1115.org

Comments

1. JimC wrote:

   Can I get a little background info so I can respond to this post correctly?

   From your perspective:

   1) What is Al Qaida and what makes a group a part of Al Qaida?

   2) Is there any real distinction between being affiliated or inspired by Al Qaida and being a part of Al Qaida? If so, how?

   3) What does it take to actually be considered part of Al Qaida?

   Thanks…

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:11 pm ¶

2. matt wrote:

   surprised if you get an answer to these questions. and what exactly is the point of them anyway?

   you know there was no “al Qaeda in Iraq” before the war, right? and that people already there took the name and marginally allied themselves with bin laden only well after the war started, right?

   and that there are plenty of bad people who have and want nothing to do with al Qaeda because they may be shia or just don’t agree with their mission, right?

   so what do your questions have to do with anything?

   the post was clear. respond to it or don’t. no one’s going to hold back if you decide to start making shit up or responding to arguments other than the ones in the post.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:19 pm ¶

3. JimC wrote:

   I want to know what Al Qaida means to Sarabeth. Did I mention anything about Al Qaida being in Iraq before or after the war started? No, these are direct questions which will help me understand her perspective on Al Qaida and what it means to be Al Qaida. Should be very easy to answer these direct questions without going off on me for something I didn’t say or ask. There is a very real point to my questions and the answer to them will help me comment or not even comment depending on those answers, so why will it be hard to get those questions answered?

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:39 pm ¶

4. matt wrote:

   I want to know what Al Qaida means to Sarabeth.

   i don’t see an answer coming because these are stupid questions whic i pretty much answered anyway.

   you getting clarification isn’t going to immunize you from what comes next.

   so why will it be hard to get those questions answered?

   i think we’re both short on patience.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:42 pm ¶

5. sarabeth wrote:

   i don’t see an answer coming either. a combination of reading comprehension and memory may be required to figure out why.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:45 pm ¶

6. JimC wrote:

   It’s pretty simple, I’ll even make it easier, just answer this question, this will help…

   3) What does it take to actually be considered part of Al Qaida?

   It makes a big difference if your understanding of Al Qaida is the same as mine. The question is direct and simple, will you not answer direct questions? No need to read any motive into it or answer things I am not asking, I simply want to understand your understanding of Al Qaida.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:51 pm ¶

7. JimC wrote:

   stupid questions whic i pretty much answered anyway.

   You answered questions I didn’t ask and why are these stupid questions? I don’t see anything stupid about wanting know someone’s understanding of a central element of their post.

   you getting clarification isn’t going to immunize you from what comes next.

   I’ll take that chance…

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:54 pm ¶

8. sarabeth wrote:

   i knew that reading comprehension requirement was going to be a ball-breaker.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:55 pm ¶

9. matt wrote:

   What does it take to actually be considered part of Al Qaida?

   ok, i’ll bite. taking funding/orders from bin laden, zawahiri etc.

   Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 2:57 pm ¶

10. JimC wrote:

    taking funding/orders from bin laden, zawahiri etc.

    Thank you. Can I assume this your understanding as well Sarabeth?

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 3:03 pm ¶

11. matt wrote:

    since she’s just not going to play, feel free.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 3:07 pm ¶

12. JimC wrote:

    Ok, thanks, it only took 10 comments to answer it but I at least understand the post a little better now. You see, my perspective on Al Qaida is that it represents an ideology and isn’t necessarily an organization that has to follow orders from Bin Laden or sub-chiefs as long as they carry out the ideology which is to remove western influence over Arab states, destroy Israel, and establish a global Islamic government. Essentially, to be Al Qaida you only need to sympathize with or align yourself with the ideology and carry out plans to achieve the goals. Essentially, no card carrying members and not necessarily under direct control Bin Laden.

    So with my understanding, I took this post as being very narrow and strict on being “affiliated or inspired by” Al Qaida but applying your understanding, the post at least makes sense, even if I disagree with it. I believe Bush as many others don’t hold a strict definition of Al Qaida as being under direct control of Bin Laden (taking orders from and being funded by). Given this, his statements, in my opinion, are not evidence of changing the scope or meaning of those in Iraq who are labeled Al Qaida but that the ideology of Al Qaida is that of those who are carrying out the spectacular attacks, and are of the same ideology of those who attacked us on 9/11. Furthermore, between 2005 (and even within this year alone), the shifting allegiances of Sunni insurgents to work with the US to oust Al Qaida is actually making Al Qaida’s roles even greater. Of course there is still Shia militias and insurgents attacking coalition troops but it seems as of recent weeks that Al Qaida has been thrust to the forefront of the battle for Iraq, evidenced by Al Qaida killing of Sunni sheiks because of their allegiance with coalition forces.

