganistan. The NYCPD has more officers.

Sumamael

08-05-2004, 09:15 PM

/thread derail on

Crist0, do you live in the EU? Just wondering what's the reason for that sig of yours.

PS: If this was discussed to death before then someone give me the URL where he explains.

ThePerfectFlaw

08-05-2004, 11:45 PM

Cristo...say this slowly with me. "L2 is a teacher."

Again...slowly. T-e-a-c-h-e-r. Which is synonymous with D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t.

Crist0

08-06-2004, 01:42 AM

Crist0, do you live in the EU? Just wondering what's the reason for that sig of yours

I'm glad you asked.

As you probably recognized that is the EU flag, with their motto on it..along with a few modifications the old soviet union seal and the "comrade" added in..in my opinion a great symbol of all that is the EUSSR.

Sumamael

08-06-2004, 05:53 AM

It's all nice and dandy but why the hate if you aren't actually living inside (or close by) the borders of the EU?

Don't misunderstand me, I'm just trying to understand, what did the EU do to provoke such responce out of you? Just give me a few examples....

I mean, I wouldn't take the time to paint a swastika on the US flag and used it as my sig unless I felt really strongly about US politics....

Lleauric

08-06-2004, 06:06 AM

Again...slowly. T-e-a-c-h-e-r. Which is synonymous with D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t.
Do you have a point? Should political affiliation determine the level of accountability you require from your leaders?
BTW, Ive voted Republican, Ive voted Democrat. Ill never vote for the train wreck that is George Bush. The man so paranoid about people thinking he was a "wimp" like the Neo Cons did his father that he allowed himself to be manipulated into a war that could have been avoided. In that way, he has made himself into more of a wimp than his father was ever accused of being (he wasnt btw. GB1 was a pretty good president)
Put McCain up, Ill vote for him in a heartbeat. There are many republicans I respect and have admiration for. And many that I see as dangerous and deluded. It is no different with the Democrats. Some I have great respect for, others are self aggrandizing jackasses.

I dont vote by Party affiliation. Ever. I value my ability to stay informed and my ability to judge the quality of a man's character too highly to ever become a led by the nose party whore. Because I am adamantly against Bush doesnt mean Im a D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T, it means I dont reward failure. And because you call yourself a conservative doesnt make you "tough", it doesnt make you anything. The measure of a man isnt taken in who he follows.

akipt

08-06-2004, 09:04 AM

...he allowed himself to be manipulated into a war that could have been avoided.
You howled before when I made the accusation that you would rather have Saddam back in power. You just proved me right again.

"could have been avoided" - Yup, all Saddam had to do was act like Ghadafi does now. Would have been a remarkable event.

Bise

08-06-2004, 10:19 AM

L2, I looked at your picture of the 'Saddam' statue being toppled. I find it hard to believe that this was staged. I find it easier to believe that people would be 'air-brushed' OUT of the picture than some supreme cover-up was made to the level/scope of that magnituted. I admit I am having some trouble following this thread now though.

***hears the theme from X-files playing pretty loudly now***

akipt

08-06-2004, 10:42 AM

I admit I am having some trouble following this thread now though.

Because L2 has become Moore'ized, the same as Kerry has been. Look at this little bit of Kerry yesterday, straight form F911 tin-hat theory:

Kerry yesterday: (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.911/index.html)

"Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to -- and I would have attended to it"

But look what Kerry said after 9/11: (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/08/lkl.00.html)

"...And as I came in [to a meeting in Sen. Daschle's office], Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon..."

Second plane hit WTC at 9:03AM. Plane hit Pentagon at 9:43AM. Kerry sat on his ass and "just realized nobody could think" for 40 minutes.

Thormir

08-06-2004, 01:14 PM

Of course, Kerry wasn't the President, so there wasn't a compelling need for his immediate attention or action. Political hindsight is easy, though; Kerry's "what I would have done" statement is essentially meaningless.

We could compare its value to Bush's latest comment (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/bush.ap/index.html) that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."

It's almost worth keeping Bush in the presidency for the comedic value alone. Kerry doesn't come within a mile of matching it.

Lleauric

08-06-2004, 05:00 PM

This is the start of the REALLY vicious part of the campaign.

Kerry is gonna start hammering the "wimp factor" on Bush and Bush is gonna hammer on the war record.
This... is gonna be ugly.

Lleauric

08-06-2004, 05:12 PM

The event was staged. Plain and simple, and it went bad
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/161032.html

The "air brushed" photo is from Reuters btw.
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/SaddamStatue.htm

["There was the CIA's man, an Iraqi fixer of the American stooge Ahmad Chalabi, orchestrating that joyous media moment of 'liberation', attended by 'hundreds' - or was it 'dozens'? - of cheering people, with three American tanks neatly guarding the entrances to the media stage. 'Thanks, guys,' said a marine to the BBC's Middle East correspondent in appreciation of the BBC's 'coverage."--John Pilger, April 25, 2003]

[A Reuters long-shot photo of Firdos Square showed that it was nearly empty, ringed by U.S. tanks and marines who had moved in to seal off the square before admitting the Iraqis. A BBC photo sequence of the statue's toppling also showed a sparse crowd of approximately 200 people--much smaller than the demonstrations only nine days later, when thousands of Iraqis took to the streets of Baghdad calling for U.S.-led forces to leave the city.--Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, BBC,

You howled before when I made the accusation that you would rather have Saddam back in power. You just proved me right again. So in your view, the ends always justify the means? Is everything OK aas long as in the end, some good comes of it?
Nobody is against the "ends". The "means" is the problem.
What you are trying is known in 10th grade debate classes as a "False Dichotomy". Just because Im against a large portion of the way the war went about and some of the after effects of its bumbling, does not in any way mean I want Saddam in power.

tasar01

08-06-2004, 05:32 PM

personaly his 4 month tour in nam doesn`t impress me hell my dad did 2 years there . whether he served 4 months active and bush served in air force national guard is irrevelt hell clinton ran his ass to england to avoid the war getting a degree and we made him pres .

i don`t like him trying to wave his record around in a attempt to sway votes and draw upon old glory patorism when , he got back from his tour he made a mockery of the flag and the iwo jima flag raising as well as his remarks about the gov, fellow soliders, and the war in nam as a whole basicly belittling what we were doing and those who died there . in his adress to congress and in his book . of course the flower child anti war rallys were rampant and guess he was just following the times .

Now 33 years later he`s trying to use the war to show what his leadership abilites and as a means to rally support from all the veterans he ridiculed so many years earlier . but that was then anti war , anti gov was popular, now flag waving is the popular trend so time to change again,

Lots of pres in the past have served in war , washington, jackson, grant, teddy , ike etc . while i see nothing wrong with useing your service as a tool to gain favor votes etc , i can`t really place it but being ex army myself just doesn`t feel right to dis the gov, and your fellow soliders , and your flag, then come back years later talking about old glory and bringing up your war record and ex guys you served with trying to drum up support for serving .
when years earlier you might aswell spit on the troops still wearing the uniform and burned the flag lol

not to mention he talks about how with him in charge the intelligence areas will have every means able to do their job and get the best info .

