[abe]

I was reading about the kidnapping and murder - and this really was a murder - of journalist Steven Vincent who was covering the war from the city of Basra and was moved to post this not only as tribute to him but because this article, discussing his death, describes an aspect of the war that our liberal, left wing, democrat war opposing posters may not have yet grasped.

They, YOU, have said you understand and agree with Afghanistan but you ask, "why IRAQ?"

There's a sentence that explains it differently than I think has been presented here in the P/L so far.

From FoxNews: American Journalist Killed in Iraq.

BASRA, Iraq — An American freelance journalist, who accused Basra's police of being infiltrated by Shiite militiamen in a recent New York Times column and his Internet blog, was found shot to death in the southern city after being abducted by armed men driving a police car.
Steven Vincent, whose work also has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, and his female Iraqi translator were abducted at gunpoint by five men Tuesday evening as they left a currency exchange shop, police Lt. Col. Karim al-Zaidi said Wednesday.

Vincent's body was discovered Tuesday night on the side of the highway south of Basra. He had been shot in the head and body, al-Zaidi said. ...

In an opinion column published July 31 in the Times, Vincent wrote that Basra's police force had been heavily infiltrated by members of Shiite political groups, including those loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Vincent quoted an unidentified Iraqi police lieutenant as saying that some police were behind many of the assassinations of former Baath Party members that have taken place in Basra.

"He told me that there is even a sort of 'death car' — a white Toyota Mark II that glides through the city streets, carrying off-duty police officers in the pay of extremist religious groups to their next assignment," he wrote.

Vincent also was critical of the British military, which is responsible for security in Basra, for turning a blind eye to abuses of power by Shiite extremists in the city.

He was the author of "In the Red Zone: A Journey Into the Soul of Iraq," a recently published book that was an account of life in a post-Saddam Iraq.

His blog from Iraq — In the Red Zone — chronicled his experiences in Basra from late May to late July. The entries, written as letters to his wife, Lisa, were rich in detail and often humorous.

The quote in the cartoon is from Vincent's book. More of the quote can be read in this No Pasaran post, which also referred to a Dreams Into Lightning post containing many other informative links. For instance, in a FrontPageMag.com interview, Vincent elaborates on the "words matter" topic:

The most despicable misuse of terminology, however, occurs when Leftists call the Saddamites and foreign jihadists “the resistance.” What an example of moral inversion! For the fact is, paramilitary death squads are attacking the Iraqi people. And those who oppose the killers -- the Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, members of the Allawi government, people like Nour [an Iraqi woman who assisted him] -- they are the “resistance.” They are preventing Islamofascists from seizing Iraq, they are resisting evil men from turning the entire nation into a mass slaughterhouse like we saw in re-liberated Falluja. Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofascism—or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought—should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language.

At The Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick has a must-read eulogy: From Vincent to van Gogh (via Free Thoughts).

On Tuesday evening freelance American journalist Steven Vincent was kidnapped and murdered in Basra. Vincent, who in pre-September 11 America earned his living as an art critic, set out to fight this war after he watched the Twin Towers explode from his rooftop in the East Village in Manhattan. And Tuesday he gave his life in the fight.

Vincent did not join the army. He took up his pen and he went to Iraq in the wake of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime by the US-led coalition in the spring of 2003. No one sent him there. He heard the call to battle from his rooftop that terrible morning and he answered it in the only way he knew. He became a chronicler of post-Saddam Iraq. ...

What came through clearly in his writings is that Vincent grasped that the global jihad, as it manifested itself in New York and Washington on September 11 and as it manifests itself on a daily basis in Iraq and indeed throughout the world, is rooted not in terrorism but in culture and religion. And the only way for the US and the rest of the free world to emerge victorious in this war is to expose and destroy the cultural base that spurs millions of Muslims throughout the world to kill and destroy and to support killing and destruction in the name of Islam.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000638.html

Where military force is the only way and/or the last resort, we should use force. But force doesn't have to be the only way of getting behind the religious and cultural bastions that breed global jihad and diluting the hatred at it's core.

But, in the case of Iraq and Saddam, considering his history of non-compliance and his hatred of the West, his personal ambitions and tightly controlled reign of terror there was no other way to affect his ability to export terror in a timely manner than through the threat and subsequent use of force.

The roots of global jihad existed behind the walls of Saddam's rule. He could send terrorism out from behind those walls but we couldn't affect his ability to create terrorism and export it. The money he sent to the families of Palestinian terrorists was but a telltale sign of his intent and willingness to support or foment or export terror if left unopposed.

The fact that we don't have 'smoking gun' proof should give us all a big sigh of relief because NONE of you can say Saddam wasn't going to eventually take advantage of our past history and inclinations (cut and run, ignore mounting terror threats, inattention and etc.) to successfully mount SOME kind of terror attack.

And none of you can say you knew for a fact he didn't have WMD's at the ready in the weeks before the invasion.

He had the wherewithal and he had the motive all he needed was the opportunity and as our performance in the Iraq war and in the debate over port security has shown, he would have been presented an opportunity in short order.

For us to have a chance to positively affect the culture and religion in Iraq we would have needed Saddam's cooperation. It wasn't going to happen. He wanted to hurt us, not help us.
He wanted to export terrorism not stop terrorism. It was this desire of his to develop and export terror that we had to protect against. We had no way of knowing if he was
I----------------------------------------------I this close, or this close I ---I to hitting Israel or us.

Global jihad is rooted in culture and religion and the only way to protect Israel and ourselves from Saddam's terror roots was to tear away what stood in the way.

Iraq had to be invaded for many different reasons. This thread is to highlight yet one more of those reasons.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe

And none of you can say you knew for a fact he didn't have WMD's at the ready in the weeks before the invasion.

The Onus of Proof http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philos...HILOS.07A.html

As empty claims are cognitively meaningless, the only subjects open to discussion are those where there is real evidence. In that case, the task facing any rational mind is to determine the best explanation of the evidence. There is no other basis for a decision. Therefore, the question of the onus of proof does not arise: the onus of proof is always on the evidence. But if the evidence is inconclusive, which explanation should you decide on (assuming you must make a decision)?

