Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What about it is not strategic, and what about it is not an objective.

No different than winning in Nam by simply wiping out the VC. That was not and is not a strategic objective. It is not a viable tactical objective either. Control is not wrestled from anyone. The mythical international conspiracy labeled Al Qaeda is not something to be defeated - is not even the problem. In Iraq, the enemy of Iraqis are Iraqis and the people who created this mess - Americans. Iraq is a civil war.

Even a tactical objective cannot be achieved since neither the objective nor enemy is properly defined. Iraq has a complex civil war created by American who remain almost as much in denial as in 2003. At best, America can only provide Iraqis time to settle their own conflicts. Even that Captain understood this problem. Unhelpful are Americans who invent Moriarity hiding behind every corner.

Completely undefined is a strategic objective as demonstrated by Americans who still don't understand what Iraq is - a civil war. George Jr will not say that. George Jr needs Moriarity for political purposes.

Never forgot what George Jr's campaign machine must do - make sure "Mission Accomplished" is not lost under their watch. Invent boogeymen if necessary to confuse the issue - protect a political agenda. And so there is no strategic objective.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/wa...th&oref=slogin



You realize this means they feel that this it is acceptable for US soldiers to be treated in these ways.
We are now the enemy.
You ARE your tactics.

ROTFLMAO! You have a point. We should just chop off the heads of those we capture. I am all for it! Treat them like they treat us, maybe we could get somewhere if we did that.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

ROTFLMAO! You have a point. We should just chop off the heads of those we capture. I am all for it! Treat them like they treat us, maybe we could get somewhere if we did that.

Wrong... I said we now feel it is RIGHT for ours to be treated this way.
We are our tactics.
Therefore, we are stating that this behavior is ok for others to treat ours in the same way.

[Clodfobble]

Yes, well, FWIW I personally would feel that it is okay for them to make our soldiers climb into human pyramids, scare them with dogs which are safely tethered, verbally and symbolically insult them, tear up copies of the Bible in front of them, and even waterboard them on occasion. If multiple journalists will willingly take part in it to "find out how bad it really is," it can't be that horrific.

Things I am not okay with them doing to our soldiers are the things they actually do to both them and civilians: burning, cutting, dismembering, disemboweling, and cutting off heads. (You go ahead and let me know when someone from Al Jazeera lets Al Qaeda cut off his head so he can report back to his viewers how bad it really is.)

[Undertoad]

You're about six months behind.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You're about six months behind.

You mean George Jr finally admitted the world wide terror organization called Al Qaeda really does not exist? Are we now fighting SPECTRE? I thought James Bond wiped them out?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

You mean George Jr finally admitted the world wide terror organization called Al Qaeda really does not exist?

No but Bill Cliton certainly pretended like they did not exist for about 8 years.

[Undertoad]

Six months behind, tw. The fighters in Iraq say they're al Qaeda. bin Laden says the fighters in Iraq are al Qaeda. The victims of their violent "rule" in Iraq say they're al Qaeda -- and want them out.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Six months behind, tw. The fighters in Iraq say they're al Qaeda. bin Laden says the fighters in Iraq are al Qaeda. The victims of their violent "rule" in Iraq say they're al Qaeda -- and want them out.

If I label my hamburgers as MacDonald’s, then what I am selling will also be more desired. Trademark infringement.

Actually the word being used is 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' so as to separate a Muslim Brotherhood movement from something completely different called Al Qaeda. There is no Al Qaeda in Iraq. There are Muslim fundamentalists. Oh. And they amount to almost none of the combatants - estimated at numbers between 300 and 1000. So near zero as to be considered zero – except where George Jr (Cheney) hypes lies and fears.

Iraq is in civil war among many groups with political interests. Al Qaeda has almost nothing to do with so many parties vying for control of the country. Those groups will never go away. All are waiting for 'their time'. Most agree with on only one thing - they don't want Americans except when Americans are in their town protecting their town from other political militias.