Yet for 8 years when he was on the senate intelligence comit all he tried to do was cut funding the entire 8 years on intelligence gathering as he stated the cold war was over and there was no need to waste that money on intelligence when it could be used better elsewhere .

seeing as the senate voted themselfs a pay raise every year for the last 5 years straight maybe thats what he had in mind for put to better use haha .

The only thing about bush i don`t agree with is him opening up 90 million acres of protected national forests yellowstone, etc to logging companies to strip of trees and build roads through .

this is in wymoning, idhao, alaska, etc pretty much all national forests hopfuly that will be vetoed .

akipt

08-06-2004, 07:28 PM

I still don't know what your facination with the toppling of the Saddam statue is. I watched it live, the camera zoomed in and out numerous times and it was obvious that it was a small crowd, but a gathered CROWD in a fucking war zone for God's sake. Any more than two people out in the open in the middle of Baghdad was impressive to me. And if you thought for more than a minute that this was some spontaneous event generated by the Iraqis, you need to seek help - well, you need to seek help anyway.

So in your view, the ends always justify the means? Is everything OK aas long as in the end, some good comes of it?
Nobody is against the "ends". The "means" is the problem.
What you are trying is known in 10th grade debate classes as a "False Dichotomy". Just because Im against a large portion of the way the war went about and some of the after effects of its bumbling, does not in any way mean I want Saddam in power.It's only a "False Dichotomy" to someone like you and Kerry who like nuance.

Nine-hundred million Monday morning quarterbacks agree, it could have been done better in Iraq! Well no fucking shit dumbass. Line it up with world military history and the LIBERATION, OCCUPATION, and TURN-OVER of Iraq are the greatest victories since God took out Jericho.

So I eagerly await the debate where Kerry has to answer "If you knew then what you know now, would you still vote to authorize our president to use force?" We KNOW where Bush stands, he's answered that question already, but Kerry has avoided it - but we know he'll be all wishy washy on it till he's cornered.

Maybe it will be his first appropriate use of "Actually I voted for it, before I voted against it" come back.

Ah the entertainment that awaits us.

Edit : damned spelling

Crist0

08-07-2004, 03:27 AM

I mean, I wouldn't take the time to paint a swastika on the US flag and used it as my sig unless I felt really strongly about US politics....
I do feel strongly that you(Europe) need to take a step back and think about just WTF you are really doing when the EU is used as a tool to bully member nations and prospective members into toeing the "party line". It's an unbelievably alien concept for me to have any nation give up its sovereignty, willingly, in such a way.

The closest thing to what the EU is fast becoming is the old Soviet Bloc(unless you can point to a better analogy)..hence the Soviet seal, and calling the EU by it's apt description as the EUSSR.

Oh, as for taking the time..took like 2 minutes in photoshop, and I really suck at it.

Of course, Kerry wasn't the President, so there wasn't a compelling need for his immediate attention or action.
Even people like Kerry's wife Teresa understand why he did what he did..on July 25th of this year for example she agreed with what he did. I'll post her quote when I find it again.

Lleauric

08-07-2004, 07:04 AM

Line it up with world military history and the LIBERATION, OCCUPATION, and TURN-OVER of Iraq are the greatest victories since God took out Jericho
lol
The scary thing is that you might actually belive this. This was the equivilant of the New York Yankees playing against the Springfield Little League team. That doesnt take away from the incredible display of power that was the iron spear that flew to Baghdad, but the end was a fore gone conclusion and there was no secret that we would have complete domination once hostilities started. And I dont know if you have noticed or not, but the off the cuff occupation and turnover in a secret undisclosed location a day early, havent been all that successful. Unless you have a VERY low standard of success, but, you are supporting Bush, so that very well may be.

akipt

08-07-2004, 12:51 PM

And I dont know if you have noticed or not, but the off the cuff occupation and turnover in a secret undisclosed location a day early, havent been all that successful.25 million people free - success.

180,000 Assyrian Christians no longer persecuted (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/special_packages/iraq/9185734.htm). - success.

25 million people are now free to travel out of country (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/special_packages/iraq/9172937.htm). - success.

Iraq has a soccer team (http://www.canada.com/sports/soccer/story.html?id=438F1FD6-C04D-40AF-9243-10236B92EE58) and other (http://www.cincypost.com/2004/07/26/oly07-26-2004.html) sports (http://www.time.com/time/globalbusiness/article/0,9171,1101040726-665034,00.html) participating in the upcoming Olympics, no longer afraid of their public beatings, rapes, and being forced to kick concrete balls for losing their games. - success

Iraq has opened up a bond market (http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/18/news/international/iraqdebt.reut/) so people can buy-in to their government's future. - success.

Iraq's stock market has created tremendous success (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/96306/1/.html) since the new sovereign government took over. - success

Iraq's neighbor Jordan, has removed restrictions on commerce (http://www.iraqpress.org/homepage.asp?fname=ipenglish2004-07-181.htm) and travel between the two countries and will soon begin working on plans for a Jordan / Iraq oil pipeline (http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=58312) to be completed before the end of the year. - success to be.

Iraq's oil output now exceeds pre-invasion output. - success.

Iraq's postal system (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9265275.htm?1c)has gone from taking months for international deliveries and weeks for in-country deliveries, to a few days now thanks to a delegation from the US Postal Service. - success.

Italy has agreed to build an intranet (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/business/2004/July/business_July425.xml&section=business) for Iraq's government to better handle all the country's information technology needs in the civil services needs. - success to be

The Iraqi government has earmarked $1 billion in its 2005 budget to help modernize outdated Baghdadi utilities (http://www.iraqpress.org/homepage.asp?fname=ipenglish2004-07-172.htm). - success to be.

For women, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has built women's development centers (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001982669_dunn19.html) in various cities to provide counseling on women's health issues, business advice, employment and political training, and social and family services. - success.

Good news is easy to ignore, but you can't keep it down by continuously calling it a failure. Bad play L2.

Lleauric

08-07-2004, 02:42 PM

And Yet.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/24/1090464909636.html?oneclick=true

You remember Iran right? They are the ones who had the 9/11 hijackers pass through on their way to New York to destroy the WTC.
Its a good thing Iraq is doing so well
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/07/iraq/main634588.shtml Because god knows, I sure value the creation of the Iraqi stockmarket over National Security.

akipt

08-07-2004, 04:10 PM

You remember Iran right? They are the ones who had the 9/11 hijackers pass through on their way to New York to destroy the WTC.
Its a good thing Iraq is doing so well
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain634588.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/07/iraq/main634588.shtml) Because god knows, I sure value the creation of the Iraqi stockmarket over National Security
And in 10th grade debate class, that's called a non-sequitur.

So, let's get this worked out now so we're not having this same discussion in 3 years: What country do we have to take out before we invade Iran? North Korea? Syria? France? We need to work this out beforehand, otherwise it's just going to be old FAILURE to you.

Lleauric

08-07-2004, 05:13 PM

Non Sequitur?
No it follows perfectly.