The only way we can learn about reality is by the way it impinges on us. Something that does not exist cannot affect us, so an absence of evidence is already a prima facie case for denial. Therefore, the onus of proof lies on the side which proposes the existence of something, not on the side which denies it. To earn the right to be taken seriously, the proposer must indicate how the thing will impinge on us: thus allowing the idea to be tested, bringing it into the realm of evidence. This is also why the simplest hypothesis is to be preferred, other evidence being equal ("Occam's Razor").

[Millennium]

Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle; it's only a guideline for experimentation. Ironically, the people who most often invoke Occam's Razor seem to forget this.

Besides which, the search was for evidence that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD. There should have been records of destruction or transport elsewhere. Small traces should have been found in the facilities. None ever were. They seem to have mysteriously vanished. Can you honestly say that this smells right?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by abe

For us to have a chance to positively affect the culture and religion in Iraq we would have needed Saddam's cooperation. It wasn't going to happen. He wanted to hurt us, not help us.
He wanted to export terrorism not stop terrorism. It was this desire of his to develop and export terror that we had to protect against. We had no way of knowing if he was
I----------------------------------------------I this close, or this close I ---I to hitting Israel or us.

Global jihad is rooted in culture and religion and the only way to protect Israel and ourselves from Saddam's terror roots was to tear away what stood in the way.

Iraq had to be invaded for many different reasons. This thread is to highlight yet one more of those reasons.

I'm not sure why you think Saddam's promotion of a secular one party system and cult-of-personality strongman rule meant that the Iraqi regime was religiously and culturally predisposed to supporting international terrorism. But ok.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm not sure why you think Saddam's promotion of a secular one party system and cult-of-personality strongman rule meant that the Iraqi regime was religiously and culturally predisposed to supporting international terrorism. But ok.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Occam's Razor

AFAIK it's spelled Ockham's Razor, after the 14th-century William of Ockham who attacked some aspects of Aristotelian knowledge?

Perhaps there's alternate spellings, although I don't know what the purpose of that would be.

greg

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle

No problem. This isn't a scientific discussion.

Originally Posted by Millennium

Besides which, the search was for evidence that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD.

An interesting twisting of the intentions of the war. "We didn't go to find WMDs, we went not to find them!"

Originally Posted by Millennium

There should have been records of destruction or transport elsewhere. Small traces should have been found in the facilities. None ever were. They seem to have mysteriously vanished. Can you honestly say that this smells right?

No. But I'm glad Canadian soldiers aren't crawling around looking for "records."

[olePigeon]

I wonder what would've happend if he wrote articles criticizing Kim Jong-il, then went into the heart of North Korea asking people why Kim Jong-il sucks... while carying stacks of money.

Abe, I don't think anyone is arguing against doing something about extremists intent on killing Americans (and each other) for a horribly misinterpreted belief. You're confusing two different matters of objection, here. Whether it's Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, Americans in general just aren't popular in those regions.

While it takes an extremist to do these murders, you also need to analyze and criticize the U.S.' foreign policy. Why do they hate us so much? Do you honestly believe that invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of people is going to suddenly make them docile? Does this help any or convince people otherwise in other "terrorist" nations that America is there to bring peace and stability?

The U.S. is not a very friendly nation in terms of territory, and many people fighting the U.S. lead occupation really do have legitimate concerns about the U.S. influencing and changing their culture, and/or mantaining a permanent presence.

Unfortunately we are there now and it's gone to sh*t. So we need to get more forces in there and clean it up. More importantly, I think, is that after we've done that, we need to show a little faith and remove our forces from the country. I think that's extremely important. No U.S. embassy, either.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm not sure why you think Saddam's promotion of a secular one party system and cult-of-personality strongman rule meant that the Iraqi regime was religiously and culturally predisposed to supporting international terrorism. But ok.

This is all that needs to be said.

V

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

If a man stood near you and smacked you for no good reason how many chances would you give him until you moved away from him?

If he got a gun and began shooting at you such that moving would not guarantee your safety how long would it take you to get the court to issue a restraining order?

If he continually violated the restraining orders and kept buying guns and collecting the materials to build a 'Oklahoma City bomb' which he could put against your house while you slept, how long before you'd call the cops to investigate?

And though the cops couldn't find anything, you know he had so much acreage that he could hide these materials somewhere without it being discovered.

If you were busy dealing with other threats to your safety and realized there was no way you could guarantee this guy WASN'T about to attack you and you asked the cops to do something but they wouldn't, then would you be content to let him launch a sneak attack on you?

I believe that at EVERY HOUR OF THE DAY AND NIGHT the President has to know the level of threat that exists against this country from every known antagonist.

If Iraq was a question mark for a day, then a week and then a few months what would the SMART person think or FEEL?

Then, what SHOULD they do?

And all of this only months after 9/11 when we were the victims of the kind of errors in thinking that you say should have CONTINUED to be the case?

You must think ALL of America is as idiotic as you.

[abe]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'm not sure why you think Saddam's promotion of a secular one party system and cult-of-personality strongman rule meant that the Iraqi regime was religiously and culturally predisposed to supporting international terrorism. But ok.

If you come into an open forum and are aware of your ignorance and ask a question, I believe most anyone here, including myself, would accommodate your questions cordially.

When you arrive without doing your homework and purport to know of what you speak and adopt a position of moral superiority, it greatly grates.

Saddam was 'religious' enough when it suited his needs or desires or ambitions.

Payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Palaces built in Islamic style. His own calls to Arabs and Muslims to rise in jihad against the Americans.

This is from a PBS Frontline interview with R. James Woolsey, an attorney and former director of the C.I.A (1993-1995) who labels U.S. policy on Iraq over the past ten years "feckless." He strongly advocates a thorough investigation into Iraq's possible linkage to terrorist attacks against the U.S. and has sought to prove the Iraq connection in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He was interviewed in mid-october 2001.

FRONTLINE REPORTER: (Referring to Saddam) "And he wouldn't care whether it was a bunch of fundamentalists who did it?

