1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Report: Iraq is top terror training spot

Discussion in 'The OT' started by dummyproof, Jan 14, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Oh sure, it was all Arafat's fault.:sure:

    But now it's time to shift gears. Now it's all Abbas's fault!:nono:

    Let the vilification begin!!!

    Sharon has already cut ties with a new Palestinian administration that has not even taken office yet.
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=412652
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1390846,00.html

    Bush and Sharon have absolutlely no interest in a meaningful, effective, independent Palestinian leadership, just as we have no interest in truely independent leadership in Afganistan or Iraq. That would mean the US and Israel might not be able to do whatever they want.

    Unless Abbas completely capitulates to any and all Israeli(and US) demands, he will soon find himself isolated in the same box Arafat was contained in, a leader with no real power and denegrated and dismissed by the only powers that matter in the conflict. And any Palestinian violence, whether Abbas is responsible or not will be used to justify it. OTOH, if Abbas is seen as being a compliant tool of Israel and the US, it won't matter how violent the occupied territories and Israel become.

    Sharon's latest move is just the first shot across the bow, Abbas's bow.
     
  2. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Whatever, Jon.

    From the first article you posted:

    Get with it Jon. Quite convenient of you to leave out the context of Sharon's actions.
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    How can you trust ANY conservative news source, now that we know that the Bush administration has at least one of them on the payroll. They are all suspect. As long as we judge conservative sources the same way conservatives want to judge liberal sources.
     
  4. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Which news source did they have on payroll?
     
  5. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    And lookee here, Jon.

    First page of Yahoo news.

    Story.

    What? He actually needed "pressure" to do this?

    Bolds are mine.

    So Jon. There you go. It apparently takes pressure for leaders to stop childkillers in their midst. They just can't seem to figure it out themselves. You can keep on defending them.

    Here's a nice little tidbit towards the end fo the article:
     
  6. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Ah yes, what was it, three days after his election and before he's been sworn into office, Abbas is directly responsible for the actions of every Palestinian in the territories!:icon_stup

    Perhaps you missed this from the links?
    The tactic is to weaken Palestinian authority and control to the point of impotence and then blame them for not exercising authority and control. That's what they systematically did to Arafat, and unless Abbas buries his head up Sharon and Bush's butt, that's what they'll do to Abbas or any other Palestinian leader, elected or not.
     
  7. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Armstrong Williams. How do we know this isn't just the tip of the iceberg? :lol:
    Commentator on the payroll
     
  8. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    I like your quote Jon. It can go both ways. It says, "four years of fighting with Israel". It didn't say, "four years of defense against Israeli attacks." Big difference.

    I read it as fighting with Israel. As in they were fighting eachother.

    But as I said. Apologise away. Even with Israel pulling out, the attacks continued. I'm not sure someone can blame Israel for that. But you sure do figure out ways.
    So you defend the side that kills children, uses their own children as shield and as bombers.

    I'll defend the side which has free elections and prosecutes their own for murder and abuse when they do illegal actions against the others.

    As for Iraq.
    It looks like some Iraqis are happy about the election.

    Awwww. How sweet. Those little Iraqi's are just so cute in their ignorance.

    Silly Badel. Don't you realize that everything is actually bad in Iraq and that no one there cares about the presidency. Don't you realize that Bush is just trying to rule your people so he can have control of the oil there?
    I mean, c'mon. If you really cared, you'd have moved back by now.
     
  9. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Bogy, even the link says "commentator". But you said "news source".

    .

    From your link:

    Big deal. A conservative opinion maker was paid by a conservative administration. Now, I personally don't like the connection. But that's a different story.

    Armstrong Williams is not a news station or a newspaper. He's a man with opinions.
    You're mixing up opinion with news.
     
  10. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Sure, isn't it standard operationg procedure to attack police stations with overwhelming military force when crimes are committed? That's what we do here, right?:rolleyes:

    I could have left that bit out, but intentionally didn't. How is any police or security force supposed to function effectively when they are under regular attack from sophisticated military forces?