Did 1000 American Mothers, Fathers, Husbands, Wives and children give up their loved ones to help create A FUCKING SOCCER TEAM?
You find me one family that thinks Iraq having Postal Service is worth their Dad being dead.
None, Zero... So fuck all that shit. Because it doesnt matter.
American men died for one reason, to make our country safer. After 9/11 we were told that we could no longer tolerate rogue nations that support Terrorists and possess Weapons of Mass destruction.
So we invade Iraq on this promise. Men die in what they believe is the defense of their country.
Did Bush lie? No, I dont think so. But he was fooled. An Iranian agent was allowed to have a tremedous impact on our decisions of national security. We took our eyes off the ball and chased a Red Herring.
The country that has tremendous ties to Al-Queda and admits to having and developing Nuclear weapons is the actual threat. We got it wrong. Everything else is meaningless. We got it wrong because the group we have in charge now is not up to the tremendous task. Mistakes like that CANNOT happen. Peoples lives are too precious.
Im glad for the Iraqis that they have a better place to live. But I wouldnt give one American life for it to happen. The world is in no way safer. We took a Saddam because we are now told that at some point he might possibly try to reconstitute some weapons program to potentially try to give at some point to a Terrorist organization.

3 years? Great. Write this down. 3 years, 3 months or 3 days I am 100% behind an invasion of Iran. I just hope that when it does happen we arent saying "If only we did it before...." Because its too late and smoldering remains of an American city bear the burden of Bushes mistake.

akipt

08-07-2004, 06:15 PM

You remember Iran right? They are the ones who had the 9/11 hijackers pass through on their way to New York to destroy the WTC.
Do I have to remind you that WE allowed them to pass through our borders too?

An Iranian agent was allowed to have a tremedous impact on our decisions of national security. We took our eyes off the ball and chased a Red Herring.
Because we almost allowed one their bought-off politicians to be in charge of their new government? Almost ? It's all doomed now!

And how did we find this out? Oh that's right, only after taking Saddam out. All that time learning history and you still can't help bitching with your 20/20 hind sight?

We're picking draft picks and you're still Monday morning quarterbacking last season's Super Bowl.

Lleauric

08-07-2004, 07:27 PM

Because we almost allowed one their bought-off politicians to be in charge of their new government? No, because we allowed him to influence our decision to attack Iraq.

And how did we find this out? Oh that's right, only after taking Saddam out If we took our time and did things the right way, instead of the rush job we undertook, maybe we wouldnt have had this problem. If we relyed on dependable intelligence, rather than Cheney and Wolfawitz cronies.

All that time learning history and you still can't help bitching with your 20/20 hind sight? Heh, History. There are many very interesting lessons from history that apply here. Like the reason the Islamo-facists will never stop in Baghdad. There are 3 major cities from the old Islamic Empire, of which they are trying to create. Mecca, duh, Jerusalem, Duh, and less known. Baghdad. It was the crown jewel of the Empire, Dubbed "The City of Knowledge". After the fall of Rome and descent of the West into Barbarism (aka The Dark Ages), all the knowledge of the thought, and philosophy was gathered there, scholars from around the world converged there and created and invented and built. At a time when monasteries in Europe were LUCKY to have 8 books, the Street of Booksellers had dozens of shops with hundreds of volumes.
Then the Crusades came, and the Europeans attacked Jerusalem, taking the city, and slaughtering men women and children in such numbers that the bodies were stacked in countless piles 30 feet high, and for 100 years the Islamic empire exerted itself to expell them, so much so that when the Mongols attacked from the East, they were sapped of their strength, and the Mongols burned Baghdad to ground, slaughtering thousands and destroying the City of Knowledge.
They blame the west for this. And now the West occupies the city. To the islamic mind, this is intolerable, and too many, worse than Saddam.

But im not concerned with the past, it is the future that worries me. When that next attack comes, and Iran is still actively supporting Al Queda and other Terrorist groups, will we look back and think of our lost opportunity?

We're picking draft picks and you're still Monday morning quarterbacking last season's Super Bowl. It is interesting that you see this as a game.
But it isnt a game, we do not have the luxury of having some who "at least tried". Tried and failed is failed. When they fail, people die. As we see in Iraq, there are no second chances, opportunities occur only once and when they are missed, they are gone. If the people in charge cannot get it right, then they must be voted out.
Bush didnt get it right, he made too many mistakes, opportunities are lost and the vision of changing the region is gone. Iraq will take 10 years to acheive stability, can we wait that long?

Sumamael

08-07-2004, 07:47 PM

I do feel strongly that you(Europe) need to take a step back and think about just WTF you are really doing when the EU is used as a tool to bully member nations and prospective members into toeing the "party line". It's an unbelievably alien concept for me to have any nation give up its sovereignty, willingly, in such a way.

The closest thing to what the EU is fast becoming is the old Soviet Bloc(unless you can point to a better analogy)..hence the Soviet seal, and calling the EU by it's apt description as the EUSSR.

Yes I can point to a better analogy, 'United States of Europe'.

Going to have an EU constitution, our very own EU army soon and I will be the first to cheer when we elect our first president.

Losing sovereignty? What does sovereignty mean anyhow when all the power on this globe is in the hands of a few rich people, who can trash national currencies by whim if they wish to do so (see Mr. Soros vs. Itally).

No, I'm not saying that EU is the best thing possible but in my opinion it gives more power and protection of interest to the small European countries against the rest world than if it didn't exist (I'm from one of the smaller countries which doesn't have too much of a political or economical influence alone).

As for bullying members and prospective members, care to give an example?

Crist0

08-07-2004, 08:22 PM

There are 3 major cities from the old Islamic Empire, of which they are trying to create. Mecca, duh, Jerusalem, Duh, and less known. Baghdad.

Silly me, here I though the three holiest cities for Islam were Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem.

What do I know though, you're the teacher.

Lleauric

08-07-2004, 08:39 PM

You understand the difference between "holiest" and "major" right?

Mecca is holy AND important because of the Hajj. The Hajj made is a centerpoint and nexus for the entire empire, ideas and innovations spread across islam as a result. Jerusalem was important AND holy because of where it sat on the established trade routes and served as the gateway to the rest of the empire in a way.

Medina has importance, but in a religious only context.

Crist0

08-07-2004, 08:45 PM

We're talking about THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT CITIES TO A RELIGION.

And you come back with "Medina has importance, but in a religious only context"

Fabulous.

I love that retort.

Lleauric

08-07-2004, 08:55 PM

We're talking about THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT CITIES TO A RELIGION
wow, you really are totally uninformed about the goals of the islamic facists arent ya?
amazing.
See, heres the thing. Islam is an inner focused religion. The individual and their relationship with God is the thing of the utmost importance. Religion is only part of the equation. What happens is that the Al-Queda type people are expressing the ideal of a civilization, not inwardly but out. They invision a Utopia based on the principles of Islam, based on what? YES! The old Islamic Empire!! You know, the one where Baghdad is the center of pride in their cultures acheivements.
In the Madrassas when muslim kids are taught history, this is what they are taught. They learn about Algerbra, the first hospital in the world, astronomy, mathematics, science, engineering, architecture, the use of gravity to enable water purification all taught in the House of Wisdom, all at a time when Europeans were living in caves.

What do I know though Im not sure, but by process of elimination we can cross reading and history off the list.

akipt

08-07-2004, 08:58 PM

You would have taken longer before going into Iraq... How long? maybe a year? And we had UN support for that operation.

How long would it have taken to get 12 years of intelligence estimates amounting to enough just cause to go into Iran? Let me guess, about the same amount of time, and I seriously doubt the Imams ruling Iran would be as stupid as Saddam was. They could and probably will succeed in dragging the UN along for another decade. Just look at France and Russia bending over backwards to sell them nuclear production technologies.