WOOLSEY: He's, I think, perfectly happy to work with fundamentalists. People who say he would never work with fundamentalists are about 15 years out of date. He's restructured the Iraqi flag in his own calligraphy to show "Allah Akbar -- God is Great" across the face of it. That's roughly equivalent to, if during World War II when he finally decided he needed the Russian Orthodox Church, if Joseph Stalin had written in his own hand across the Soviet flag, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Saddam is a very cynical man, and he sees that some of the religious extremists are able to hurt the United States. He likes to see the United States hurt, so he'll make common cause with whoever he needs to.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/woolsey.html

Do your homework.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle; it's only a guideline for experimentation. Ironically, the people who most often invoke Occam's Razor seem to forget this.

Besides which, the search was for evidence that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD. There should have been records of destruction or transport elsewhere. Small traces should have been found in the facilities. None ever were. They seem to have mysteriously vanished. Can you honestly say that this smells right?

Well, if you can't smell anything, maybe there is nothing to smell? Like smoke requires some kind of fire, right?

If it is not there, it is not. If it is there, then I guess it is, especially with a trustable third party to confirm that what I see is seen by someone else.

If you don't look at the Moon, is it there anyway? Yes, if you believe it should. If you deny the existence of things when you are not looking at them, then I guess that's OK, if that's your thing.

But by common agreement, the Moon is there: therefore, it must exist! But it exists, because we can see it, and others we decided to trust saw it as well! Had we not heard about it, we could never say anything but speculations about it.

Now, who saw those WMDs, and can we trust these people? How? Why should we trust those people?

[abe]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Some people should know better than to give immediate support to a notion that is so easily batted down by facts that one knows exists.

The only reason someone this clever would show such support in such a circumstance is to win an ally.

Who do you think SpaceMonkey is, Cindy Sheehan?



We see you trying to recruit him.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe

You must think ALL of America is as idiotic as you.

abe, I'm just glad "ALL of America" isn't as idiotic as you.

Next time, please wash those filthy hands before shoving words in my mouth. Thanks.

[BRussell]

What came through clearly in his writings is that Vincent grasped that the global jihad, as it manifested itself in New York and Washington on September 11 and as it manifests itself on a daily basis in Iraq and indeed throughout the world, is rooted not in terrorism but in culture and religion. And the only way for the US and the rest of the free world to emerge victorious in this war is to expose and destroy the cultural base that spurs millions of Muslims throughout the world to kill and destroy and to support killing and destruction in the name of Islam.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. It's a war on (violent) jihad, it's a culture war. And the worst thing in the world we could have done was to invade Iraq, because it drives Muslims into violent jihad even further.

I liked your lawn-care analogy much better. And that's saying a lot.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by abe

If a man stood near you and smacked you for no good reason how many chances would you give him until you moved away from him?

And, what if "no good reason" meant that you had been poking him for a few decades?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations

Hmmm?

greg

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe

If a man stood near you and smacked you for no good reason how many chances would you give him until you moved away from him?

If he got a gun and began shooting at you such that moving would not guarantee your safety how long would it take you to get the court to issue a restraining order?

If he continually violated the restraining orders and kept buying guns and collecting the materials to build a 'Oklahoma City bomb' which he could put against your house while you slept, how long before you'd call the cops to investigate?

And though the cops couldn't find anything, you know he had so much acreage that he could hide these materials somewhere without it being discovered.

If you were busy dealing with other threats to your safety and realized there was no way you could guarantee this guy WASN'T about to attack you and you asked the cops to do something but they wouldn't, then would you be content to let him launch a sneak attack on you?

Am I reading this "parable" correctly? Are you saying that after "you asked the cops to do something but they wouldn't," that you would be justified in invading this man's home and killing him?

What do you call this: the parable of the paranoid vigilante? God, I'm so glad we're not next-door neighbors.

Besides, if someone was shooting at me, the last thing I would be concerned about is getting a restraining order. (Your "parables" really suck.)

[abe]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I wonder what would've happend if he wrote articles criticizing Kim Jong-il, then went into the heart of North Korea asking people why Kim Jong-il sucks... while carying stacks of money.

There are things you just don't do if you value your life. Becoming a war correspondent in Iraq is one of them. But for him to be murdered isn't right and the supposition that, 'all's fair in war' is somewhat like saying that the Abu Ghraib tortures were just part of the game. And after reading the rest of your post I see that's not what you are saying. Nonetheless, I want the principle stated. We mustn't allow these things to be taken for granted.

Abe, I don't think anyone is arguing against doing something about extremists intent on killing Americans (and each other) for a horribly misinterpreted belief. You're confusing two different matters of objection, here. Whether it's Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, Americans in general just aren't popular in those regions.

While it takes an extremist to do these murders, you also need to analyze and criticize the U.S.' foreign policy. Why do they hate us so much? Do you honestly believe that invading Iraq and killing tens of thousands of people is going to suddenly make them docile? Does this help any or convince people otherwise in other "terrorist" nations that America is there to bring peace and stability?

The U.S. is not a very friendly nation in terms of territory, and many people fighting the U.S. lead occupation really do have legitimate concerns about the U.S. influencing and changing their culture, and/or mantaining a permanent presence.

Unfortunately we are there now and it's gone to sh*t. So we need to get more forces in there and clean it up. More importantly, I think, is that after we've done that, we need to show a little faith and remove our forces from the country. I think that's extremely important. No U.S. embassy, either.

You make some valid points. But do we allow or condone every bad thing that comes about from a less than enlightened foreign policy?

If I leave my Rolex on the hood of my car while changing into my running togs do I have to accept the loss when Dave Bowie comes along and swipes it?

Now that the Iraqis are trying to build their country strong and free should that mean we should allow the people who want to take over to do so, just because we are not perfect?



My fingers are sore from all the links and info I've posted these past few weeks pointing to how the US has finally found the keys to winning this. It IS winnable. There IS precedent for it. It HAS been tried and proven in Iraq on a division-wide level and it HAS been adopted and IS being implemented throughout the country.

The Iraqi military is taking the lead in defending their own nation and increasingly we are there only to help provide back up and support and sometimes guidance. But as time goes on there's even less need for that.

Here's a point where you might start to discover what progress has been made and how the war in Iraq has never been more hopeful there than it is now.