    I expect you to disagree with this position but it is why I asked the questions to begin with, to understand the difference between your understanding of Al Qaida and my understanding.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 3:39 pm ¶

13. matt wrote:

    You see, my perspective on Al Qaida is that it represents an ideology and isn’t necessarily an organization that has to follow orders from Bin Laden or sub-chiefs as long as they carry out the ideology which is to remove western influence over Arab states, destroy Israel, and establish a global Islamic government.

    well, there you have it. you want to call all “islamofascists” Al Qaida. which is funny considering how many times you have used
    well, there you have it. you want to call all “islamofascists” here.

    but it seems as of recent weeks that Al Qaida has been thrust to the forefront of the battle for Iraq

    no. period. the “thrust” has been in trying to get the librul media to call everyone Al Qaida. there is an important difference.

    to understand the difference between your understanding of Al Qaida and my understanding.

    you mean the difference between your view and reality, right?

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 3:49 pm ¶

14. JimC wrote:

    you want to call all “islamofascists” Al Qaida

    No I don’t, didn’t say that either. Some are called Hamas, some Hezbollah, some Syrians, some Iranians, not all are Al Qaida.

    no. period. the “thrust” has been in trying to get the librul media to call everyone Al Qaida. there is an important difference.

    Not sure what you mean by this, I certainly don’t see it. In Iraq, there are Iranian backed Shia militias and then there are foreign fighters aligned with Al Qaida and then there are Sunni insurgents who once were aligned wiith Al Qaida fighters but now have turned on them. There are former Bathists. Not everyone is Al Qaida but they do not need Al Qaida Members card to be considered Al Qaida.

    you mean the difference between your view and reality, right?

    Your “reality”? Absolutely….

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 6:32 pm ¶

15. matt wrote:

    Not sure what you mean by this, I certainly don’t see it.

    you don’t fucking say. you’ve already admitted that you get all of your news from pat dullard, lest you hear that everything might not be going perfectly in iraq.

    in the real world, people have noticed.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 7:06 pm ¶

16. sarabeth wrote:

    matt, you do realize that your understanding of al Qaeda had absolutely no bearing on any of this?

    you could have said: “I think al Qaeda is the little green men who emerge from behind my laundry room sheet-rock at night to steal odd socks” and JimC would still have said exactly what he did say, word for word.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 7:09 pm ¶

17. JimC wrote:

    “I think al Qaeda is the little green men who emerge from behind my laundry room sheet-rock at night to steal odd socks” and JimC would still have said exactly what he did say, word for word.

    Would not! That is ridiculous, everyone knows the sock stealers are gray, not green.

    Posted 11 Jul 2007 at 8:17 pm ¶

18. sarabeth wrote:

    From Bush’s press conference today, presented without comment from me:

    Q: But, sir, on that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden, himself?

    Bush: Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America — obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously.

    Bush has to know how misleading this is. As McClatchy recently reported, “The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn’t exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn’t pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn’t controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.”

    The question was about “evidence.” The president didn’t have any. Bush wants Americans to believe — in fact, he states it as if it were an obvious truth — that al Qaeda dominates in Iraq and is responsible for the vast majority of U.S. deaths. This is demonstrably false. And yet, the man lies with impunity.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 12:40 pm ¶

19. JimC wrote:

    “The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn’t exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn’t pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn’t controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.”

    So tell me why does this matter as of July 12th, 2007? Does it matter when they took an oath? When they swore loyalty? We get it, it was done after the invasion of Iraq but does that change the fact that Al Qaida is there now? If we left, would Al Qaida simply leave Iraq? NO!

    The question was about “evidence.” The president didn’t have any. Bush wants Americans to believe — in fact, he states it as if it were an obvious truth — that al Qaeda dominates in Iraq and is responsible for the vast majority of U.S. deaths. This is demonstrably false. And yet, the man lies with impunity.