So L2 would have sit on his ass and Saddam would still be ruling in Iraq, shuffling WMD production plans around and supporting terrorists, and in the mean time we would be shuffling inspectors around in Iran accomplishing just as much there. Bravo! And I could bitch about North Korea in the mean time, but will save that for later.

Edit. L2 edited his post, made mine irrelevent :p

Lleauric

08-07-2004, 09:12 PM

How long would it have taken to get 12 years of intelligence estimates amounting to enough just cause to go into Iran? Let me guess, about the same amount of time, and I seriously doubt the Imams ruling Iran would be as stupid as Saddam was. They could and probably will succeed in dragging the UN along for another decade. Just look at France and Russia bending over backwards to sell them nuclear production technologies. Pre-9/11 and post 9/11 are two different eras.
the clock starts after the invasion of Afganistan.

L2 edited his post, made mine irrelevent Huns/Mongols?

akipt

08-07-2004, 09:12 PM

But it isnt a game, we do not have the luxury of having some who "at least tried". Tried and failed is failed. When they fail, people die.
Funny you talk about death and such, but if I had done it you would have come back with FEAR OMG SPREADING FEAR or something.

Lleauric

08-07-2004, 09:14 PM

FEAR OMG SPREADING FEAR
only if you say George Bush is the only thing protecting us from hordes of islamic extremists. Other than that, go ahead

Crist0

08-08-2004, 03:49 AM

by process of elimination we can cross reading and history off the list.
Actually I'm pretty sure we can cross those off of your list.

You're denying that Medina is one of the three most important cities to Islam.

They invision a Utopia based on the principles of Islam, based on what? YES! The old Islamic Empire!!
Evidently you are forgetting that Medina was the first capital of said empire, and that Muhammad and his successors after him chose it to be the political and military base in the building of it...the "Utopia" they dream about was the one their prophet started in Medina.

Lleauric

08-08-2004, 08:18 AM

Whatever Crist0, once again its an arguement over semantics with you. You want to say that Baghdad doesnt have critical significance in the minds of Arabs, go ahead. Im saying it does and I explained why. Your assertion seems to say that only things of religion matter to the islamofacists. This is false.

Answer this, why are more mosques named "the House of Wisdom" than any other name?

Whatever peaceful democratic future we hope to see in the Middle East must be built on the foundations that history and culture have produced there as building material. The one nation bordering Iraq today that is solidly pro-Western and merits being called democratic is Turkey.

[quote]Twelve centuries ago Baghdad was the center of world civilization, home to the greatest scholars, universities and libraries then on the planet. As Syrian-born Betty Balsam relates in her powerful 2003 book Veil of Terror: The Secret Roots of Terrorism it was in the Golden Age of Baghdad (the age we associate with onion-domed palaces, flying carpets and The Arabian Nights) that scholars preserved the ancient Greek writings of Aristotle, Pythagoras and Euripides.

In this magical moment in Baghdad, mathematicians transmitted from India the number system, including the concept of Zero, we today call Arabic numerals. Globe-travelling merchants developed a system of money drafts they called Sakk, namesake of our checks. People began wearing a new kind of clothing, trousers, made of new fabrics such as kutn, whose name we would translate into “cotton.”

Scientists in ancient Baghdad’s House of Wisdom – true to the Koran’s call that people are supposed to use their intelligence to explore and understand Allah’s universe – studied things that today still carry Arabic names – alcohol, algebra, alchemy, cipher, amalgam, alembic, azimuth, alkali, elixir and more.

What happened to this golden moment? In year 1258, after years of fighting against Crusaders, the Mongol Horde invaded from the east and sacked Baghdad, killing its scholars and throwing its vast libraries into the River Tigris, which for days ran black with the ink of that wisdom washing away.

Islam withdrew into a Dark Age of superstition and narrowness (in violation of the Koran’s message) from which it has yet to recover.

Haloface

08-08-2004, 10:46 AM

Awww man!
I steered clear of this thread thinking it was a stinking presidential campaigning pile of shit, per usual.

But it's actually fun!

Crist0

08-08-2004, 10:59 AM

You want to say that Baghdad doesnt have critical significance in the minds of Arabs, go ahead. Im saying it does and I explained why.

Damn you're predictable.

Every time someone points out flaws in your points you invent something to argue about that they never said.

Sure, Baghdad and the Caliphate is important(to Sunnis..the Shia weren't particularly fond of the Caliphate because it was a time of Shia oppression..many of their leaders were killed during that period because the dynasty viewed them as threats to their power) in the history of it.

The part that I call you on is that you make it more important than Medina, which is not true.

akipt

08-08-2004, 11:10 AM

Pre-9/11 and post 9/11 are two different eras.
the clock starts after the invasion of Afganistan.Let's figure out L2-logic...

You would have waited longer before invading Iraq, before you didn't wait longer to invade Iraq because you invaded Iran, decided from information that you gathered after taking out Iraq.

Sounds like Kerry nuance to me.

Lastly, how would you have gotten any support from the UN or even our Congress to invade Iran first? We'd still be playing diplomatic circles with the Imams there. Remember, you would NEVER have advised the world of your threatening view towards Iran because "Axis of Evil" did not fit Iran.

Remember, you had this to say back in May:

Now, Why is Iraq more dangerous than North Korea. If Iraq wanted to make money they have a pretty valuable commodity in oil. Why would they sell WMDs?
North Korea on the other hand has no resources, other than weapons technology, has massive massive stockpiles of weapons of all kinds. And a huge cash flow problem, in that they have none. They also possess a pathelogical hatred of the US./gasp, no mention of Iran!

But you DO mention Iran in that thread (http://forums.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=27644&postcount=96):

Axis of Evil statement on Iran was another one of Bushs huge blunders btw...It was counterproductive. Iran is a nation that is slowly changing.Oh really L2? Three months ago it was "counter-productive" to put Iran on notice, but now it's not, you want to take their asses out.

Is that 20/20 hind sight feeling good or what?

Crist0

08-08-2004, 11:18 AM

You can't give him links Akipt, he simply ignores them, secure in the knowledge that there probably wasn't anything important there anyway.

Lleauric

08-08-2004, 12:20 PM

Heh, So my information and the presidents should be equal?

Mistakes by me, ehh so what. Mistakes by the President mean people die. I can only form opinions by the information presented. I certainly hope the Presidents is better than mine. And the fact that this information about Iran wasnt known, or let out, only serves to illustrate my point.
Why let the public know what an actual threat Iran is if you want to invade Iraq?

You would have waited longer before invading Iraq, before you didn't wait longer to invade Iraq because you invaded Iran, decided from information that you gathered after taking out Iraq. I dont know what I would have done. Im not President. But I expect the man in the office to be held to a higher standard then Me, you or Roy the guy cutting the lawn. He doesnt have the privilage or the option to be wrong, and yet he was. Plain and simple. he made a mistake. And he is going to pay for it with his job.
The Presidency is the hardest and most demanding job on the planet, probably ever. The standard is extraordinarily high. You are making excuses for the President. Once there is a need for that to happen, he has failed. What I would have done is irrelevant. What he did is the ONLY issue. And once you need to start making such weak excuses as the ones you lay out, you embrace failure and cheapen the office.

