Ambassador: Bush didn't know there were two sects of Islam

why ıs thıs surprisiıng to anybody? GWB wears hıs antı-intellectualısm as a badge of honor and prides hımself ın clearing brush ın Waco rather than any fancy pants smarty activities. It has gotten hım thıs far.

 

Did you just call the Executive Branch and the US Congress "hysterical masses?" They are the ones who determine and execute the policies. The electorate only have a play every few years.

I swear I still think you think that Bush is operating a dictatorship-- whatever he thinks is policy de facto. I believe there are several layers of advising and checking and balancing involved.

I used the "Western perspective" comment in a jocular way to remind you that I am a Westerner when I felt that you were trying to force me to accept an "Eastern" outlook on some matter-- I think it was related to whether or not the current hostilities in Iraq were just a continuation of The Crusades.

Ever since you keep clubbing me without it as if I used it as a continual and constant defense. It is you that keeps using it on my behalf and out of context with how I used it.

Your language is very telling: you <b>rebuke</b> me and wnes only <b>corrects</b> you. I think it would be much easier to discuss these matters if you would get off your high horse

I believe that you denied "Islamo-fascism" because they were not occupying Western nations, so doesn't it follow that any nation (say America) that occupies a Muslim nation is fascist? It was one of your play on words that seemed obvious. Why don't you re-tell us what you meant then?

Have you not said that this was an illegal and immoral war? Is that not the breeding ground for war crime?

Regardless of influence, we have a formal separation of church and state that Sharia Law does not. If you mock that "infiltration" you are mocking the religioius tradition of this nation.

All this disrespectful talk about the masses..... why don't you go rebuke them.

What is really ridiculous is that you completely overlook the phenomenon of the insurgency wantonly killing innocent Iraqis. You are also overlooking the international make-up of the terrorists.

You know I don't have to accept your premise of there being no "need" to enter Iraq.

It's not my place to send anyone. People decide for themselves if they wish to enter military service. My bent is towards isolationism, but once the declaration is on, it's on.

Okay. You're wrong. I think I have a deeper understanding of Islam based on your and others' contributions. I don't "identify" with your POV, but I have a deeper consideration by virtue of everything that goes on here.

You come at me wanting to lock horns. This is the third time this has happened. I don't expect a productive discussion with you and I know you don't with me. Maybe we should stop rebuking each other?

 

There should be checks and balances in layers, but Bush has done his best to remove those, and has withheld information from the people responsible for those checks and balances when that information might lead the checkers and balancers to form conclusions different than the line he was selling.

Most of the people there are not international terrorists. That is a small percentage of the violence there. The far greater violence is from various sectarian groups that are native to Iraq, and that is why you have all the innocents being killed because they happen to belong to the 'wrong' group.

And that violence didn't happen until after Bush invaded, and blundered the operation so horribly.

 

God. I'm trying to be as respectful as possible here, but your lack of reading comprehension ability is frustrating. How did you derive that I was talking about the Executive Branch and US Congress? The term "masses" in the English language refers to the public or the common people...

How did you arrive at the conclusion that I think "Bush is operating a dictatorship." Did I not just say "neoconservative foreign policy agenda to create strongholds in the Middle East is easily projected to the hysterical masses in the guise of fighting Muslim terror and protecting Israel."...?

No, it had nothing to do with the Crusades. It was your apologetic reply to me in post #101, page 6: "My statement was ~ "If Christians were killing one another as much as Muslims are, you could tell their groups apart better."

I'm a Westerner. I guess I should apologize for having a Westerner's viewpoint. I have one. There I said it. I'm not sure where you see me backtracking. I thought I said that I stood by what I'd said?"

It had nothing to do with Iraq or the Crusades. It was a blanket statement about the nature of Islamic violence. Obviously, a Western viewpoint wouldn't be as informed regarding Islam/Muslims as an Eastern one would. Thus, you're basically complacent with your ignorance and would rather keep convincing yourself you're right.

God. Seriously, can you please take an English 101 course? The word 'rebuke' means 'to criticize.' It doesn't have any built in component of being right. It just means I 'criticized' you, not even necessarily justifiably. So if anything, in my hypothetical example, I'm saying wnes would 'correct' me, meaning he was right in doing so, while I merely 'rebuked' you, meaning I just expressed criticism but wasn't necessarily right. Can you please learn some basic English? Geez!