Al Qaeda is the expression to hype a mythical enemy. If we don't stop them there, then they will come here. Only problem with that reasoning - they are not the big bad mythical Al Qaeda that George Jr uses to promote ravenous 'mouth dripping' support from Urbane Guerrilla.

[TheMercenary]

Sorry bro, The Muslim Brotherhood is something completely different.

The Iraqis want the Americans to protect them from other Iraqi's and the National Police force.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The Iraqis want the Americans to protect them from other Iraqi's and the National Police force.

The Muslim Brotherhood you are defining is completely different from the Muslim Brotherhood that includes everything from bin Laden's Al Qaeda to Islamic fundamentalists in Chechnya.

Iraqis want Americans when Americans are in town and providing security. But Iraqis want Americans out of Iraq completely when not in their town. Just another example of reality. A concept too complex for those who only know everything from their party's soundbyte propaganda.

So what is Al Qaeda? A domestic definition has little in common with what is described in Iraq. And so we have this new expression "Al Qaeda in Iraq". The two expressions have about as much in common as Hasidic Jews and Fundamentalist Christians.

One reason why America cannot conquer Iraq is an administration that even lies about who the enemy really is. Notice how many brainwashed Americans still remain in denial. Iraq is a civil war. A war created by wacko extremist American stupidity (as this poster has been accurately noting for four years now - see the many contentious discussions between tw and MaggieL). A war that is not solvable by America (as defined by an America who mislabels all adversaries as Al Qaeda and cannot even define a strategic objective).

But then how anti-American are these George Jr supporters? They will not even answer the most basic question that any patriotic American would ask: when do we go after bin Laden?

Same people must confuse a civil war - an insurgency - with a mythical 'Moriarity' called Al Qaeda.

[TheMercenary]

You have to keep thing simple for most Americans. 80% most likely could not find Iraq on a map of the Middle East. The Muslim Brotherhood is an old age organization of Egypt. It was the spark for many radical movements in the Middle East including Hamas.

"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."—Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, a 22-year-old elementary school teacher. The Brotherhood asserted itself as an Islamic revivalist movement following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the caliphate system of government that had united Muslims for hundreds of years. Al-Banna emphasized the comprehensive nature of his faith. Islam was not only a religion, but a fundamental force in society and politics.

The Brotherhood grew as a popular movement over the years. It blamed the Egyptian government for being passive against "Zionists" and joined the Palestinian side in the war against Israel (1948). The Muslim Brothers also performed terrorist acts inside of Egypt, which led to a ban on the movement by the Egyptian government. A Muslim Brother assassinated the Prime Minister of Egypt, Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi, on December 28, 1948. Al-Banna himself was killed by government agents in Cairo in February, 1949.

In 1954, Abdul Munim Abdul Rauf, a Brotherhood activist, attempted to assassinate the widely popular Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and was executed, along with five other Brothers. Four thousand Brothers were also arrested, and thousands more fled to Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon.

Although officially banned by the Egyptian government since 1954, the Muslim Brothers have captured 17 seats in the Egyptian Parliament running as independents in recent years, in addition to holding important offices in professional organizations (syndicates) in Egypt.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The Muslim Brotherhood is an old age organization of Egypt. It was the spark for many radical movements in the Middle East including Hamas.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is similar to what the IRA was in Northern Ireland. Both have political wings. The IRA morphed into its political arm. Muslim brotherhood in Egypt is (for all practical purposes) an illegal political party and a sometimes violent revolutionary movement.

Although related, other movements also called Muslim Brotherhood threatened Saddam, Assad of Syria, and Hussein of Jordan. Assad has a simple way of (probably) saving his secular government from that Muslim Brotherhood. Assad is alleged to have surrounded Muslim Brotherhood towns and massacred 10,000 people - everyone including women and children.

Hamas (not to be confused with Hezbollah), bin Laden's Al Qaeda and another complete different entity called “Al Qaeda in Iraq” are more versions of a larger fundamentalist movement by the same name - called Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas, for example is completely different. Hamas has a fundamental rule to not harm Americans.