Every time someone points out flaws in your points you invent something to argue about that they never said. Oh I invent something to argue about. What the hell was your point anyway? Is the history of Baghdad important to the Islamic mind? Criticially. Hugely, Massively. What point are you arguing, that its not in the top 3? So what is it in your mind? 4? Talk about an attempt to avoid the entire issue by arguing a footnote.

Sure, Baghdad and the Caliphate is important(to Sunnis..the Shia weren't particularly fond of the Caliphate because it was a time of Shia oppression..many of their leaders were killed during that period because the dynasty viewed them as threats to their power) in the history of it. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Wahhabism
And this is the mind set I am talking about.

The part that I call you on is that you make it more important than Medina, which is not true. Its the context in which it is talked about. You are trying to change the context of what I was talking about without disputing any of the underlying facts. "Important" in what sense? Thats a subjective term. Was Medina ever the cultural seat of Islam? No. its relevence is directly related to that of Mecca. The 2 are parallel and dependant in significance. So much so that it usually the entire Area and the stretch of a 20 miles(?) between the cities that is considered Holy. When Mohammad fled Mecca, Medina took him in and he fought the Meccans at Medina before taking Mecca over. As a matter of fact, Muslims view the entire LAND of Saudi Arabia as sacred. The Western troops being there was the spring board for Osama Bin Ladens hatred.
If we were talking about a purely religious context, then yes, you are right.
We werent though, we were talking about Socio-political context, so, you are wrong. Al Queda and its ideology are as much political as religious. The madrassas are teaching this. The fall of Islam and its past glory and achievements are centered directly on Baghdad. This is a focus of the anger, of the hatred, of the humiliation. And it needs to be understood.

akipt

08-08-2004, 01:06 PM

So my information and the presidents should be equal?... He doesnt have the privilage or the option to be wrong, and yet he was.And yet you assert that you know better than the president in every condemnation that spew here. Which is it?

Why let the public know what an actual threat Iran is if you want to invade Iraq?
You know the president stated that there were two other countries in the Axis of Evil as well. So now you're going to bitch he's all talk and no action? Wouldn't surprise me from the numerous flip-flops you've got to account for just in this thread alone.

Crist0

08-08-2004, 02:34 PM

And this is the mind set I am talking about
Let's take a look into the mind set you are talking about:

Ibn Abdul Wahhab called the muslims to the pure religious practices of Prophet Mohammed and the first three generations of Islam, these being described by Prophet Mohammed as the rightly guided generations and as a result doing away with the innovations that had crept into the religion during the time of the subsequent generations.
I guess you don't follow your own links either, because in this case yours points to the fact that Wahhabi belief wants to return to the first three generations of Islam..guess where the first three generations of Islam were centered?

Wahhabism is the official practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Saudi_Arabia). In 1924 the Wahhabist al-Saud dynasty conquered the holy cities of Mecca (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Mecca) and Medina (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medina), creating the Saudi (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Saudi_Arabia) state.
WILD.

So, when these Wahhabists wanted to recreate their Islamic Empire...what cities did they go after again?

Ah, yes...Mecca...and..(are you ready for it?) Medina.

Thanks for proving my point Lleauaric.

Lleauric

08-08-2004, 04:50 PM

So, when these Wahhabists wanted to recreate their Islamic Empire...what cities did they go after again?

Ah, yes...Mecca...and..(are you ready for it?) Medina.

Right, and Afganistan was.... ? A geographical error? And actions in Egypt, Jordan and Turkey? They got a little lost on the way to Saudi?

The goal is an Islamic Empire. Able to stand up to the West. Pan-Arabism is a key component of this.

Thanks for proving my point Lleauaric.
Thats actually impossible. You dont have a point. You just meander and cherry pick and attempt to take small parts out of context for some unknown reason. The prospect of actually debating ideas must not appeal to you, so you spend the posts arguing small bits of minutia that have no bearing on the conversation in general, but let feel like you are saying something rather than what you actualy doing, which is engaging in long form version of Jeopardy. GG YOU! You still lost.

Crist0

08-09-2004, 02:10 AM

attempt to take small parts out of context

I'm not taking anything out of context, you claimed that Medina was less important than Baghdad to Wahhabism over and over and over in this thread.

Then, you post a link without reading it evidently, that shows my point..that when the Wahhabists Saud faction wanted to recreate an Islamic Empire, the two cities they went after to be in it were Mecca and Medina...not Baghdad.

Just because they want a widespread Empire and range from Afghanistan to Egypt to Jordan, etc...does absolutely nothing to take away from the point of contention:

That Medina is more important to them than Baghdad.

You were wrong.

You proved you were wrong all by yourself by linking source material without reading it.

End of Story.

Lleauric

08-09-2004, 07:56 AM

That Medina is more important to them than Baghdad.
In what context?

Crist0

08-09-2004, 06:31 PM

So far I've corrected your assertation that Medina is less important than Baghdad to all Islam, to Arabs, and to Wahhabism, with a little help from your own links.

I tell you what, when you actually decide what you are talking about you let me know ok?

Lleauric

08-09-2004, 08:38 PM

So far I've corrected your assertation that Medina is less important than Baghdad to all Islam, to Arabs, and to Wahhabism, with a little help from your own links. No you havent

Its a non-conversation, you keep trying to place it in a context I didnt refer to.
It is your own ignorance about the mindset that fuels your arguement.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/5407-Baghdad_Jews_fear_Wahabi_terrorism.html
Oh look Wahabi mosques in Baghdad.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/07-09-04.asp
from a jihadist website http://www.islamicawakening.com/ (forums)
And today the devil President of the United States invites jihadists around the globe to journey to the heart of the stolen islamic empire, Baghdad, and there to take their destiny. Come to Baghdad all you true jihadist warriors. Come to Baghdad and see with your own eyes the Great Satan himself. Come to Baghdad and attain your glory Thats who they are. This is the mindset.
Here ya go, educate yourself
http://atcterrorlist.showsit.info/

The problem is this: You are unable to make the cognitive leap from Islam the religion to Islam the political movement.
It is real. And the deeper it goes into politics, the more important Baghdad becomes.

Crist0

08-09-2004, 09:43 PM

You didn't say Baghdad was more important than Medina to them?

There are 3 major cities from the old Islamic Empire, of which they are trying to create.

To make your point that Baghdad is more important,you link:

a page about attacks on Jews in Iraq:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/5407-Baghdad_Jews_fear_Wahabi_terrorism.html

a page giving a definiton of the word Islamofascism
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism

a page that lists the four aims of pan-Islamism(notice the absense of any talk of specific cities..except for..Mecca and Medina):

These groups want to remove American troops from the Gulf," he told Aljazeera.net. "They want to overthrow the monarchy in Saudi Arabia which they see as being illegitimate and unworthy of being custodians of the Islamic holy places.

"They also want a just solution to the Palestine issue, and have a longer-term goal of wanting to see the Arab regimes replaced by some sort of Caliphate."
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/07-09-04.asp

And then toss in some forums and call it good?

And you accuse ME of poor presentation of data?

ALL OF YOUR LINKS DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ADDRESS YOUR ARGUMENT!

If you'd like to change your argument again, so that I can use even more of your own links to prove you wrong..by all means.