    Yes, in the past it was not Al Qaida killing the majority of US troops, can it be demonstrated as of today that is still the case? Seems whoever wrote these comments is having some serious lag, they need to catch up with current events.

    Al Qaida is there and is the main problem, today, maybe not last year or even 6 months ago, but today, yes. Why else would ex-Sunni insurgents ally themselves with the coalition to drive out Al Qaida? Funny how these Al Qaida naysayer articles never acknowledge this fact.

    SUNNI’s are helping the US to drive out foreign fighters aligned with Al Qaida, today. Fact. Period.

    This attempt to frame Al Qaida as a non-existent danger in Iraq is pure media crap. The news as of today inidcates that Al Qaida is in fact the problem and a large portion of Operation ArrowheadRipper is to drive Al Qaida out of Baghdad and as I have linked before, Sunni’s are ratting Al Qaida out.

    The media can go back in history all it wants to but, as of today, Sunni and Shia alike, alongside US forces, are trying to drive out Al Qaida extremists. And “these people” identified with their ideology, are the same ideologically driven groups that attacked us on 911, obviously not the same physical people or cells but ideologically the same.

    Of course, Al Qaida in Iraq didn’t exist at 911, they didn’t exist until after the war started, that has no relevance on their part in the problem, TODAY.

    But let’s not take my word for it or talking head idiots here in the US, let’s hear from the Sunni Sheiks…

    Sunni Leaders Vow to Fight Terrorism in Anbar Province
    Saturday, July 07, 2007
    Associated Press

    RAMADI, Iraq — Sunni sheiks and community leaders met Saturday in this city west of Baghdad and pledged to fight terrorism and restore peace and security to Anbar province — for years the heart of the insurgency.

    [...]

    The meeting, attended by dozens of Sunnis including tribal leaders, clerics and professors, was held at the provincial council headquarters in this city, which used to be an insurgent stronghold until many tribesmen decided to fight Al Qaeda.

    Among those present were members of the Anbar Awakening, which was formed in April by more than 200 Sunni sheiks who said the group would become a national party. Its platform includes opposition to Al Qaeda and cooperation with the government.

    Also present were officials with the Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni group in Iraq.

    At the end of the meeting, the participants issued a statement stating that they have agreed to “stand in one line against the terrorism and defeat it” and work united to return life to its previous nature in this province, build the governmental institutions and the services to citizens.

    [...]

    Anbar, which stretches from Baghdad’s western outskirts to the borders of Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, used to be the most dangerous part of Iraq for U.S. troops. The situation improved dramatically in recent months after angry tribesmen carried arms against Al Qaeda.

    So how does this fit into the equation? Apparently it doesn’t hence it is been ignored by most everyone taking issue with the term Al Qaida when applied to violence in Iraq.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:07 pm ¶

20. JimC wrote:

    The following shouldn’t have been in the above blockquote…these were my words not from the AP article…

    So how does this fit into the equation? Apparently it doesn’t hence it is been ignored by most everyone taking issue with the term Al Qaida when applied to violence in Iraq.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:11 pm ¶

21. sarabeth wrote:

    You asked for it: GO FUCK A DUCK!

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:13 pm ¶

22. sarabeth wrote:

    WaPo today:

    Hayden catalogued what he saw as the main sources of violence in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda. Though Hayden had listed al-Qaeda as the fifth most pressing threat in Iraq, Bush regularly lists al-Qaeda first.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:26 pm ¶

23. sarabeth wrote:

    JimC’s irrefutable logic:

    Al Qaida is there and is the main problem, today, maybe not last year or even 6 months ago, but today, yes. Why else would ex-Sunni insurgents ally themselves with the coalition to drive out Al Qaida? Funny how these Al Qaida naysayer articles never acknowledge this fact.

    SUNNI’s are helping the US to drive out foreign fighters aligned with Al Qaida, today. Fact. Period.

    Because “SUNNI’s are helping the US to drive out foreign fighters aligned with Al Qaida” that proves Al Qaida is the main problem?

    JimC must be right. Hayden must be wrong. Too bad JimC’s too busy to run the CIA for us.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:27 pm ¶

24. matt wrote:

    in the past it was not Al Qaida killing the majority of US troops, can it be demonstrated as of today that is still the case?