LOL! Uhhh no, I denied it because the term simply does not fit by definition. Fascism has an element of corporatism which does not exist in Islamic extremism. When I said the term didn't fit, your response was something alone the lines of it being appropriate because it's fancy. Go figure.

It's an illegal and immoral war, definitely, but I'm not sure with that has to do with actual war crimes. But since you want me to say it so badly, sure, they've committed war crimes. Look no further than the massacre at Haditha. Are you telling me that massacre of innocent civilians in broad daylight is justifiable? If so, then you are a sad human being.

How does me opposing the actions of our military make me anti-American? Sorry that I hold our military to some standards. The more incursions we engage in like this, the more our reputation in the global village is reduced and resentment grows. I don't want that for my country and I don't want to live in a world that hates the United States so I examine root causes. You on the other hand like to keep your head in the sand and wonder why everyone hates us.

LOL. Pray tell how I'm mocking it? The framers didn't intend for religion to influence the common law so heavily as it has.

No substantive response again, huh?

Please! You don't give a damn about innocent Iraqis so don't try to manipulate that for your own gain.

As far as the international make-up, that's another myth fabricated by the administration. Even the most liberal of figures approximates the foreign elements of the insurgency at roughly 6%. Those are mostly Iraqis fighting, but in your hubris, you and those of your ilk can't fathom the idea that people would defend their countries from American invasion so you assume they must be foreign fighters.

Oh, and since you have struggle so much with the English language, by 'liberal figures', I don't mean 'leftist', I mean those figures that allow most for a margin of error.

No substantive response again, huh?

"Once the declaration is on, it's on"!??!?! Are you a cowboy or something? And you wonder why the World hates us. Do you not care to examine if the claims made for entering the war were valid or if the war is beneficial to your country? Does none of that matter to you? Is this just like some big game to you? You really are sad.

I find you to be a very troubled individual.

 

im enjoying this battle between giddyup and thecabbage.

giddyup is giving his best 'spaghetti western' attempt
while thecabbage is 'stir frying' this debate to another notch!

 

Whoa!
you guys need to chill out.

I like both of you. you guys complement each other.

when you eat bar b q,

you usually have both

BEANS AND COLESLAW!!

 

I was poking fun at you. I know to what masses refers. I was making fun of your puppeteering view of American governance.

Because you wrote: "Yea, and that's still pretty strong for one bloc and apparently enough for him to think he has a mandate.." Regardless of what Bush thinks about his mandate, he can't and doesn't just impulsively get his way. There are many others involved in planning and assenting to every step that is made.

Man if only the terrorists were Western thinkers, we'd have no problem at all! Why is it our obligation to think like Easterners and not theirs to think like Westerners? Wasn't the US invited to build bases in Saudi Arabia? Didn't bin Laden appreciate our assistance in routing the Russians in Afghanistan?

The statement to which you refer makes no comment about the nature of Islamic violence. It was a comment about perspective. Would you deny that there are two perspectives here?

The connotation that I was referencing was more along the lines of harshness, but you can rest assured that I'll be signing up for English 101...

Fancy? I think the reason that the describer "fascism" has caught on is because of the wanton murderousness of the Islamic extremists-- plain and simple.

I would imagine that every army has been convicted of some isolated war crimes. That does not make it right. I believe that the military is handling it.

Jane Fonda?

An opinion.

I had already commented.

Thanks for telling me what I think. Again, you've dodged the point I was making. Who's killing the Iraqis now?

I do understand that some Iraqis don't want us there and will fight and die. I know that some of them are foreign fighters-- as are some fighting for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I thought you meant those gnome collectibles...

Why bother? I just have to point up that your assumptions are not everyone's assumptons.

Been there. Done that.

Just quit.

 

Yes, because "Did you just call the Executive Branch and the US Congress "hysterical masses?" They are the ones who determine and execute the policies. The electorate only have a play every few years." is just dripping with sarcasm.

How many times do I have to say this. Bush isn't a dictator nor does he make any decisions. The mandate example was given to demonstrate that the support of this bloc is seen as enough to validate any presidential agenda. This isn't a difficult concept, giddyup. I doubt Bush has made a single decision while in office. He's just the puppet with the Texan accent that the neoconservatives pull the string of to carry out their agenda.

What?? You're the one here denying that there are two perspectives. When confronted about the nature of your ignorant comment, you didn't want to accept it and said it was from "your western perspective."

Make sure you go to all the TA sessions.

Uhhhhh, you said on page 6, post #104 "It's more about the fancifulness than the literality of it." Earth to giddyup.

