Its not a story because unfortunately, an imbedded blogger saying “al Qaeda did it” doesn’t mean al Qaeda really did it.
Did you notice, EVERYBODY is al Qaeda now?
In War Coverage, ‘Insurgents’ Morph into ‘Qaeda’
The Bush administration’s recent shift toward calling the enemy in Iraq ‘al Qaida’ rather than an insurgency may reflect the difficulty in maintaining support for the war at home more than it does the nature of the enemy in Iraq. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602778
I see a blogger who got his “talking points” memo.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Rip on my above post all you want, he just blamed it on the US. I called it. [/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was a single post by you prior to this one, and all you did in it was cheer the OP’s point.
So when you say “he just blamed it” and “I called it”, I tend to get really confused.
That is a good question.
It’s not up to you (your administration) or me to decide. Iraq is not yours or mine. Iraq belongs to Iraqis. A referendum should be held and the Iraqis will have to decide.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Its not a story because unfortunately, an imbedded blogger saying “al Qaeda did it” doesn’t mean al Qaeda really did it.
Did you notice, EVERYBODY is al Qaeda now?
In War Coverage, ‘Insurgents’ Morph into ‘Qaeda’
The Bush administration’s recent shift toward calling the enemy in Iraq ‘al Qaida’ rather than an insurgency may reflect the difficulty in maintaining support for the war at home more than it does the nature of the enemy in Iraq. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602778
I see a blogger who got his “talking points” memo.[/quote]
Hate agreeing with JustTheFacts, given his well known anti-Semitism, and I think Michael Yon is one of the better journalists out there, but his basic point is right on. Al Qaeda accounts for, at most, 5% of the insurgency. If you don’t believe me, ask Lt. General Mattis, commander of all Marines in Iraq. They do disproportionate damage, but if our goal really is a stable Iraq, we are spending far too much time and effort on Al Qaeda and not enough on the broader Sunni insurgency/civil war.
lixy, when you were gone last week, I missed you. You at least started debate, regardless of it’s value or honesty.
But let me tell you, you need a different tact. The same old schtick, said to so many individuals that have no authority to affect changes in foreign policy, is really creating an atmosphere that dulls the senses when I read your posts.
Can’t you come up with anything other than “The US sucks and is responsible for everything bad in the world” and “Israel sucks?”
Someday, you’re going to say something profound, and everyone will miss it because your posts suck. You’re losing audience. That’s the worst thing for someone trying to sway people through debate.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Rip on my above post all you want, he just blamed it on the US. I called it.
[/quote]
He didn’t blame the US, but he did raise an issue that many people appear unable to consider.
Pouring gasoline on a fire doesn’t put it out… and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, a lot of gasoline has been poured into the fire.
The problem with Iraq is that an incredible number of people feel it is a war that should never have been started.
Again, I’m not trying to blame anyone either, but it’s certainly not inappropriate for people to look at the issue and think it was an unwise policy decision.
I’d substitute contribute to it instead of cause it, but the question remains the same.
I say the duty is to offer assistance and aid to correct the situation, but whether or not they can be destroyed and removed from the playing field, while foreign troops are present on Iraqi soil, is a difficult issue to determine.
Perhaps we can step back from political slogans like cut and run and realize that in war, sometimes a strategic retreat or regrouping is a wise maneuver. I am disappointed by how emotional slogans are used to justify actions instead of looking at bigger picture issues.
As right wingers like to state, things happening that you don’t like doesn’t equate to an agenda.
Internal memos directing staff to cover news in a specific slant would be good support for your argument…
I don’t suppose you have anything to back up your statements other than simply not liking the coverage?[/quote]
It’s not an organized agenda. It’s merely the result of 95% of journalists in the MSM sharing the same left-leaning worldview. No conspiracy – just like there’s no conspiracy to cover bodybuilding from a non-bodybuilder’s perspective, or steroids from an ignorant perspective.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s not an organized agenda. It’s merely the result of 95% of journalists in the MSM sharing the same left-leaning worldview. No conspiracy – just like there’s no conspiracy to cover bodybuilding from a non-bodybuilder’s perspective, or steroids from an ignorant perspective.