Welcome to "Making of a Quagmire - 2003" where our own leaders will even intentionally confuse all into a common enemy for propaganda purposes. Two greatest enemies - Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by Goerge Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. Obviously not true. Poltical lies are more important than honestly identifying 'real' and 'mythical' enemies.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Welcome to "Making of a Quagmire - 2003" where our own leaders will even intentionally confuse all into a common enemy for propaganda purposes. Two greatest enemies - Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by Goerge Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. Obviously not true. Poltical lies are more important than honestly identifying 'real' and 'mythical' enemies.

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation. You. You know, the kooky peddler of half truths at most? Indeed, you're righter than you know in your next sentence -- but we know this kind of lie is what's important to you, that you may exercise your penchant for tilting at straw-men of your own constructing. You alone. By yourself. Utterly isolated in your inanition and generally laughed at. Were you a scholar of social matters you would know you couldn't even say George Jr., for that requires a name be reproduced in toto. Bush the younger -- that would have been something you could have used to far better effect, but oh, no. You don't. I suspect you simply can't. That's why I'm so much better a man than you'll ever be -- I don't suffer from the neurosis that plagues you, quite aside from your rigidly antipatriot mindset.

Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all, despite this being a leftist shibboleth to which you fanatically adhere in the face of the evidence -- both parties were quite willing to explore a relationship and documentation exists on this point. That it did not come to any great fruition except for a nice hospital stay for al-Zarqawi seems chiefly because we intervened in 2003 and not, say, 2005.

As long as you remain as you are, tw, you are doomed not merely to dwell on the wrong side of history -- you shall personify it.

Wanna have a stab at "honestly identifying" real enemies? Of the foreign variety only, please. (Watch him ignore an opportunity to be constructive.)

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation. You. You know, the kooky peddler of half truths at most? Indeed, you're righter than you know in your next sentence -- but we know this kind of lie is what's important to you, that you may exercise your penchant for tilting at straw-men of your own constructing. You alone. By yourself. Utterly isolated in your inanition and generally laughed at. Were you a scholar of social matters you would know you couldn't even say George Jr., for that requires a name be reproduced in toto. Bush the younger -- that would have been something you could have used to far better effect, but oh, no. You don't. I suspect you simply can't. That's why I'm so much better a man than you'll ever be -- I don't suffer from the neurosis that plagues you, quite aside from your rigidly antipatriot mindset.

Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all, despite this being a leftist shibboleth to which you fanatically adhere in the face of the evidence -- both parties were quite willing to explore a relationship and documentation exists on this point. That it did not come to any great fruition except for a nice hospital stay for al-Zarqawi seems chiefly because we intervened in 2003 and not, say, 2005.

As long as you remain as you are, tw, you are doomed not merely to dwell on the wrong side of history -- you shall personify it.

Wanna have a stab at "honestly identifying" real enemies? Of the foreign variety only, please. (Watch him ignore an opportunity to be constructive.)

You're right, bush never said the words 'Iraq is working with al-Qa'ida.' But he and his friends DID say the following:

A) The war on terror is a threat to our existence.
B) Al-Qa'ida is the terrorist group that is leading the pack.
C) We have to go into Iraq to make it safe from terrorism.

Anyone would connect the dots to think Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida. Then when GW said in a tisy of contempt that he never implied the two were working together. That's funny, an entire country THOUGHT that's what you meant. How stupid of us ALL to get it wrong. I have no doubt that this was engineered to give credence to the whole idea. They do this sort of thing all the time.

And no, al-Qa'ida was not working with the Iraqi government. Saddam hated terrorists, he saw them as a threat that is to volatile to control (funny, he seems to be right about that. If only WE'D figure that out). In fact all this crap about Zarqawi being so beloved by His Lunacy is absurd. They talked with one another, but there was no working relationship whatsoever. Saddam tried on many occasions to blow his ass up, in fact.

Think about it like this: why the hell would Saddam Hussein want to inflame tensions with the US? He didn't give a damn, the only annoyance he had was the no fly zones. It was in no way in his interest to piss the US off into invading. That's probably why he got rid of all his chemical weapons between the late nineties and 2003. He balked us to show strength, not to get us to attack.