It hasn't 'caught on' except in your social circles. It's ridiculed by most of academia and reasonable people. If you want to label it 'Islamic extremis', that's fine, but it's not fascism. There's no component of corporatism. That's just ignorant and sensationalistic to mislabel something in an attempt at demonizing.

lol, are you schizophrenic? You just now yourself lambasted me because you thought I said the U.S. Army was guilty of war crimes and now you're saying they are???

It's not a simple situation like you try to dumb it down into being. We entered a country with three distinct divisions with a history of amongst them. The shi'ite have been opressed, while the Kurds support the U.S. This sectarian violence did not come into fruition until we stupidly entered Iraq and disrupted the power structure.

 

I thought it did. I'm glad you're finally coming around.

Why then do you care about Bush's perception of his mandate? No matter who influences Bush, policy still has to emanate from the US Congress and has to be executed by the chain of command. Surely there is review and consultation and public criticism to consider.

How is identifying my Western perspective denying that there is another? Isn't that what a qualifier does? The fact that I had to humorously remind you that I had a Western perspective is really an indicator that maybe you thought that there was, or should be, only one perspective.

No I'm going to a community college where I'm being taught by someone who got their MA fifteen years ago.

Giddyup to the out-of-orbit satellite: no comment.

It ain't hard to demonize people who are killing innocents intentionally and who hide among those same innocents to make sure that we might kill some innocents as well and garner negative PR.

Who gives a rat's ass about corporatism? We aren't going for our Bachelor's here.

Not the US Army. I cited that there would certainly be <b>isolated incidents</b> of war crimes and probably have been in every military conflict in history. You're the one with conviction of an illegal and immoral war, not me. It's really easy for you to re-write what I wrote isn't it?

I guess I'll just have to ask again: Who's killing the most innocent Iraqis now?

 

It was cited as an example.

We're obviously getting nowhere with this, so I'm just going to let it go.

You sound like a buffoon when you sensationalistically apply words that don't fit just because they sound good.

Those same Iraqis weren't 'innocent' when it was the US Army killing them. They were 'terrorists.' Now that sectarian violence has broken out, which was inevitable due to long tensions, they're 'innocent Iraqis'. How convenient.

 

Good timing.

No substantive comment, huh?

No substantive comment, huh?

What fairy tale are you reading? No, there were some innocent Iraqis killed by the US military. It happens. It's regrettable but unavoidable in war.

I'm referring to the ones who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The one that stands out in my mind was perhaps in 2004 when there was a community celebration because the US-lead coalition efforts had restored and re-opened a water treatment facility. The insurgents in an overwhelming display of celebration for their fellow Iraqis drove a car bomb to the site, detonated it, and counted 38 children as I recall among their dead trophies. Let's not forget anybody unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity when and IED goes off. Those are the kind of innocent Iraqis to which I'm referring.

 

More evidence of Bush's lack of skills for the job at hand...

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002438.html

 

Did I not just explain it to you? Sectarian violence broke out. That's what happens when you enter a country with that type of long standing tension and remove the power structure and create a complete power vacuum. What the hell did you expect? And don't act for a second like you give a rat's ass about "innocent Iraqis."

 

Please stop trying to tell how I feel about anything... much less dead children.

 

What a complete f*cking joke. For a person as eager to go to war as yourself (there are numerous old posts from you demonstrating this), don't give me this BS about "innocent Iraqis" and try to spin it in your favor. Did you care about "dead children" when half a million Iraqi children died in the 90's due to sanctions against Iraq?

 

Blame Saddam. That's what you get when you don't follow the requests then dictates of your fellow world citizens.

Red wine. Pot. Kite-flying Sex. Do something to relax; you are one wound-up person.

 

giddyup is right. can't blame W in the early 90s on the sanctions cause he wasnt president.There's so much strife now because there was an inbalance of power/income between the groups in Iraq.

have you tried bok choy cabbage?

 

Who said I was blaming W? Our country has had a bankrupt foreign policy for some time now, dating back to the 40's when our alliance with the Saudi royal family first began. Your mistake is your assumption of partisan criticism on my behalf. I'm not a Democrat.

 

Oh yes. It's completely moral to starve a country to death. I thought you were the one who cared about dead children?

How ironic. I'm wound up when I express concern about actual death and destruction that's taking place in the world. This coming from the same guy who has his panties in a wad regarding some Islamic plot to take over the world which he's convinced himself of. Go figure.