    Surely there are rogue elements of Palestinian police and security personel, just as there seems to be "rogues" among the police and national guard we are "training" in Iraq right now. But our response isn't to blow up their training and administration facilites with ALL inside. That seems to be more the goal of the insurgents. And they do it to destabilize and cause fear and apprehension among the non-rogue elements and the population in general. Yet this seems to be the exact same strategy Israel employs against the Palestinians. Keep your "enemy" off balance by attacking whatever meager security authority they can muster to prevent them from being a viable, effective force, thereby preventing the Palestinian Authority from ever being able to present itself as legitimate. That's what they did to Arafat. They literally kept him under house arrest in the burned out rubble of his headquarters in Ramallah. In a vrirtual Catch-22, he was cut off from his people and the rest of the territories, and then it was claimed he wasn't a legitimate leader and couldn't be dealt with because he wasn't maintaining an iron-fisted control over all the people in those territories.

    Call me cynical, but I don't think Sharon(or the US for that matter) are all that anxious for Palestinian violence against Israel to completely evaporate. Then we might actually have to deal with them on an equitable, fair basis. And further, the Bush administration, and Clinton's before it were not all that unhappy about the occasional terrorist "pin-prick" prior to 9/11. It went to maintain a "common enemy" and allowed justification for holding a "hard line" and the occasional military response to "show resolve". And even with 9/11, Bush has parlayed the tragedy to reenforce this "US against the world" mentality. And who is Sharon to reject such a successful strategy?



    Ah yes, Iraqis who abandoned their country and haven't set foot there in 10-12 years.:lol::rotfl: Let's make sure they can vote. But if millions actually in country who are acutely aware of the conditions there can't vote, what's the big deal???

    For my money, only those currently in Iraq should be allowed to vote. You know, the ones most recently familiar with Saddam and the current occupation, not those who had the resources and opportunities to flee years ago. I'm actually surprised Bush is promoting and giving this such a high profile. It's bound to raise legitimacy concerns when potentially tens or hundreds of thousands of votes roll in from overseas while many IN Iraq will probably not be able to vote or will be too afraid to. Especially, multiple parties with multiple candidates will create very close races where small differences may make big differences. But then again, with the history of close elections here and elsewhere recently, nobody knows better then Bush the value of getting your own supporters' votes out and suppressing your opponents'.:sure:
     
  11. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    I won't bother with the first part since there are just too many specifics and yeah, you are cynical. And that is way too nice a word to use considering you actually believe that Sharon prefers violence against his people. Did Barak feel the same way?

    I love this part:
    Very nice. Jon. That's what I call classy.

    But I suppose it just fits the track record of your comments and beliefs.

    "No, no, can't have them Jews who fled Germany actually vote when WWII ended. I mean, they had resources and the opportunity to escape."

    No Jon. They gave everything up to leave. I was talking to a customer the other week. He was commenting on my Persian name. His wife is Persian who knew of some Persian Jews in Iran (family of friends). Things were so bad for them that they left for Israel. Sure they had the "resources" to leave, but they had to leave all their posessions and money in Iran.
    They had to restart their lives living a country with a different language and with no money. But they did it with pleasure.

    Sure my wife had the "resources" to leave Russia due to religious persecution. But she arrived here with no money and a sick mom. So would you so glibly disgregard her opinions on Russia since she "abandoned" her country 12 years ago?
     
  12. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    No, I took you seriously instead of your intent.
     
  13. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Really, I was not aware expatriate Jews who had fled Germany and not returned were allowed the vote in post-war Germany. But you learn something new every day.:grin:

    I'm not strictly opposed to expatriates being able to vote or influence politics in their homelands, especially if they've retained their citizenships. But the situation here appears that those who left will be voting in freedom and security on issues in a country that is dramatically changed since they left. In the most profound sense, it is not even the same country any more. At the same time, many or those who DID remain and have witnessed first hand the changes will simply not be able to cast a vote at all, and in many other cases will do so at the literal risk of theirs and their family's lives!

    And the point is(and it's a point that will not be lost on much of the rest of the world, particularly Iraqis "in residence" and certainly by the insurgents) this gives America's chosen candidates a significant and very probably deciding leg up in these elections. And if this were not the case, I can assure you it would have been decided long ago that only Iraqis currently living in Iraq will be eligible to vote.

    And if you think America is just a dispassionate, disinterested observer in these elections, you are far more naive then I thought.
     
  14. markh

    markh Hall Of Fame

    1,036
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    The most ridiculous thing about this election in Iraq isn't that expatriates can vote, which is bad enough, but according to this CNN story, children of Iraqi men who have personally never set foot in the country are eligible to vote. How can this election have any legitimacy when natural born US citizens are allowed to vote in a foreign country's election? Parts of Iraq won't be able to vote because we don't have control of the area but US citizens can. Could we try any harder to make this a meaningless excercise?
     