Results 1 - 30 of about 232,000 for John Nagl. (0.51 seconds)

ParaPundit: Peter Maass On Major John Nagl, Counterinsurgency ...
Peter Maass On Major John Nagl, Counterinsurgency Scholar In Iraq. US Major John Nagl, who has studied counterinsurgency at Oxford, is now in Iraq serving ...
www.parapundit.com/archives/001889.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazon.com: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam ...
“John Nagl takes a fresh look at the differences in the organizational culture of the ... John Nagl is not only a scholar of the first rank, a soldier with ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ tg/detail/-/0275976955?v=glance - 141k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazon.com: Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife : Counterinsurgency ...
John Nagl asked this question before it was "cool" - before the pundits of CNN or MSNBC ... LTC John Nagl is a West Point graduate (and in the interests of ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ tg/detail/-/0226567702?v=glance - 143k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.amazon.com ]

USMA In The News
John Nagl approaches war pragmatically and philosophically, as a soldier and a scholar. He graduated close to the top of his West Point class in 1988 and ...
www.usma.edu/publicaffairs/ directorscorner/NYTNaglJan04.htm - 56k - Cached - Similar pages

[PPT] Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: British and American Army ...
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint 97 - View as HTML
Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya, Vietnam, and Iraq. LTC John Nagl. US Army. November 2005. Making “war upon rebellion was messy and slow, ...
www.ksg.harvard.edu/cchrp/Use%20of%20Force/ Presentations/Nagl,%20John.PPT - Similar pages

Welcome to the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
LTC John Nagl, USA, Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense ... Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl (Panel One: Great Powers and Irregular Challenges) ...
www.ksg.harvard.edu/cchrp/COIN.shtml - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

Author Experts — www.greenwood.com
LTC John Nagl is a military assistant in the office of the Deputy Secretary of ... He has been selected to command a tank battalion. Books by John Nagl ...
www.greenwood.com/news/authorExperts.aspx?id=25 - 24k - Cached - Si

Results 1 - 30 of about 75,100 for Lewis Sorley. (0.22 seconds)
Sorley, Lewis
About The Author - Lewis Sorley ... Born August 3, 1934, in West Point, NY; son of Merrow E. (a soldier) and Louise (Barnes) Sorley; married second wife, ...
http://www.tuvy.com/resource/books/a...ley_Lewis.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

A Better War
"In his illuminating narrative of Creighton Abram's war, Lewis Sorley ... "Lewis Sorley has done a great job making sense out of a complex piece of history. ...
www.tuvy.com/resource/books/a/A_Better_War.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Honorable Warrior
Lewis Sorley's biography provides a fitting testament to this remarkable man, ... LEWIS SORLEY is a third-generation West Point graduate who served in ...
www.kansaspress.ku.edu/sorhon.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazon.com: A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and the Final ...
by Lewis Sorley "WHEN, IN JANUARY 1964, General William C. Westmoreland was ... Lewis Sorley deflates each and every one of these truisms and helps to tell ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ tg/detail/-/0151002665?v=glance - 145k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazon.com: Profile For Lewis Sorley: Reviews
A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and the Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam by Lewis Sorley Edition: Hardcover. Price: $28.00 ...
www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/ AVUUQW0H8NHLH?_encoding=UTF8 - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

BrothersJudd.com - Review of Lewis Sorley's A Better War : The ...
BrothersJudd.com reviews Lewis Sorley's A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and the Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam - Grade: A.
www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/ fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/829 - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

BrothersJudd.com - Books by Lewis Sorley reviewed
BrothersJudd.com reviews books by Lewis Sorley (eg,A Better War : The Unexamined Victories and the Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam ...
www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/ fuseaction/reviews.authlist/author_id/727 - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Veterans Day 02 / Lewis Sorley
Culver, IN, Indiana, Gradschools, USA, United States, Culver, Culver Academies, Culver Military Academies, CMA, CGA,Indiana Schools, Boarding School, ...
www.culver.org/alumni/special_events/ VeteransDay02_Sorley.asp - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

PBS: Think Tank: Biography: Lewis Sorley
Lewis Sorley. Vietnam veteran and author of "A Better War, the Unexamined ... Lewis Sorley has appeared on:. Vietnam Revisited: The Myths of the War ...
www.pbs.org/thinktank/bio_1953.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Next time, please wash those filthy hands before shoving words in my mouth. Thanks.

But, but...I wore finger cots.

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Am I reading this "parable" correctly? Are you saying that after "you asked the cops to do something but they wouldn't," that you would be justified in invading this man's home and killing him?

What do you call this: the parable of the paranoid vigilante? God, I'm so glad we're not next-door neighbors.

Besides, if someone was shooting at me, the last thing I would be concerned about is getting a restraining order. (Your "parables" really suck.)

I explore every possible way I can to help bring a ray of enlightenment to your dreary, boring ignorance you but you are stubborn.

My best stuff is already on these pages, somewhere. You, having failed to catch on til now, are left with my "B" material.

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I couldn't agree more with this statement. It's a war on (violent) jihad, it's a culture war. And the worst thing in the world we could have done was to invade Iraq, because it drives Muslims into violent jihad even further.

I liked your lawn-care analogy much better. And that's saying a lot.

Yes, it was inspired wasn't it?

Almost as inspired as this cartoon, which illustrates the role that some of the posters here play.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by abe

If a man stood near you and smacked you for no good reason how many chances would you give him until you moved away from him?

If he got a gun and began shooting at you such that moving would not guarantee your safety how long would it take you to get the court to issue a restraining order?

If he continually violated the restraining orders and kept buying guns and collecting the materials to build a 'Oklahoma City bomb' which he could put against your house while you slept, how long before you'd call the cops to investigate?

And though the cops couldn't find anything, you know he had so much acreage that he could hide these materials somewhere without it being discovered.

If you were busy dealing with other threats to your safety and realized there was no way you could guarantee this guy WASN'T about to attack you and you asked the cops to do something but they wouldn't, then would you be content to let him launch a sneak attack on you?

I believe that at EVERY HOUR OF THE DAY AND NIGHT the President has to know the level of threat that exists against this country from every known antagonist.

If Iraq was a question mark for a day, then a week and then a few months what would the SMART person think or FEEL?

Then, what SHOULD they do?

And all of this only months after 9/11 when we were the victims of the kind of errors in thinking that you say should have CONTINUED to be the case?

You must think ALL of America is as idiotic as you.

You must think ALL of America is as afraid as you.

