[quote]Gkhan wrote:
kroby wrote:
I also wish to declare that 75 people dying due to non natural causes is too high of a death toll.
Do I hear 80?[/quote]
LOL Straw men are fun to parade around, no?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Now if you’ll please point out where I claim an even higher daily car-bomb death toll?
You obviously missed the point entirely.[/quote]
Hear me, Khan. You claimed that I state in this thread a daily death toll due to car bombs higher than 75. I kindly asked you to point out where I did so. The only point here is that you made a false claim, and when asked to provide evidence, you froze.
lixy - your source is fatally flawed. Believe what you want - but at some point the tooth fairy will not come to see you, and Santa will leave nothing.
Numbers are not fact just because you close your eyes and wish real hard.
I have only been back in this forum for a couple of days, and you have been owned time and again. Not just by me, but by just about every one you have engaged.
At what point will you see that you are nothing but a pro-terrorist sympathizer spewing nothing more than the propaganda youare spoonfed?
Disagree - but dammit - disagree with more than the jew-hating, pro-terrorist bullshit you seem to love so much.
rainjack has returned.
In recent news carried by the BBC
[i]–Iraqi progress ‘disappoints’ US –
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said he is disappointed by the lack of political progress in Iraq.
The Bush administration had probably underestimated the depth of mistrust among Iraq’s various factions, he said at the end of a Middle East tour.
Recent developments were discouraging, he said, citing the withdrawal of the main Sunni Arab bloc from government.[/i]
That’s certainly at odds with the idea JeffR has of the situation.
[quote]kroby wrote:
rainjack has returned.[/quote]
His ‘discussions’ with Vroom and the ‘Thinking Tree’ are classic T-Nation.
[quote]lixy wrote:
In recent news carried by the BBC
[i]–Iraqi progress ‘disappoints’ US –
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said he is disappointed by the lack of political progress in Iraq.
The Bush administration had probably underestimated the depth of mistrust among Iraq’s various factions, he said at the end of a Middle East tour.
Recent developments were discouraging, he said, citing the withdrawal of the main Sunni Arab bloc from government.[/i]
That’s certainly at odds with the idea JeffR has of the situation.[/quote]
This will sound terribly bigotted, but it appears that conceptual thinking seems more prevalent amongst Europeans, with probably Ashkanazi Jews being at the top. The concepts of individual rights, voting, axiomatic political philosophy, and such seem more at home with that particular (European) group.
Not to say that Middle Easterners are all perceptual-level barbarians — the conceptual trait is just not as common. Hence the people NEED theocracies and guys like Saddam, to keep order. The thinkers are way more outnumbered by the mindless ones.
Probably not their fault — the Ottoman Empire wasn’t fond of voting and/or individual rights.
Jeffrey and others, it seems like half the jubilation over this op-ed piece is because it appeared in the New York Times. You realize the Times supported the decision to go to war, and even provided some of the worst WMD evidence in support of war (see Judith Miller).
We’re not talking about MoveOn here, even if everyone to the left of Bush (not that he’s a real conservative) looks the same in your book.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Jeffrey and others, it seems like half the jubilation over this op-ed piece is because it appeared in the New York Times. You realize the Times supported the decision to go to war, and even provided some of the worst WMD evidence in support of war (see Judith Miller).
We’re not talking about MoveOn here, even if everyone to the left of Bush (not that he’s a real conservative) looks the same in your book.[/quote]
I’m not as excited over where it appeared as I am over who said it. The guy is on the BOD of the “Bush is a Dick” committee.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Now if you’ll please point out where I claim an even higher daily car-bomb death toll?
You obviously missed the point entirely.
Hear me, Khan. You claimed that I state in this thread a daily death toll due to car bombs higher than 75. I kindly asked you to point out where I did so. The only point here is that you made a false claim, and when asked to provide evidence, you froze.[/quote]
I didn’t freeze. I just don’t have the time to dig through other threads to find it. Nor do I want to. But now would you say that car bombs and insurgent violence in Iraq kill more or less than an average of 75 people a day?
Because in another thread you said that it was way less when trying to downplay the insurgent violence death toll. That is why you misunderstood the point.
[quote]lixy wrote:
In recent news carried by the BBC
[i]–Iraqi progress ‘disappoints’ US –
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said he is disappointed by the lack of political progress in Iraq.
The Bush administration had probably underestimated the depth of mistrust among Iraq’s various factions, he said at the end of a Middle East tour.
Recent developments were discouraging, he said, citing the withdrawal of the main Sunni Arab bloc from government.[/i]
That’s certainly at odds with the idea JeffR has of the situation.[/quote]
Didn’t your boys in the Madhi Militia group bounce in and out of the government and back again? That seems to be the nature of this. The Sunnis will be back, give 'um time.
[quote]gDollars37 wrote:
Jeffrey and others, it seems like half the jubilation over this op-ed piece is because it appeared in the New York Times. You realize the Times supported the decision to go to war, and even provided some of the worst WMD evidence in support of war (see Judith Miller).
We’re not talking about MoveOn here, even if everyone to the left of Bush (not that he’s a real conservative) looks the same in your book.[/quote]
gdol,
Yes, we were surprised at the source.
However, to say that they supported the war, so it isn’t surprising, is to look past the fickle nature of the modern democrat.
Most dems (at least passively) supported the invasion. This includes their mouthpieces.
The new york times has OBVIOUSLY done the democratic flip-flop. How many front page covers of abu ghraib could one paper possibly print? THIRTY TWO sound about right?