  15. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Wow guys. I'm really in awe here. The depths to which you're lowering yourselves to try to make Bush look bad is quite amazing.

    Instead of cracking a smile to the fact that people, who just until a year ago were ruled by someone like Hussein but can now vote freely, you just cry and moan about every little thing you can.

    And now Mark and Jon are arguing that an Iraqi, who fled his native country to avoid death (which roughly 300,000 others weren't quick enough to do), now doesn't count as an Iraqi citizen. What's up with that? Can't you share in any sort of happiness or excitement that 20 more million people are on their way to democracy? You can always preface it by disclaiming how you dislike Bush. (I had to bold up there just so no one reads words which aren't in my post... which someone in particular has a tendancy of doing).
    They're not there yet. They have thousands of foreign invaders in their country killing innocents and trying to disrupt their transition to peace and prosperity.
    But rather than point out the fact that its outside influences causing all the problems, you just march along witht the "Bush lied" mantra.
    It's quite sick.

    There was voting during our civil war. I can't imagine that went over all that well. But we got through it.
     
  16. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Free elections in Iraq would be a wonderful thing IF they actually had meaning and were done in the interest of the Iraqi people. This farce that the Bush administration is mounting and calling an "election", however, does not serve that purpose but is only a PR tool for Bush.
     
  17. markh

    markh Hall Of Fame

    1,036
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    How happy would you be, Halfsek, if the election could be decided by people who had never set foot in your country in their lives? On top of that many of those deciding the election live in the country that currently occupies yours. Nowhere in my post did I write anything like "Bush lied". I was surprised to hear that citizens of the US would be voting in the election. I find it hard to believe that the Iraqi people can be happy that residents of Detroit or San Diego will help in picking their leaders.
     
  18. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Mark, these are citizens of Iraq.
    How many Americans living in foreign countries voted in our last election?
    And how do you know that "...the election could be decided by people who never set foot in [Iraq] in their lives"?
    Do you have numbers to back that up? Are there millions upon millions of non Iraq born citizens here in the US?
    I think you're blowing that part of it out of proportion.

    As to HGL. I'm not exactly sure what would satisfy you to make this an "official" election. Iraq is in a time of crises. Unfortunately you can't wait until everything is "just fine" to do certain things.
    You have such an anti Bush agenda that anything with his name on it is automatically bad. But it's the same blinders you've had on for as long as I can remember.
     
  19. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I admit to not having a solution to the Iraq problem, but then I am not a diplomat nor a world leader. The problem currently is that, evidently, nobody "in charge" has a solution either. The people running the show are clueless and the problems are only getting worse. This "election" is nothing more than a PR event for the Bush administration. They promised an election and they're providing one, no matter that the country is not ready for it and the result will have no more meaning than a blank piece of paper and provide nothing in the way of progress for the Iraqi people. I find it amazing that you or anyone else can actually think this "election" is anything but a sham. Perhaps it is your "pro-Bush agenda" wherein you can see no wrong? :)
    No, I'm a realist. I see things as they are, not as some toadie in the White House dictates. Could Bush do good? Of course he could, but so far he hasn't, at least not in Iraq. It has been a monumental blunder from the beginning and is not getting any better.
     
  20. Halfsek

    Halfsek Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Oct 29, 2002
    Happy. You keep calling this a farce and a sham. Yet what will ultimately happen? That Iraqis will be able to vote in free elections for the first time ever. First you say that there are so many people running that no one knows who to vote for. Then you say that Bush is the puppet master trying to get "his people" elected.

    Were mistakes made? Of course. Did the administration underestimate problems, yeah. Did anyone expect otherwise? It's a war. We invaded a country. Taking control of Germany after WWII wasn't easy.

    Monumental blunder. Funny. No Happy, if you want an example of monumental blunders, look at the UN and Rwanda. Or Somalia. Or any other place where they just had to feed people. That's a monumental blunder.

    This is nowhere near that. It's an ongoing process with ups and downs. And don't forget- all of the problems we're seeing are being caused by foreigners. You'd be singing a different tune if there weren't Syrian and Iranian fighters in Iraq right now.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page