I for one, am not. I do not live in constant fear of the next big attack.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by abe

If you come into an open forum and are aware of your ignorance and ask a question, I believe most anyone here, including myself, would accommodate your questions cordially.

When you arrive without doing your homework and purport to know of what you speak and adopt a position of moral superiority, it greatly grates.

Saddam was 'religious' enough when it suited his needs or desires or ambitions.

This is exactly my point. I did not claim that Iraq has not been linked to international terrorism. Saddam was an opportunist. He made payments in support of Palestinian suicide bombers because he wanted to be seen as the defender of all Arabs, a regional strongman. But there is nothing in this that is a cultural or religious predisposition to support international terrorism. He supported it for practical purposes, not self-subscribed religious ideology. Treating Iraq as part of an enemy civilization that is culturally predisposed to international terrorism, which seems to be your argument here, does not make sense. Baathist Iraq's motivations and goals can be evaluated and reacted to in their own right--it is not necessary, nor desirable, to lump them in with the Taliban Afghanistan as elemental members of a "Global Jihad."

EDIT: Also, don't call me out on "moral superiority" and then ask me to beg for enlightenment by you. That really grates. We're both intelligent people--let's leave it at that. I don't plan on being "recruited" by anybody.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

And, what if "no good reason" meant that you had been poking him for a few decades?

Well, everyone who gets poked by another should resort to terrorism, huh?

We tried EVERYTHING we could to get Saddam to disarm.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe

I explore every possible way I can to help bring a ray of enlightenment to your dreary, boring ignorance you but you are stubborn.

Originally Posted by abe

My best stuff is already on these pages, somewhere. You, having failed to catch on til now, are left with my "B" material.

B? You overestimate your material.

[abe]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

You must think ALL of America is as afraid as you.

I for one, am not. I do not live in constant fear of the next big attack.

Face it. That refusal to recognize danger works very nicely on TV or in the movies.

And it is admirable in a practical way, but only up to a point.

When you continue living your life it is the ultimate statement of defiance to the terrorists. "You wanted to make me afraid? Well, look! I'm NOT afraid. So THERE!"

Cool.

But, you go one step too far if you don't take an interest in MAKING SURE you can back up your bold statement.

If you are bold and foolish you say, "I'm not afraid and will not take steps to thwart you."

And so the enemy who would destroy you will laugh as he takes advantage of your proud defiance until it proves to be hubris. And you are destroyed.

There are some people who just have no sense for national security.

If you would adopt the role of a proud American who is unbowed by terrorists, I will applaud you.

If you say there is no threat and that anyone who believes there is is paranoid...

I'd respond that the people who are concerned with and even OBSESSED with keeping you safe might be offended at your attitude about their level of devotion to duty.

I'm reminded of what Jack once said...

Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

B? You overestimate your material.

I UNDERESTIMATED the persistence of your love.

Your love of intellectual vacuity.

[lpkmckenna]

Leave it to abe to quote from the villain of a movie to prove his point. That is genuine irony.

Since you misunderstood it, abe: Colonel Jessop thought his role as a leader entitled him to make any decision he felt like making, even if it was to the deliberate detriment of his own troops. Kinda like what is going on in Iraq right now.

A lot like it, in fact.

[Nicko]

I love the daily show. I'm sorry, what was this thread about?

[abe]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

This is exactly my point. I did not claim that Iraq has not been linked to international terrorism. Saddam was an opportunist. He made payments in support of Palestinian suicide bombers because he wanted to be seen as the defender of all Arabs, a regional strongman. But there is nothing in this that is a cultural or religious predisposition to support international terrorism. He supported it for practical purposes, not self-subscribed religious ideology. Treating Iraq as part of an enemy civilization that is culturally predisposed to international terrorism, which seems to be your argument here, does not make sense. Baathist Iraq's motivations and goals can be evaluated and reacted to in their own right--it is not necessary, nor desirable, to lump them in with the Taliban Afghanistan as elemental members of a "Global Jihad."

EDIT: Also, don't call me out on "moral superiority" and then ask me to beg for enlightenment by you. That really grates. We're both intelligent people--let's leave it at that. I don't plan on being "recruited" by anybody.

Originally Posted by abe
For us to have a chance to positively affect the culture and religion in Iraq we would have needed Saddam's cooperation. It wasn't going to happen. He wanted to hurt us, not help us.
He wanted to export terrorism not stop terrorism. It was this desire of his to develop and export terror that we had to protect against. We had no way of knowing if he was
I----------------------------------------------I this close, or this close I ---I to hitting Israel or us.

Global jihad is rooted in culture and religion and the only way to protect Israel and ourselves from Saddam's terror roots was to tear away what stood in the way.

Iraq had to be invaded for many different reasons. This thread is to highlight yet one more of those reasons.

I'm not sure why you think Saddam's promotion of a secular one party system and cult-of-personality strongman rule meant that the Iraqi regime was religiously and culturally predisposed to supporting international terrorism. But ok.

In trying to understand Saddam and the threat he posed I fear some folks erect certain guidelines and principles which they assert would have governed his behavior.

I refute most of those constructs as being training wheels for those who can't fathom the strengths or the depravities of the man. I place my belief in Saddam's pragmatism, his guile, his history as a survivor and I believe he was without most of the principles some of you would attribute to him when it came to allowing, supporting, conceiving, encouraging, fostering, hiding, championing, funding and/or collaborating with almost anyone who was willing to hurt the USA and Israel AND/OR help advance his ambitions and dreams of conquest.

Religious constructs which might be used now by some to explain Saddam's behavior or how he might have behaved don't stand up under scrutiny.

That's MY point.

And those fundamental Islamic terrorist related elements that existed within the borders of his country that may have operated without his active participation nonetheless benefited from his national defense.

Just as our Homeland Security also protects any would-be terrorists living in America from being killed by terrorist attacks from outside our borders, Saddam's military prevented the WoT from penetrating to negate those terrorists within Iraq.

As long as they didn't conduct terror operations against Saddam within the country, he wouldn't care about their leaving to blow up Americans and then returning to Iraq to plan their NEXT operation.

For us to engage those people, and address the religious or cultural seeds of those terrorists who conducted (or would so) global jihad we had to get past the firewall of Saddam.

You undress before bathing so that the soap and water will get ALL of you clean.