    Al Qaeda stronger, but is it the major factor in Iraq? :

    But while the US intelligence establishment is declaring the stated goal of America’s war in Afghanistan – the destruction of Al Qaeda’s operational capacity – a failure so far, analysts and news reports are also warning that the group’s role is frequently overstated in the war in Iraq.

    There, while Al Qaeda continues to be involved in serious attacks, an intriguing analysis of propaganda claims made by insurgent groups inside the country finds Sunni groups not directly affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq make far more claims of attacks. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a US-government funded news operation, undertook the book-length report.

    A table on page 10 of the report tracks claims made by insurgents in March of this year. It finds that the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI) claimed 240 attacks in the month and the Mujahideen Army claimed 136. Neither of these groups is an Al Qaeda affiliate. Meanwhile, the Islamic State of Iraq, the main umbrella group for Al Qaeda in the country, claimed 71 attacks for the month. Ansar al-Sunnah, which has at times been described as close to Al Qaeda but whose composition and alliances are murky, claimed 180 attacks.

    but i guess dullard didn’t tell you that, so it can’t be true.

    SUNNI’s are helping the US to drive out foreign fighters aligned with Al Qaida, today. Fact. Period.

    point? the fact that they don’t agree with AQ methods or goals has fuck all to do with their own goals, getting us out, and drawing blood if they have to.

    And “these people” identified with their ideology, are the same ideologically driven groups that attacked us on 911, obviously not the same physical people or cells but ideologically the same.

    “ideologically the same” could be said about any number of groups and hundreds of millions of people. it’s a canard. but i guess it’s all dead ender idiots like yourself have to cling to.

    i love how we somehow made the jump from “bush’s strategy is teh awesome” to “yeah, there was no AQ before, but we have to keep letting bush screw up getting them” with no capitulation in between. it’s fucking pathetic.

    and you can pick and choose your news, constantly (even admittedly) looking for news that matches your absurd positions, but that doesn’t change the fact that yes, this war is lost, and nothing has or will change that.

    so go on with the italics and the bolds and whatever nonsense dullard tells you, and ignore the overwhelming weight of the news so that you can avoid having to ever admit you got everything wrong since before the war even started.

    we’ll go on laughing at you.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:30 pm ¶

25. sarabeth wrote:

    The effing CIA director is having some serious lag, he needs to catch up with current events.

    Get with the program, Michael. Speak only as the bleating Bush speaks.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:32 pm ¶

26. sarabeth wrote:

    JimC’s so full of bullshit, it’s starting to leak out of his ears.

    Cease and desist, JimC. Just go away. Please!

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:33 pm ¶

27. matt wrote:

    i didn’t even see hayden’s remarks.

    jim, this is a stone cold requirement: let us know why we should ignore the cia director and adopt your position.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:35 pm ¶

28. sarabeth wrote:

    for the record, though, there’s so much general anarchy in Iraq, there’s probably no shame in being fifth after general anarchy.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:40 pm ¶

29. JimC wrote:

    i didn’t even see hayden’s remarks.

    jim, this is a stone cold requirement: let us know why we should ignore the cia director and adopt your position.

    I know this may have been easily overlooked but when did Hayden make this catalogue? Sometime before the Nov 13, 2006 meeting? Correct? If so, then Hayden’s remarks are old and since then Sunni’s have turned against Al Qaida…perhaps a Hayden needs a new catalogue…

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 6:58 pm ¶

30. sarabeth wrote:

    And by what feat of ass-backward logic does the Sunnis turning against al Qaeda prove that al Qaeda is the main problem?

    there has been absolutely no intelligence assessment that supports Bush’s propaganda-convenient rhetoric — of very recent origin — that al Qaeda in Iraq is suddenly the main threat.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:02 pm ¶

31. matt wrote:

    we’ve been hearing propaganda about Sunnis (not Sunni’s) turning on AQ for far longer than 10/06.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:06 pm ¶

32. JimC wrote:

    well, if Sunni ex-insurgents have aligned with coalition forces to oust Al Qaida, who does that leave? Well, today, it is Al Qaida and Iranian backed Al Sadr Mahdi militia, and no doubt general anarchy.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:07 pm ¶

33. JimC wrote:

    we’ve been hearing propaganda about Sunnis (not Sunni’s) turning on AQ for far longer than 10/06.