Notice how any positives are routinely either not covered or are on page A-24 under stories about Pandas.
If you have a sliver of a doubt about the new york times’ liberal bias: check this out. http://www.timeswatch.org/
Oh, I have to point out something near and dear to your heart: They didn’t support a SINGLE Republican in 2006. Not a single one.
Just like our pal, gdol (the independent).
JeffR
[quote]lixy wrote:
In recent news carried by the BBC
[i]–Iraqi progress ‘disappoints’ US –
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said he is disappointed by the lack of political progress in Iraq.
The Bush administration had probably underestimated the depth of mistrust among Iraq’s various factions, he said at the end of a Middle East tour.
Recent developments were discouraging, he said, citing the withdrawal of the main Sunni Arab bloc from government.[/i]
That’s certainly at odds with the idea JeffR has of the situation.[/quote]
Before you and your pals throw a “We’ve beaten the Americans!!!” victory party, please recall that they have done this before.
Second, this happens when a minority is trying to make a political point.
Third, we Americans cannot, in good faith, be too harsh in condemning stunts like this.
In fact, we’ve had (and continue to have ) many bumps in this journey called democracy.
We’ll see how this turns out.
JeffR
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
In recent news carried by the BBC
[i]–Iraqi progress ‘disappoints’ US –
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said he is disappointed by the lack of political progress in Iraq.
The Bush administration had probably underestimated the depth of mistrust among Iraq’s various factions, he said at the end of a Middle East tour.
Recent developments were discouraging, he said, citing the withdrawal of the main Sunni Arab bloc from government.[/i]
That’s certainly at odds with the idea JeffR has of the situation.
Didn’t your boys in the Madhi Militia group bounce in and out of the government and back again? That seems to be the nature of this. The Sunnis will be back, give 'um time.[/quote]
Exactly. And note how they timed the pullout to go with their summer vacation.
This was done purely for the media attention.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I didn’t freeze. I just don’t have the time to dig through other threads to find it. Nor do I want to. But now would you say that car bombs and insurgent violence in Iraq kill more or less than an average of 75 people a day?
Because in another thread you said that it was way less when trying to downplay the insurgent violence death toll. That is why you misunderstood the point.[/quote]oe
Let’s reread what you wrote, shall we?
"What’s funny to me is when I was complaining about all the terrorist violence in Iraq in another thread, I said car bombs kill an estimated 75 people a day. And Lixy said MY estimate was way too HIGH. When it’s convenient, he now claims an even higher death toll.
You obviously used the term NOW to refer to this thread, so please, don’t try to pull that crap on me. There’s nothing wrong with making a mistake. However, refusing to acknowledge a blatant inconsitency…
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Didn’t your boys in the Madhi Militia group bounce in and out of the government and back again? That seems to be the nature of this. The Sunnis will be back, give 'um time.[/quote]
It’s Mahdi not Madhi. More importantly, they’re Shi’ites not Sunnis. Their name should have tipped you off if you knew anything at all about the Shi’a.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Jeffrey and others, it seems like half the jubilation over this op-ed piece is because it appeared in the New York Times. You realize the Times supported the decision to go to war, and even provided some of the worst WMD evidence in support of war (see Judith Miller).
We’re not talking about MoveOn here, even if everyone to the left of Bush (not that he’s a real conservative) looks the same in your book.[/quote]
The Times is just trying to sell more copy. They’re seeking “enormous” returns.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Before you and your pals throw a “We’ve beaten the Americans!!!” victory party, please recall that they have done this before.
JeffR[/quote]
Hopefully that won’t be Petraeus and the “counterinsurgents” throwing that party.
The Zen master may soon require you to jump from the cliff, sensing willful obfuscation.
(goddamn pachyderms)
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Didn’t your boys in the Madhi Militia group bounce in and out of the government and back again? That seems to be the nature of this. The Sunnis will be back, give 'um time.
It’s Mahdi not Madhi. More importantly, they’re Shi’ites not Sunnis. Their name should have tipped you off if you knew anything at all about the Shi’a.[/quote]
He was using it as an example of people leaving and rejoining the government.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
gDollars37 wrote:
Jeffrey and others, it seems like half the jubilation over this op-ed piece is because it appeared in the New York Times. You realize the Times supported the decision to go to war, and even provided some of the worst WMD evidence in support of war (see Judith Miller).
We’re not talking about MoveOn here, even if everyone to the left of Bush (not that he’s a real conservative) looks the same in your book.
gdol,
Yes, we were surprised at the source.
However, to say that they supported the war, so it isn’t surprising, is to look past the fickle nature of the modern democrat.
Most dems (at least passively) supported the invasion. This includes their mouthpieces.
The new york times has OBVIOUSLY done the democratic flip-flop. How many front page covers of abu ghraib could one paper possibly print? THIRTY TWO sound about right?
Notice how any positives are routinely either not covered or are on page A-24 under stories about Pandas.
If you have a sliver of a doubt about the new york times’ liberal bias: check this out. http://www.timeswatch.org/
Oh, I have to point out something near and dear to your heart: They didn’t support a SINGLE Republican in 2006. Not a single one.
Just like our pal, gdol (the independent).
JeffR[/quote]
I’m not claiming the New York Times is unbiased. I’m saying they are not venomously anti-war by any stretch. They report the news, and like all media, if it bleeds it leads. The reason they report far more bad news from Iraq than good is because…wait for it…most of the news from Iraq over the last four years has been bad.