Saddam was keeping the WoT from cleaning out the OTHER terror elements in Iraq as well as Saddam being a big dirty unknown dirty element that we had to keep from doing who knew what to us or Israel.

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Leave it to abe to quote from the villain of a movie to prove his point. That is genuine irony.

Since you misunderstood it, abe: Colonel Jessop thought his role as a leader entitled him to make any decision he felt like making, even if it was to the deliberate detriment of his own troops. Kinda like what is going on in Iraq right now.

A lot like it, in fact.

[img]http://www.lisarein.com/daily/10-27-03-daily-irony-1.jpg

Jon Stewart's news is kinda like the real news. A lot like it, in fact.

Col. Jessop broke the law. He went too far. Up until then he was right.

Leave it to liberals to overlook THE most obvious point of the film. A GREAT and greatly flawed character. A heroic and yet tragic figure.

His is a cautionary tale that you, just like The Daily Show, ALMOST gets right.

Good thing I'm here.

[abe]

Originally Posted by voodoo

This is all that needs to be said.

V

Your one dimensional view of Saddam does him no justice.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I couldn't agree more with this statement. It's a war on (violent) jihad, it's a culture war. And the worst thing in the world we could have done was to invade Iraq, because it drives Muslims into violent jihad even further.

Can you expound on your opinion on how the Iraq war was the worst possible choice? It's a silly claim to make, so I would like to see you try to justify it. And as for further incitement of Muslims, the Muslim world was already in a state of Jihad. The furor over the Danish cartoons should be proof enough of that fact. In fact, if you look back in history you'll see that there have been very few periods since the birth of Islam in the 7th Century CE in which there has not been a Jihadist campaign of some kind. The Crusades were a reaction to Jihadist incursions into Europe, for example, and Jews in the Holy Land were slaughtered by Jihadists decades before Israel's independence.

Some Americans may forget the fact that Islamic terrorists struck at our country prior to 9/11 or the first WTC bombing in 1993. If you're not aware of it, you should read up on the tragic incident of the Marines' barracks bombing of 1983. A lot of the action movies of the 1980s have plots involving Islamic terrorists because that was a recognized threat even then; Hollywood was a bit less politically correct not too long ago. Perhaps the end of the Cold War, coupled with 1990s prosperity, caused Americans to take a myopic view of the threat posed by terrorism, but that threat never dissipated. Indeed, after demonstrating for decades an apparent lack of firm will to respond to various terrorist acts, it was inevitable that we would suffer far more destructive attacks in the near future. Believe what you wish, but the fact remains that radical Islam declared war on America long ago.

But even if you wish to dispute historical fact, radical Muslims use any pretext available to claim they have been slighted, so that they can excuse their barbaric campaigns violence and terrorism.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Crusades were a reaction to Jihadist incursions into Europe, for example, and Jews in the Holy Land were slaughtered by Jihadists decades before Israel's independence.

About the Jews in Palestine. You are sort of wrong. No attacks were recorded on Jews in Palestine until it was obvious that they were attempting to create an independent state on Arab land.

The Shaw Commission observed:

"In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents. It is obvious then that the relations between the two races during the past decade must have differed in some material respect from those which previously obtained. Of this we found ample evidence. The reports of the Military Court and of the local Commission which, in 1920 and in 1921 respectively, enquired into the disturbances of those years, drew attention to the change in the attitude of the Arab population towards the Jews in Palestine. This was borne out by the evidence tendered during our inquiry when representatives of all parties told us that before the War the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which to-day is almost unknown in Palestine"

If you're not aware of it, you should read up on the tragic incident of the Marines' barracks bombing of 1983.

In a war, an attack on military installations is not terrorism. It's a part of that war.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

In fact, if you look back in history you'll see that there have been very few periods since the birth of Islam in the 7th Century CE in which there has not been a Jihadist campaign of some kind.

In fact if you look back in history you will find that every state has been on a war-campaign of some kind. The difference is only that islamic states called their wars "jihads", in order to put a religious touch on it, since in orthodox Islam, every human act has to be in some form religiously legitimised.

To espescially pick out islamic states and empires for their wars is pretty lame.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by abe

But, but...I wore finger cots.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahhaha

[analogika]

Originally Posted by abe

Jon Stewart's news is kinda like the real news. A lot like it, in fact.

Col. Jessop broke the law. He went too far. Up until then he was right.

Leave it to liberals to overlook THE most obvious point of the film. A GREAT and greatly flawed character. A heroic and yet tragic figure.

Col. Jessop was NOT a figure of sympathy.

He was a complete asshole who routinely and systemically approved of policies detrimental to his subordinates, and the only reason he was finally brought to justice was because he FINALLY admitted this in public when pushed.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by abe

Well, everyone who gets poked by another should resort to terrorism, huh?

Of course not. I'm just pointing out that there's a big difference between "hits for no good reason" and "hitting back"

Originally Posted by abe

We tried EVERYTHING we could to get Saddam to disarm.

Everything, yes, including invade the country, putting innocent lives at risk, only to prove that he had gotten rid of his weapons (just unable to prove how he got rid of them)

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Nicko

I love the daily show. I'm sorry, what was this thread about?

Who knows. Even the thread starter doesn't seem to.

John Stewart is a very funny guy btw.

V

[abe]

Originally Posted by analogika

Col. Jessop was NOT a figure of sympathy.

He was a complete asshole who routinely and systemically approved of policies detrimental to his subordinates, and the only reason he was finally brought to justice was because he FINALLY admitted this in public when pushed.

It's remarkable that you could be wrong TWICE with one reply!

First, I never said he was a sympathetic figure.

Secondly, I think he IS sympathetic in the way he had to finally be taken down (in a figurative sense) by a 'liberal' plot device. Like a white person in a film dying of cycle-cell. It just doesn't figure or fit. There's a sadness that Jessop would be tripped up in court by Mr. Maverick Placenta by supposedly losing control of his emotions such that he would incriminate himself.

It just seems a shame that Jack would go down THAT way. A real Col. Jessop would still be on that wall in real life.

I think it takes special kinds of people to be good cops, good trial attorneys, good warriors and good sentinels. I believe there must be something within them, something that goes beyond training or experience, to make them really well suited for their calling.