    And this of course invalidates the actual events today? The article I quoted above was an AP story, it has been reported elsewhere, it is a fact, period.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:10 pm ¶

34. matt wrote:

    well, if Sunni ex-insurgents have aligned with coalition forces to oust Al Qaida, who does that leave?

    are you saying that it is your position that the sunni insurgency outside of AQ does not exist because they have, en masse, changed sides?

    And this of course invalidates the actual events today?

    do the fucking math. these stories were around before hayden’s assessment, and it didn’t change the facts on the ground. why should it now?

    your little AP story is far from comprehensive, and speaks of one provence. did you miss that other parts of iraq are now worse than anbar was?

    The article I quoted above was an AP story, it has been reported elsewhere, it is a fact, period.

    say the word period again asshole. it’s good to know that the AP is now taken as authoritative fact over even government reports. i’ll be bookmarking this comment for shoving it down your throat later. unfortunately you’ll move on and come up with some reason why the AP went from fact. period. to totally without merit.

    that will be awesome.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:18 pm ¶

35. sarabeth wrote:

    what is “a fact, period?” that al Qaeda is the number one threat?

    Can you get it into your head that some sunnis turning against al Qaeda doesn’t prove anything other than some sunnis are now fighting al Qaeda?

    Can you get it into your head that this certainly does not mean that all Sunni insurgents are now friends rather than foes?

    Sunnis are still fighting Shia, so sectarian strife remains on the list as one of the main sources of violence.

    And in fact there are still some Sunni insurgents fighting us. In other words, some is not the same as all.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:19 pm ¶

36. sarabeth wrote:

    to be Al Qaida you only need to sympathize with or align yourself with the ideology

    JimC logic as applied to immigration policy:
    To be American you only have to want to be American. Presto: no more illegal immigrants.

    Powerful medicine, this. Makes our most intractable political-social problems vanish in a few keystrokes.

    JimC shouldn’t just be running the CIA, he should be running the country. He should be President-for-Life.

    Of course, to be President-for-Life, you only have to want to be President-for-Life. So that position may already be taken.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:25 pm ¶

37. sarabeth wrote:

    I do, BTW, have a different solution to the problem of al Qaeda (in case anyone but Matt, JimC and I are following this thread):
    –stop fighting them
    –just start training them and arming them. that’ll be the end of al qaeda, for sure. in 6 months they’ll be as incompetent as the Iraqi police and the Iraqi army and the Iraq security forces
    –for the first time, Iraq can be turned into a level playing field. we’ll just arm and train the Mahdi army and the Badr organization and everyone else. then they can call it a draw, and get on with making peace.

    that’s a 3-point peace plan.

    i understand they give out nobel prizes for this shit.

    I’ll share mine with Matt, and anyone other than Sac and JimC who faithfully comments on our posts for the next three months

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:32 pm ¶

38. JimC wrote:

    are you saying that it is your position that the sunni insurgency outside of AQ does not exist because they have, en masse, changed sides?

    [...]

    do the fucking math. these stories were around before hayden’s assessment, and it didn’t change the facts on the ground. why should it now?

    your little AP story is far from comprehensive, and speaks of one provence. did you miss that other parts of iraq are now worse than anbar was?

    No I am saying that the vast majority of Sunni insurgents operated out of the Al Anbar province which is quite large, include areas that were once very nasty places for US forces, the fact thatthe largest Sunni problem area has turned has to be significant.

    This AP story is not the only report on this and I can’t find any reports like this before Hayden’s remarks and are you denying that Sunnis in Al Anbar have turned against Al Qaida? And I also referenced not too long ago about Sunnis inside Bahgdad that were helping US forces in pointing out Al Qaida during the opening of ArrowheadRipper.

    say the word period again asshole

    Why so huffy? I am right on this (about Sunnis turning on Al Qaida) and it is a fact and I will not back down on that point, threats or no threats.

    it’s good to know that the AP is now taken as authoritative fact over even government reports. i’ll be bookmarking this comment for shoving it down your throat later. unfortunately you’ll move on and come up with some reason why the AP went from fact. period. to totally without merit.

    that will be awesome.

    We’ll see if that happens…but for now, I am using an often used source to back up arguments, why then is now not authoritative for you in this matter?

    what is “a fact, period?” that al Qaeda is the number one threat?