Lleauric

08-09-2004, 11:23 PM

ALL OF YOUR LINKS DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ADDRESS YOUR ARGUMENT!

Ok. Lets follow this logic, first you totally avoid the arguement by intentionally misinterpreting and twisting logic in regards to a tertiary point. I for reason that is entirelly my own fault, allow myself to be sidetracked by this nonsense. Totally going off track from what the arguement is in this thread to engage in 3 pages debating if Baghdad is in the top 3 or in the top 4 important cities in Islam.
Whats the point of arguing, you refuse to view Islam in any definition besides the narrow one that for the purposes of this thread you choose to isolate and misrepresent.
Its a stupid and pointless arguement that totally distracts from the main point, but thats your goal here anyway. To be intentionally and purposefully obstinent in order to distract.
Whatever..... people can make their own judgements at this point, enough has been posted by me that I feel I successfully made my point to a rational person.
Between this and the EUSSR bullshit, you are really on your way to mastering the art of debating without the need for issues or facts.

Crist0

08-10-2004, 12:38 AM

Your entire point was first that they would never stop because it was one of the three most important cities to them..

As to "them":

You said it was one of the three most important cities to Islam.

Then you said it was one of the three most important cities to Arabs.

Then you said it was one of the three most important cities to Wahhabists.

Then you said retaking Baghdad was a primary goal for pan-Islamists.

Now after getting your ass handed to you at every turn for being incorrect on all of these(courtesy of your own linked sources, making it all the sweeter!) you are reduced to saying "Well..I made my point", then claim *I* am arguing without the need for issues or facts!

Brilliant!

Lleauric

08-10-2004, 07:03 AM

Nice mis-characterization.
You said it was one of the three most important cities to Islam. Islamists. Big difference.
Just for you. In nice Big Letters. My words that you are trying to distort.
Heh, History. There are many very interesting lessons from history that apply here. Like the reason the Islamo-facists will never stop in Baghdad. There are 3 major cities from the old Islamic Empire, of which they are trying to create. Mecca, duh, Jerusalem, Duh, and less known. Baghdad. See? I SPECIFICALLY said "Islamo-Facists", and SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the context of the "Old Islamic Empire".

http://www.silk-road.com/maps/images/Arabmap.jpg
Wow, look.. its bigger than the Mecca/Medina area.

Then you accuse ME of shifting the arguement. At best you are confused, at worse, you are a liar. I tend to not to believe the worst in people, so Im going to just give you the benefit of the doubt. There is nothing worse than a liar and I would have to have pretty strong evidence before I cast that accusation at you.

Then you said it was one of the three most important cities to Arabs. /e rolls eyes.. Splitting hairs again arent we Capt. Minutia?

Then you said it was one of the three most important cities to Wahhabists. Indeed, IMO and the literature ive read, Baghdad is of MASSIVE symbolic importance. You have done NOTHING to refute that. Nada, nilch, zero. You dont dispute that. You cant. I quoted Wahabbists who advocate Jihad for the VERY reasons I listed, and I gave you the sites they post at, filled with massive amounts of literature and advocacy for war in Baghdad to reclaim the Jewel of the Islamic Empire.

Then you said retaking Baghdad was a primary goal for pan-Islamists. Its not?

Just to drive the point home. Here is an interview conducted with Sheik Omar Bakari. He is the head of the Finsbury Park Wahabbist mosque in London. He is an Islamist, He is an Arab, and he is a Wahabbist. I include this to show you how wrong your interpretations of things are.

Q: "And where will this life of estrangement lead?"

Bakri: "The life of estrangement will lead... to [a] change in the situation of the country in which we live, as the Muslims changed the situation in Abyssinia and Indonesia. Allah willing, we will transform the West into Dar Al-Islam [that is, a region under Islamic rule] by means of invasion from without. If an Islamic state arises and invades [the West] we will be its army and its soldiers from within. http://www3.baylor.edu/~Charles_Kemp/Israel7.htm (http://www3.baylor.edu/%7ECharles_Kemp/Israel7.htm)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Btw, just for fun. To kind of let you in on the Neo-Con mindset at the fringes
.
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=40301

The owner of the site is hoping for a successful terrorist strike in the US to "wake people up" so they vote for Bush. A disturbing number of people agree with him.
/e shakes head. Never once on a lib site have I ever seen any hoping for the death of fellow Americans in order to win the election

akipt

08-10-2004, 07:58 AM

See? I SPECIFICALLY said "Islamo-Facists", and SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the context of the "Old Islamic Empire".

Actually, remember that post I edited awhile back because you had edited a previous post of yours? It wasn't the huns/mongols bullshit, it was this very post of yours. You initially had Islam there, not Islamo-facists. This of course after Crist0 had already started hammering you on the difference anyway.

Admit it, you crossed the two initially :p It's an easy thing to do.

Lleauric

08-10-2004, 08:34 AM

You initially had Islam there, not Islamo-facists. This of course after Crist0 had already started hammering you on the difference anyway. I dont think I did.
The original post was at 7:27 8/7
The last edit was at 8:41 8/7
Crist0 posted
Silly me, here I though the three holiest cities for Islam were Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. at 8:22 8/7
then his next post was 8:45 on 8/7

If the distinction between the two was of any importance to him, I would think he would have noticed the change and commented on it. AND if I thought I made a mistake, I would admit it, like I did the Hun/Mongols one.

And the Huns and Mongols things was the only thing I changed that I can remember. I certainly do not remember changing Islam to Islamo-facists. If I did, I would freely admit the mistake. And I swear to God that I dont think I did change that part. I remember editting because I saw the Huns/Mongols thing and was pissed at myself for making such a dumb mistake.
I dont edit to change the meaning of posts. Ever.
If I fuck up, I have ZERO problem admitting it. We are all human. But in this case I truely believe that the original phrasing was Islamo-Facists.
I dont lie, ever. I have never lied on these boards and do not lie in real life, no matter the consequences of truth.

If ******** or another admin has the ability to see the original post and edit times somehow, that would be helpful. I dont know if its possible, but it would be helpful.

Crist0

08-11-2004, 01:33 AM

I would think he would have noticed the change and commented on it

Or I at least gave you enough credit to not go back and edit your posts to change the meaning. Perhaps I was wrong in that, and should really start paying attention to your posts.

In any case, we begin again.

See? I SPECIFICALLY said "Islamo-Facists", and SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the context of the "Old Islamic Empire".

Which was started by Muhammad in the town of Medina, which just happened to be its capital during his rule and the few generations directly afterwards, which is the era Wahhabists view as the pure time they want a return to.

Indeed, IMO and the literature ive read, Baghdad is of MASSIVE symbolic importance.
Then...why isn't reclaiming it a priority for them, specifically, why isn't it(as you claim) more of a priority than Medina?

Why would the 4 primary goals of Islamism, which YOU linked, specifically list the desire to

overthrow the monarchy in Saudi Arabia which they see as being illegitimate and unworthy of being custodians of the Islamic holy places

in other words, Mecca and Medina...but NOT list Baghdad if this were the case?

Indeed, IMO and the literature ive read, Baghdad is of MASSIVE symbolic importance.
Oh, I'm sure it IS important, and you're right I don't dispute the fact..the point is how they prioritize it, is it not?