Like a breed of dog which has certain characteristics at birth. You know that there really are hunting breeds, and it's not just an academic canine category when you see one example of a finely trained retriever at work. Sure, that fine example of dogdom was undoubtedly well trained and cared for and loved. But that same amount of time and attention spent caring and loving and teaching him or her would have been time misspent trying to get a herding dog to perform as well in the role of a hunting dog.

They have different instincts and characteristics from each other. And it doesn't matter that you may not like hunting. You may not like hunters. The act of jumping into freezing marshes to retrieve a wounded duck and bring it back alive and struggling and bleeding and filthy with water and slobber is not something that evokes warm and cuddly household pet-type emotions.

But as an example of what it is and what it does and how well it does it you have to respect it as a breed and in the particular.

Jessop isn't like a warm and cuddly Kevin Pollack, a sexy Demi or a jockish Maverick.

He IS the kind of guy we want and need on that wall. And he's perfect for it. And because it is not only part of his training but a large part of who he is that makes him so good at his job it IS a saddening thing to see him brought low. And I was torn between feeling glad that the truth came out in court as well as I was also very much affected by his hitting bottom that way.

So, while you may not have shed a tear for him because he wasn't the underdog I sympathized with him because he was a BIG DOG and now he's about to be put down.

Classic tragedy.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Of course not. I'm just pointing out that there's a big difference between "hits for no good reason" and "hitting back"


Everything, yes, including invade the country, putting innocent lives at risk, only to prove that he had gotten rid of his weapons (just unable to prove how he got rid of them)

Of course it's easy to say that NOW. If Israel had been attacked you'd be calling Bush an idiot for not preventing Saddam's aggression. "It was obvious," you'd cry, "that Saddam was trying to attack any way he could. W should have forseen it!"

I've mentioned it a couple of times here before and NO ONE has picked up on it so I'll make sure you become cognizant of a plan called...

"Blessed July"
One of the Saddam documents details orders for an extensive terrorist operation.
by Thomas Joscelyn
03/24/2006 10:00:00 AM


SADDAM'S ULTRA-LOYAL Fedayeen martyrs were ordered to carry out bombings and assassinations in London, Iran, and "self ruled areas" of Iraq in May 1999, according to a newly released Iraqi intelligence document. One such operation, codenamed "Tamooz Mubarak" or "Blessed July," was apparently intended to hunt down Iraqi dissidents and bomb other unspecified locations.

Although a copy of the original document was not released, an English translation was published on the Foreign Military Studies Office's Joint Reserve Intelligence Center website yesterday. The site cautions, "the US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available." But, the document appears to be the same as one discussed by a team of military and defense analysts in Foreign Affairs magazine earlier this month.

The Fedayeen Saddam was established in the mid-1990s and its ranks were filled with recruits fanatically loyal to Saddam and his sons. Uday, Saddam's eldest son, was the group's commander throughout much of its existence. And according to the Foreign Affairs piece, it was Uday who issued the order for the "Blessed July" operations.

The document divides the "Blessed July" operations into two "branches," bombings and assassinations, and lays out specific steps for selecting and training 50 Fedayeen martyrs for these duties. The martyrs were to be admitted to a "seminar at the Intelligence School to prepare them for the required duties." Then, "after passing the final test," the martyrs were to be divided into three teams of ten (it is not clear what happens to the other 20). The first ten recruits "will work in the European field (London)," while the "second ten will be working in the Iranian field" and "the third ten will be working in the Self ruled area." Martyrs are even reminded to use "death capsules" if "captured at the European fields"--an apparent order to commit suicide if caught.

What targets did the martyrs plan on bombing? Did the Fedayeen Saddam carry out any of these operations? If so, when and where?

The document does not say. But, interestingly, the "Blessed July" operation appears to have been conceived within a broader mandate for future attacks. The translated document refers to "your Excellency's orders" (probably a reference to Uday) in May 1999 "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/Self ruled areas)."

The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) was ordered to provide logistical support for these missions, including selecting targets to attack. After completing the regime's training program, the document reads, "the fedayeens will be sent as undercover passengers, each one according to his work site, for the purpose of preparations and to acquire from and coordinate with the Intelligence Apparatus." Fedayeen Saddam was also ordered to coordinate "with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."

While the document does not say what came of Uday's order, it does raise a number of additional questions concerning the IIS's and Fedayeen Saddam's activities.

What were Saddam's henchmen doing prior to the war, exactly?

With each additional release of the Iraqi intelligence documents we learn more.

Thomas Joscelyn is an economist and writer living in New York.

© Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/009euijs.asp

Saturday, April 08, 2006

Saddam's Blessed July Operation

New Iraqi documents released by the Pentagon describe a "Blessed July" operation. The planned operation would have used 50 members of the fanatical "Fedayeen Saddam" group to stage bombings and assassinations in Iraq and Europe — including London, where 10 people were assigned.

Here is what Investors Business Daily says the released Pentagon documents have revealed so far:

To review:

Saddam is heard on a 1997 tape predicting terrorism would soon be coming to the U.S., while his son-in-law — who was in charge of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — gloats about lying to U.N. weapons inspectors to hide the extent of Iraq's WMD program.

Saddam, in a tape made in 2000, talks with Iraqi scientists about his plans to build a nuclear device. He discusses Iraq's plasma separation program — an advanced uranium-enrichment technique completely missed by U.N. inspectors.

An Iraqi intelligence document, released just two weeks ago, describes a February 1995 meeting between Saddam's spies and Osama bin Laden. During that meeting, bin Laden offered to conduct "joint operations" with Iraq. Saddam subsequently ordered his aides to "develop the relationship" with the al-Qaida leader.

A fax, sent on June 6, 2001, shows conclusively that Saddam's government provided financial aid to Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in the Philippines. Abu Sayyaf is an al-Qaida offshoot co-founded by bin Laden's brother-in-law.

These are just a few of the revelations about Saddam and terrorism to be found in a handful of documents and tapes.
This is just a small piece of the 48,000 boxes of intelligence that has been translated and released by intelligence officials so far.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...operation.html

Monday, April 10, 2006
Blessed July

In a few posts I've made meant to be a tribute to Virginia's and America's brave sons and daughters serving in the military, the ubiquitious multi-headed monster "Anonymous" has chimed in to ridicule the Iraq War and doubt Iraq's connections to terrorism.