[/quote]
Here’s the million dollar question though: Would Al-Qaeda have massacred that village had it not been for the 2003 invasion? Answer that and you might start to understand why some Iraqis are shooting at your soldiers.
Rip on my above post all you want, he just blamed it on the US. I called it.
But even if we did cause it, that allegedly being the case, what do we do? Is it right to fight these bastards, or do we just cut and run? I saw we have a duty to destroy them and stop this barbarity.[/quote]
They massacred plenty in Afghanistan before the US liberated it.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Its not a story because unfortunately, an imbedded blogger saying “al Qaeda did it” doesn’t mean al Qaeda really did it.
Did you notice, EVERYBODY is al Qaeda now?
In War Coverage, ‘Insurgents’ Morph into ‘Qaeda’
The Bush administration’s recent shift toward calling the enemy in Iraq ‘al Qaida’ rather than an insurgency may reflect the difficulty in maintaining support for the war at home more than it does the nature of the enemy in Iraq. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602778
I see a blogger who got his “talking points” memo.
Hate agreeing with JustTheFacts, given his well known anti-Semitism, and I think Michael Yon is one of the better journalists out there, but his basic point is right on. Al Qaeda accounts for, at most, 5% of the insurgency. If you don’t believe me, ask Lt. General Mattis, commander of all Marines in Iraq. They do disproportionate damage, but if our goal really is a stable Iraq, we are spending far too much time and effort on Al Qaeda and not enough on the broader Sunni insurgency/civil war.[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And Saddam massacred plenty in Iraq. Tell the British Aussies, Poles, etc they were not part of the coalition that took that mass murderer out.[/quote]
You were the one saying the US liberated Afghanistan, not me. In any case, while Saddam was indeed bad, he was not a big proponent or sponsor of terrorism, which is the difference so many pretend they cannot see.
The US is not set up to attack countries simply because someone doesn’t like the actions of other countries. Perhaps you should go look again at what is required for a declaration of war.
Otherwise, there are people much more in need of assistance than the Iraqi populace was.
Fuck, how desperate do people have to be to throw such nonsense out in an attempt to justify everything ever done and avoid having to imagine that humans might actually make mistakes.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
U.S. soldiers would pass through a village and dispense vaccinations to children. Some time later, they would return to find the arms of all those vaccinated had been chopped off and were sitting in a basket. This was done to send a clear message: there could be no support given to nor taken from the foreign invaders. [/quote]
was this true, or just a part of “Apocalypse Now”? I’ve never read any true accounts, other than the one Brando gave in the film.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but there was a single post by you prior to this one, and all you did in it was cheer the OP’s point.
So when you say “he just blamed it” and “I called it”, I tend to get really confused.
But even if we did cause it, that allegedly being the case, what do we do? Is it right to fight these bastards, or do we just cut and run? I saw we have a duty to destroy them and stop this barbarity.
That is a good question.
It’s not up to you (your administration) or me to decide. Iraq is not yours or mine. Iraq belongs to Iraqis. A referendum should be held and the Iraqis will have to decide.[/quote]
I did not cheer the OP. I said the islamic leftist terrorist apologists would blame the whole thing on the US and you did.
I agree with you on the referendum. But in today’s news, the president of Iraq said that if the US left now, Iraq would become an al-qaeda haven.
So, in your opinion, what would be best? An Iraq run by a genocidal maniac (ie Saddam), an Iraq run by al-qaeda, an Iraq dominated by Iran, or a democratic US allied Iraq?
[quote]kroby wrote:
Someday, you’re going to say something profound, and everyone will miss it because your posts suck. You’re losing audience. That’s the worst thing for someone trying to sway people through debate.[/quote]
He did. I gave him props. In London bombing thread.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I agree with you on the referendum. But in today’s news, the president of Iraq said that if the US left now, Iraq would become an al-qaeda haven.[/quote]
Keep in mind, that the government of Iraq may not have the best interests of the US at heart when they make these statements…
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s not an organized agenda. It’s merely the result of 95% of journalists in the MSM sharing the same left-leaning worldview. No conspiracy – just like there’s no conspiracy to cover bodybuilding from a non-bodybuilder’s perspective, or steroids from an ignorant perspective.
vroom wrote:
In short… not an agenda.[/quote]
That’s what I said – institutional bias isn’t an agenda.