How is it with all of the literature you've read, you have failed to produce even a single source that mentions the goal of retaking Baghdad specifically?

You have linked 9 sources to support your side of the story, yet there is nothing in any of them to support your assertion. Absolutely nothing you are linking mentions Baghdad specifically, and in fact the only thing that even supports the notion that they want to retake it for a new Islamic Empire is the references to their longer term goal of replacing all current Arab regimes with a Caliphate...and let's be honest, that applies just as much to Cairo or Damascus(also a capital of the old Islamic Empire, in case you didn't know) as Baghdad.

Then you accuse ME of shifting the arguement. At best you are confused, at worse, you are a liar.

You've wormed your way through this entire portion of the thread. At every point I have proven your assertation wrong, however instead of simply saying "You got me..taking Baghdad may not be at the top of their list of priorities, but they do want to take it and the rest of Iraq(along with the other Arab countries)" you continued to dig your hole deeper and deeper.

Just admit it.

You misspoke about the importance they attach to Baghdad.

At this point your state of denial when presented(oddly enough by yourself) with facts makes you out to be precisely what you claim me to be: At best confused, at worst a liar.

Lleauric

08-11-2004, 08:39 AM

Which was started by Muhammad in the town of Medina, which just happened to be its capital during his rule and the few generations directly afterwards, which is the era Wahhabists view as the pure time they want a return to Wrong. That was the empire at the time of Muhammads death. It kind of grew after that. Wahhabism has evolved and merged with Islamism as a political movement.
This was accomplished and formented in a real and quite illustratable way.
Osama Bin Laden was a strict Wahabbist. He was focused on the place on the place he lived, Saudi Arabia, and how to bring it back to pure form of Islam that you talk about.
Then that changed. Afganistan.
Osama Bin Laden met up with a man named Ayman al-Zawahiri, also known as the "Doctor". He was from egypt and is a radical Islamist. The meeting of these two men forged resources and more importantly, ideology. Through this merger they created "World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against the Jews and the Crusaders", known now as Al-Queda.
an interesting passage:
Osama bin Laden, as we wrote earlier, had the money, some of the connections, and perhaps the charisma to function as the leader of the al-Qaeda global jihad. But it was not until Zawahiri's al-Jihad in February 1998 formally joined forces with bin Laden that the present global Islamist terrorist threat truly emerged. With his long experience in the Muslim Brotherhood, his critical assessment of its failures, his cunning - albeit highly eclectic - fashioning of a fascist ideology drawing on Islamic religious elements, and his organizational and operational skills, al-Zawahiri is the key personality of global jihad. The key point to understand is that Zawahiri fascist Islamism has seized the ideological initiative in the Muslim world against which traditional Islam has so far proved an impotent, indeed often unwilling, opponent. Young Muslims everywhere are captivated by Zawahiri Islamism and jihad to which they attribute selfless idealism and in which they admire ruthless determination. It will be a long war.

And make no mistake: In this war against a new, ideologically vigorous fascism, collateral assets of the Islamists, the neo-Nazis of the Ahmed Huber variety which we described in part 1 of this series, or - for that matter - Saudi financiers wittingly pushing narrow sectarian Wahhabism upon youths in madrassas worldwide, are key forces in the enemy camp. Islamism as we have portrayed it in its historical and present dimension is a form of fascist madness - the same type of madness which one of Hitler's closest confidants, convicted war criminal Albert Speer, saw during the Fuehrer's final days. In his Spandau prison diary entry for November 18, 1947, Speer recollects:

"I recall how [Hitler] would have films shown in the Reich Chancellory about London burning, about the sea of fire over Warsaw, about exploding convoys, and the kind of ravenous joy that would then seize him every time. But I never saw him so beside himself as when, in a delirium, he pictured New York going down in flames. He described how the skyscrapers would be transformed into gigantic burning torches, how they would collapse in confusion, how the bursting city's reflection would stand against the dark sky."

(©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.)
Which was started by Muhammad in the town of Medina, which just happened to be its capital during his rule and the few generations directly afterwards, which is the era Wahhabists view as the pure time they want a return to. see above.

How is it with all of the literature you've read, you have failed to produce even a single source that mentions the goal of retaking Baghdad specifically? It is called synthesis of information. An educated adult is expected to be able to intake data from various sources, process it and come to a conclusion. Simply doing a WebQuest and regurgitating the information you find is fine for grade schoolers, but I assumed the debate here was on higher level than that of 10th graders. If you arent capable of factual based reasoning and the drawing of independant conclusions, maybe you should excuse yourself from the debate. In the "age of information" that we live in Cris0, to have this expectation to be spoonfed facts is a unfortunate limitation that you seem to have.
Does this help?
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/9339842.htm
Al-Queda is pouring massive resources into Iraq, and Iran is as well. The effort is to plunge the nation into chaos and civil war, blamed on the US
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aHnhSbKIGKeU&refer=top_world_news
This is orchestrated and planned. It has a specific defined goal of creating religious civil war, playing both sides off against the other, destroying the economic base by continous attacks on the pipelines, killing college professors and community leaders to create fear and terror, Assassinating members of the Iraqi government to sow Anarchy, and targeting Allies with kidnappings and Beheadings in order to weaken their resolve and leave sooner, as wll as creating an atmosphere that UN refuses to conduct business in, all reaching a fever pitch as we approach November and the Bush Administration becomes desperate for some kind of closure in a situation that is becoming increasingly challenging and a definite threat to his re-election.
All the while, money comes in from Iran, men from Al-Queda....
Seem important to you now?
and let's be honest, that applies just as much to Cairo or Damascus(also a capital of the old Islamic Empire, in case you didn't know) as Baghdad. It really doesnt. And for 2 Critical reasons.

The staggering amount of discovery and contributions made specifically in Baghad in Astromony, (http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/phys/alshukri/PHYS215/Islamic%20astronomy.htm) Mathematics (http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/ScienceMath/Math.html) Medicine (http://www.pearlpublishing.com/medintro.shtml) Science (especially interesting one) (http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/) If you are in a Madrassa, which is the education these Terrorists get, the gateway to radical ideology and recruiting bases, you get MASSIVE doses of all the Islamic accomplishments originating from Baghdad. It is beaten in your skull, and then the loss if all blamed back on the West. Anger and desire to reclaim the glories of the past, then add in some radical religious beliefs, Voila -- instant martyr
The second reason is the presence of American and Western troops in Baghdad. Take all that anger they learned and all that blame and all that victimization and crystalize it by showing Americans killing muslim babies on Al-Jezeera. (Im not agreeing with it, but it IS happening) To them it is the Crusades all over. And the importance of Baghdad gets elevated.
Your factual knowledge is lacking. You have no historical perspective. Try presenting an arguement of a different viewpoint rather than attempting to twist words from their context and playing little word games obsessesing over near minutia. The basis of your arguement is your own blatent ignorance of the nature of the new radical version of Islam that is the enemy in Terror.

Maybe when you have a point or a stand on your own, I can take your accusations more seriously.

Lleauric

08-11-2004, 06:40 PM

If Israel behaves like a lunatic and attacks the Iranian nation's interests, we will come down on their heads like a mallet and break their bones," the ISNA students news agency quoted Revolutionary Guards Commander Yahya Rahim Safavi as saying Wednesday.