I thought I'd pass this along, by Deroy Murdock, from the National Review (I've added some emphasis for reading ease)


The May-June 2006 Foreign Affairs cites a May 25, 1999, text titled "Fedayeen Saddam Instructions" in which Uday Hussein, the tyrant's older son, orders "special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas" [Kurdistan].

As authors Kevin Woods, James Lacey, and Williamson Murray observe, "Preparations for 'Blessed July,' a regime-directed wave of 'martyrdom' operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion."

President Bush repeatedly should remind everyone that Coalition forces liberated Iraq on April 9, 2003, less than three months before "Blessed July."

Here is a couple more:

Lebanese-born Joseph Shahda translated Document BIAP 2003-00654. Dated March 11, 2001, this top-secret letter is addressed "To all the Units" from Air Brigadier General Abdel Magid Hammot Ali, Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base, and Air Colonel Mohamad Majed Mohamadi. The subject is "Volunteer for Suicide Mission." It reads, "We ask to provide...[Command of Ali Military] Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests."


As former Clinton foreign-policy adviser Laurie Mylroie wrote April 2 on OpinionJournal.com, an order from Saddam Hussein dated January 18, 1993, reads: "Hunt Americans on Arab territory, particularly in Somalia." On October 3, 1993, Islamic zealots staged the so-called Blackhawk Down attack in Mogadishu, Somalia, killing 18 U.S. soldiers and wounding 73.

And, a real smoking gun about the build up to 9/11 ...

"The Iraqi Perspective Project," led by retired Army Lt. Colonel Kevin Woods for the U.S. Joint Forces Command, reviewed some of these papers and discovered an October 7, 2000, document titled "Correspondence from Presidential Office to Secretary General of the Fedayeen Saddam Regarding Foreign Arab Volunteers." The FS, as this document indicates, operated paramilitary training camps that hosted "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria" who were "sacrificing for the cause.

http://commonwealthwatch.blogspot.co...ssed-july.html

There!

Whattya say NOW!?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Who knows. Even the thread starter doesn't seem to.

John Stewart is a very funny guy btw.

V

In a smarmy sort of way.

Put Stewart in the room with Dennis Miller and John would cower in the corner.

No one beats Miller for political verbage.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe

It's remarkable that you could be wrong TWICE with one reply!

First, I never said he was a sympathetic figure.

Secondly, I think he IS sympathetic in the way he had to finally be taken down (in a figurative sense) by a 'liberal' plot device. Like a white person in a film dying of cycle-cell. It just doesn't figure or fit. There's a sadness that Jessop would be tripped up in court by Mr. Maverick Placenta by supposedly losing control of his emotions such that he would incriminate himself.

It just seems a shame that Jack would go down THAT way. A real Col. Jessop would still be on that wall in real life.

I think it takes special kinds of people to be good cops, good trial attorneys, good warriors and good sentinels. I believe there must be something within them, something that goes beyond training or experience, to make them really well suited for their calling.

Like a breed of dog which has certain characteristics at birth. You know that there really are hunting breeds, and it's not just an academic canine category when you see one example of a finely trained retriever at work. Sure, that fine example of dogdom was undoubtedly well trained and cared for and loved. But that same amount of time and attention spent caring and loving and teaching him or her would have been time misspent trying to get a herding dog to perform as well in the role of a hunting dog.

They have different instincts and characteristics from each other. And it doesn't matter that you may not like hunting. You may not like hunters. The act of jumping into freezing marshes to retrieve a wounded duck and bring it back alive and struggling and bleeding and filthy with water and slobber is not something that evokes warm and cuddly household pet-type emotions.

But as an example of what it is and what it does and how well it does it you have to respect it as a breed and in the particular.

Jessop isn't like a warm and cuddly Kevin Pollack, a sexy Demi or a jockish Maverick.

He IS the kind of guy we want and need on that wall. And he's perfect for it. And because it is not only part of his training but a large part of who he is that makes him so good at his job it IS a saddening thing to see him brought low. And I was torn between feeling glad that the truth came out in court as well as I was also very much affected by his hitting bottom that way.

So, while you may not have shed a tear for him because he wasn't the underdog I sympathized with him because he was a BIG DOG and now he's about to be put down.

Classic tragedy.

What a load of that was. Any more Hollywood megalomaniacs you plan to nominate for sainthood? Darth Vader, maybe?

No wonder you fail to grasp complex political issues. You can't even understand A Few Good Men.

[abe]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

What a load of that was. Any more Hollywood megalomaniacs you plan to nominate for sainthood? Darth Vader, maybe?

No wonder you fail to grasp complex political issues. You can't even understand A Few Good Men.

(Insert Joke Here)

Talk about BLESSED JULY?

[abe]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Who knows. Even the thread starter doesn't seem to.

John Stewart is a very funny guy btw.

V

I know that you and the other one are off topic.

Try Blessed July?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In a smarmy sort of way.

Put Stewart in the room with Dennis Miller and John would cower in the corner.

No one beats Miller for political verbage.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In a smarmy sort of way.

Put Stewart in the room with Dennis Miller and John would cower in the corner.

No one beats Miller for political verbage.

That I doubt.

I have not seen much of Dennis Miller, but what I have seen is pretty innocent. He's foul-mouthed and quick and has a good grasp of history, but he's no Jon Stewart IMO.

V

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by abe

Talk about BLESSED JULY?

Why? I thought the thread was about culture and religion causing global jihad in Iraq?

No one doubts Saddam is a dangerous man, and that Blessed July is within his purview. Right up his alley, really.

The US invaded Iraq because 1) it had WMDs and 2) was working with Al-Quaeda. Neither of these claims has withstood under scrutiny. It appears that the invasion was conducted under false pretenses. Now the US is trapped in Iraq for years to come, trying to prevent a civil war.

I didn't much like Prime Minister Chretien, but he did one thing right: kept Canada out of that pointless quagmire. I feel so sorry for the American troops in Iraq.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I feel so sorry for the American troops in Iraq.

Why? They all signed up for military duty in the US forces. And no one forced them to go there.

Don't see why we should feel sorry for them.