    No. The fact is that Sunnis ex-insiurgents in the troubled Al Anbar province, Anbar is the largest province in Iraq, sharing a border with Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, contains such infamous cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi, where Sunni insurgents where most problematic.

    Can you get it into your head that some sunnis turning against al Qaeda doesn’t prove anything other than some sunnis are now fighting al Qaeda?

    Yes except that Al Anbar is the largest Sunni province containing cities of some of the worst insurgent fights with US forces.

    Can you get it into your head that this certainly does not mean that all Sunni insurgents are now friends rather than foes?

    I understand that not all Sunnis have turned but it is evident that a large problem area of Sunnis have turned and that is significant to require a reassessment of threats.

    Sunnis are still fighting Shia, so sectarian strife remains on the list as one of the main sources of violence.

    You are correct and this is where the political plans need to work.

    And in fact there are still some Sunni insurgents fighting us. In other words, some is not the same as all.

    I agree, not all Sunnis are likely to have turned but Al Anbar is the largest Sunni stronghold and the source of many of the Sunni insurgents in the past which now have turned to work with coalition forces and pledged to cooperate with the government. All good news.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 7:50 pm ¶

39. matt wrote:

    No I am saying that the vast majority of Sunni insurgents operated out of the Al Anbar province which is quite large, include areas that were once very nasty places for US forces, the fact thatthe largest Sunni problem area has turned has to be significant.

    large in terms of area, not population. so who cares?

    Why so huffy?

    like i said, we’ve lost patience with you. it’s exhausting to debate the intellectual dishonesty day after day. i mean come on, you freely admit that you don’t know what’s in the mainstream news because you only read dullard and other milbloggers because they “give the good news with the bad.” i’m over it. the sheer volume of bad news makes this absurd. “we painted schools!” “some sunni’s laid down his AK!”

    I am right on this (about Sunnis turning on Al Qaida) and it is a fact and I will not back down on that point, threats or no threats.

    and this is different than all of your other arguments? keep thinking you have a bone there rover.

    We’ll see if that happens…but for now, I am using an often used source to back up arguments, why then is now not authoritative for you in this matter?

    it’s not authoritative because it’s far from comprehensive. there’s nothing there about this being a nationwide trend. and it’s hypocritical of you to interrupt your mission of ignoring the mainstream press for one article and then throwing periods around because you think they proved you right. for once.

    Anbar is the largest province in Iraq

    and wyoming is bigger than pennsylvania. so what? land doesn’t kill people, people do.

    Yes except that Al Anbar is the largest Sunni province containing cities of some of the worst insurgent fights with US forces.

    no, it isn’t. far more SUNNI’S live in baghdad than in all of anbar. by far.

    You are correct and this is where the political plans need to work.

    and what does all, not some, of the evidence say on this point?

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 8:35 pm ¶

40. JimC wrote:

    you freely admit that you don’t know what’s in the mainstream news because you only read dullard and other milbloggers

    I didn’t say that, over the 4th weekend, yes, I hadn’t watched any MSM when you asked me but I have since. And Why are you so down on Pat Dollard? He calls it like it is, I tripple dog dare you to refute his articles.

    the sheer volume of bad news makes this absurd. “we painted schools!” “some sunni’s laid down his AK!”

    Yes, absurd that anything could possibly go right so let’s just ignore it.

    and this is different than all of your other arguments? keep thinking you have a bone there rover.

    I presented evidence, it is in print, no it is not “comprehensive” in that ALL Sunnis have turned but are you actually denying that Al Anbar, home of Fallujah and Ramadi and other nasty areas of the past have not been some of our worst encounters with Sunni insurgents?

    no, it isn’t. far more SUNNI’S live in baghdad than in all of anbar. by far.
    [...]
    and wyoming is bigger than pennsylvania. so what? land doesn’t kill people, people do.

    Alright, let me clarify what I mean, it is the largest Sunni province which has historically been the host of most of the major Sunni Insurgent activity of the war to date. Fallujah, Ramadi, ring a bell? If not those are two cities are where our US troops have had historically very significant continuous battles with insurgents.

    what does all, not some, of the evidence say on this point?