Israel successfully tested its Arrow II anti-missile project in the United States last month. It was the seventh time the Arrow II had worked but the first time it had destroyed a Scud missile -- similar to the Shahab-3 -- in flight.

"The Israelis have recently tried to increase their missile capability and we will also try to upgrade our Shahab-3 missile in every respect," the ISNA students news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying last week.

He said the improvements to the Shahab-3 "will not be limited to the missile's range and will include all its specifications."

Iran deployed the Shahab-3 missiles to its Revolutionary Guards last July after preliminary field tests were successfully completed.

Six of the sand-colored missiles, bearing slogans which said "We will stamp on America" and "We will wipe Israel from the face of the earth," were displayed at an annual military parade last September.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040811/wl_nm/iran_missile_test_dc

Crist0

08-11-2004, 07:32 PM

Simply doing a WebQuest and regurgitating the information you find is fine for grade schoolers, but I assumed the debate here was on higher level than that of 10th graders
Then why the hell have you been doing precisely that, without even bothering to READ the sources you find..as I'm sure even a 10th grader would do?

It is called synthesis of information. An educated adult is expected to be able to intake data from various sources, process it and come to a conclusion.
OH, I'm sorry..I am supposed to read all of these sources and come back with an understanding that Baghdad is a primary concern to them, despite the fact that it lists other cities by name and explains their importance without doing the same for Baghdad?

Your logic is flawed so horribly it would make Spock cry.

On top of this your own links dispute your claims that they are after Baghdad because it was a cultural center during the age of enlightenment. Another name for the Madassras is Deobandi Seminaries.

The Deobandi Movement, and I quote from the source you have used over and over here, wordIQ(waaaait a minute, didn't you say just doing a websearch for information was..):

taught an interpretation of Islam that encouraged the subservience of women, discouraged the use of many forms of technology and entertainment, and believed that only "revealed" or God-inspired knowledge (rather than human knowledge) should be followed.
WAIT a minute there..so you are claiming that these people are learning and yearning to return to the enlightened Baghdad, center of knowledge....when the schools you say are promoting this are seminaries for a school of thought that actively discourages the use of technology and believes only God-inspired knowledge should be followed.

Do you ...I don't know.. maybe... see a contradiction there?

Did it come from the web encyclopedia you have been linking as your source for most of this discussion?

So..to sum it all up..I've given yet another example of your continuing flawed logic being disproved by the very sources you link?

I'm going to be REALLY generous and not go after your claim that it is incorrect that Wahhabist want a return to the practices of the first three generations of Islam.

Oh, WHAT THE HELL!

The Wahhabists, who emerged in the 18th century led by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, also believed that it was necessary to live according to the strict dictates of Islam, which they interpreted to mean living in the manner that the prophet Muhammad (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Muhammad) and his followers had lived in during the seventh century in Medina (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medina).

I couldn't resist..it's just so easy!

Lleauric

08-11-2004, 09:59 PM

Will: Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll give it a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never had a problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Send in the marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number was called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some guy from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And naturally they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what do I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.
Not bad for 1997

Sanchek

08-11-2004, 10:28 PM

I thought it was blow for Bush, not hash!?

Lleauric

08-11-2004, 10:45 PM

After riding the train for a few grams, Im sure Georgie needed a downer to take the edge off when coming down.

Crist0

08-12-2004, 02:47 AM

Good to see you finally abandoned the lost cause...although I'm at a loss as to where you're taking this new hijack.

Anywhere was better than where you were I guess ;)

Lleauric

08-12-2004, 08:12 AM

If you arent going to take is seriously.. why should I?

Crist0

08-13-2004, 02:09 AM

I took it seriously enough to prove you wrong in just about everything you said by using your own sources.

Seems maybe you should have taken it more seriously and actually researched the matter before trying to make the point?

Lleauric

08-13-2004, 07:51 AM

I took it seriously enough to prove you wrong in just about everything you said by using your own sources.
Keep telling yourself that.. eventually even you will believe it

Lets talk about how your boy is a CHEATER!

http://www.gwpda.org/tomorrow/bushsuckerpunch.gif

Somethings never change.. the only surprise is he didnt hire someone to do it for him.. probably the last time in his life

Esbat

08-13-2004, 10:19 AM

It is only cheating if you get caught by the ref. Up until that point, it is "gamesmanship".

Crist0

08-14-2004, 08:40 AM

Keep telling yourself that.. eventually even you will believe it

Oh, I believe it..mostly because it's based in factual evidence..which you've shown us all(and I thank you for that). It's just sad that you finally realized you shouldn't link any more sources because they prove you wrong :(

Ah well, there's always pictures.

akipt

08-18-2004, 08:38 AM

John Kerry just doesn't want this thread to die... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=7&u=/ap/20040817/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_confusion)

In news releases and postings on Kerry's campaign Web site as recently as last Friday, the Massachusetts senator is touted as the panel's former vice chairman. However, according to the Senate Historical Office, Kerry never had the seniority to hold a leadership position on the committee — though he was a member from 1993 until 2001.

..."If he had shown up for Intelligence Committee hearings he would notice he wasn't vice chairman." He was vice chairman before he wasn't vice chairman!

John Kerry's response?

spokeman Michael Meehan said, "John Kerry, Bob Kerrey [the real vice chairman] — similar names..."
Some of you people seriously want this guy to be your leader? I'm thinking now I'd rather see Hillary president.

egads

Crist0

08-18-2004, 12:37 PM

Did you see where Kerry is planning to campaign during the Republican convention?

Now THAT is a sign of desperation...nobody campaigns during the other party's convention, it's a tradition and one of the few respectful things parties do during an election year..er..did.

Talid

08-18-2004, 04:50 PM

Akipt, you do realize that Kerry doesn't run his own website, right? It was probably just some over-eager intern who published that.

akipt

08-18-2004, 05:16 PM

It was probably just some over-eager intern...That was Clinton's excuse :rolleyes:

Sanchek

08-18-2004, 05:50 PM

Akipt, you do realize that Kerry doesn't run his own website, right? It was probably just some over-eager intern who published that.
Uh, hang on. You think that some intern at the Kerry campaign decides on what copy goes on the official site for his presidential campaign?

I'm fairly in the middle overall (with several issues left and several right), but it's mind boggling to see the levels of hypocrisy people will go to on this thread in order to stick with their chosen party line. Had that been a Bush typo, there would have been a mob with torches, storming the tower.

You guys need to listen to the political part of Chris Rock's last HBO special... He's talking to most of you.

Winterworg

08-18-2004, 09:13 PM

akipt

08-29-2004, 10:37 AM

Wow, look at Kerry go. Another one...

From (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/8181098.htm) the Miami Herald: “John Kerry had just pumped up a huge crowd in downtown West Palm Beach, promising to make the state a battleground for his quest to oust President Bush, when a local television journalist posed the question that any candidate with Florida ambitions should expect:

“What will you do about Cuba?

”As the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry was ready with the bravado appropriate for a challenger who knows that every answer carries magnified importance in the state that put President Bush into office by just 537 votes.

'I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning. Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

”It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

”There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.”

Don’t worry, don’t worry, he has an explanation:

”Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.”

There’s a bit of a pattern here, I think.
That's so tough, Castro pissed himself.