    Its not made any progress and it needs to and that is a big part of the problem but also securing Iraq and routing Al Qaida and the Mahdi Militia is also a major military problem which is what the “Surge” is attempting to address now.

    But the Sunni Awakening as they call it is a piece of the puzzle. So this is major and important and can lead to an actual success, which of course is the more desirable outcome in my opinion.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 9:04 pm ¶

41. matt wrote:

    And Why are you so down on Pat Dollard? He calls it like it is

    wouldn’t you say the same about yourself? what was his mission statement again? the one that sac pointed out?

    Yes, absurd that anything could possibly go right so let’s just ignore it.

    again, you’re just willfully missing the point, which is why i don’t take you seriously. lots of things go right. some patrols even make it back without getting shot to shit. some iraqis can temporarily set aside their differences. but that’s not where the weight of the evidence is, even in the eyes of the partisan government agencies whose job it is to track these things.

    it was really sunny right after katrina. didn’t stop people from drowning or houses from floating away.

    are you actually denying that Al Anbar, home of Fallujah and Ramadi and other nasty areas of the past have not been some of our worst encounters with Sunni insurgents?

    no, but what does that matter. lots of other places that weren’t hotspots before are now. that’s why it’s called whack-a-mole.

    Its not made any progress and it needs to

    maliki’s govt is on the verge of total failure. nothing has worked so far, nor is there anything on the political front that is even the least bit encouraging. like this:

    The eight “unsatisfactory” categories concern the central issues of Iraqi politics—the disputes that must be resolved if Iraq is to be a viable state and if the U.S. mission is to have the slightest chance of success.
    Here are the benchmarks at which, even the White House acknowledges, the Iraqi government has not made satisfactory progress:
    Legislation on de-Baathification reform
    Legislation to ensure equitable distribution of oil revenue without regard to sect or ethnicity
    Setting up provincial elections
    Establishing a strong militia-disarmament program
    Allowing Iraqi commanders to pursue militias without political interference
    Ensuring that the Iraqi army and police enforce the law evenhandedly
    Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces capable of operating independently (here, the number has actually gone down)
    Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of Iraqi security forces

    The status of former Baathists, distribution of oil revenue, local elections, disarming militias, sectarianism within the police, the legitimacy of the national army—these are the main issues grinding the parliament to a standstill, aggravating ethnic conflict, and forcing millions of Iraqis to flee the country. These are the issues that the Iraqi political leaders are supposed to be resolving while American troops fight and die to make Baghdad secure.
    Yet the White House is admitting that the Iraqis have made no real progress on any of these fronts.

    and that’s what they’re admitting.

    So this is major and important

    no. it might be. but it hasn’t risen to anything like the level it would need to to be replicable in other areas, or on a scale that would render a whole provence pacified. and until then, you have a ray of sunshine on a submerged country. nothing more.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 9:29 pm ¶

42. sarabeth wrote:

    have you laid to rest the preposterous claim (in #19) that “Al Qaida … is the main problem, today” in Iraq?

    that’s what I jumped in to dispute, and all you’ve been talking about since then is some ex-Sunnis allying themselves with us against AQI.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 9:55 pm ¶

43. JimC wrote:

    no, but what does that matter. lots of other places that weren’t hotspots before are now. that’s why it’s called whack-a-mole.

    Which is actually a direct result of them being routed from there hosts. They are being pushed out by Sunnis and Iraqi Army and US forces. They are running out of friends. They brutalized their Sunni-Iraqi hosts and now they are paying for it. On the other front you have the Mahdi Army. Which the Maliki Government as actually engaged in a shooting war now with Al Sadr’s group just his week.

    have you laid to rest the preposterous claim (in #19) that “Al Qaida … is the main problem, today” in Iraq?

    Military problem, yes or perhaps on equal footing with Iranian backed Mahdi Army, but central to eventual success is the Iraqi government has to step it up.

    If anything comes out of the calls for the US to leave (IMO), it may be to light a fire under the Iraqi government. Maliki might have realized that unless he wants Iraq to be annexed into Iran, he must oppose Al Sadr, who has fled to Iran.

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 10:31 pm ¶

44. matt wrote:

    what color is the sky in your world?

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 10:43 pm ¶

45. JimC wrote:

    A beautiful shade of blue….how about yours?

    Posted 12 Jul 2007 at 11:43 pm ¶

Post a Comment