[quote]JeffR wrote:
Come on, lixy.
You can do it!!!
Call my newest post: The transitive property of al qaeda.
If A=B, B=C, then A=C.
A= ICU
B= AIAI
C= al qaeda.
The undeniable link:
Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys
JeffR[/quote]
JeffR you wont hear from him in the thread again. Once you prove him wrong he will run out.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Gkhan asks:
Could it be the only reason you condemn the Saudi’s is because they are allied with the United States? [/quote]
And so is every Arab state (with the exception of Syria and Sudan. Libya gets a special category).
That about Iran? What’s “that”?
[quote]lixy wrote:
vroom wrote:
Lixy, I have noticed that you have repeatedly condemned them, when actually pressed to.
However, tell me you are not accused of the same bullshit over and over again? It doesn’t hurt to keep that point clear if you want people to even hear what you are trying to say.
Like I said, it’s mere common sense. Anyone who sides with the terrorists is nothing short of a terrorist him/herself.
[/quote]
Wow, is this ever a revealing statement!
This from the guy who said there will never be peace in Iraq as long as one man was alive, in a thread from a month or 2 ago.
Wow!!
The Muslim plan…
[quote]Lixy asks:
That about Iran? What’s “that”?[/quote]
You said something along the lines that you could not wait for Iran to get nukes so it could challenge the US and Israeli supremacy in the Gulf and kick the US out. Maybe not your exact wording, but pretty much your thoughts.
The statement along with your hatred of the Taliban, the Saudis and al-Qaeda convinced me you were a shite sympathizer. But you denied it as well.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Gkhan asks:
And so is every Arab state (with the exception of Syria and Sudan. Libya gets a special category).
If Bin Laden’s crew gets in control of Saudi Arabia and kick the US out, Lixy, in your opinion, would that be a better situation or a worse one?
Saudi Arabia is the strictest Islamic state short of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Is it their religious views, their laws or the royal family you despise?
What would you do differently or change if you could? Would you kick the US out or raise the price of oil or spread the wealth around, or what?
What about women? Would you let them have jobs, drive cars, become secular teachers, wear a veil, not a berka or is this all a sin in your view?
Lixy, given the arguement that Iran is sorounded on all sides by the evil and hostile Great Satan, give us your proof that they ARE NOT arming the Taliban, or al-qaeda.
Are they arming al-sadr’s men?
Are they secretly controling the shites in the Iraqi government?
If they are not supplying arms to al-qaeda in Iraq and in Afghanistan, who exactly is?
Please give me articles so I can read these responces for myself.
PS. Since you are a pasifist, why is it ok for Iran to arm al-sadr’s crew against the US? I asked you before, wouldn’t the more constructive route be coming to terms with the US? I’d also like to hear your views on this.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This from the guy who said there will never be peace in Iraq as long as one man was alive, in a thread from a month or 2 ago.
[/quote]
No, you moron!
I said that Iraqis will always resist your presence on their soil. Peace at gunpoint is extremely hard to achieve. When the ones behind the guns happen to be foreign occupiers, it’s downright impossible.
My statement wasn’t about the slim chances of Iraq not becoming peaceful as long as one of them is standing, it’s about an occupied Iraq.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If Bin Laden’s crew gets in control of Saudi Arabia and kick the US out, Lixy, in your opinion, would that be a better situation or a worse one? [/quote]
Frankly, I never considered that even a remote possibility.
[quote]Saudi Arabia is the strictest Islamic state short of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Is it their religious views, their laws or the royal family you despise?
What would you do differently or change if you could? Would you kick the US out or raise the price of oil or spread the wealth around, or what?
What about women? Would you let them have jobs, drive cars, become secular teachers, wear a veil, not a berka or is this all a sin in your view?[/quote]
That’s a lot of questions. But let’s go thru them one by one:
I despise any system where power is concentrated in too few hands. The Saudis don’t get a say in the running of their state and that’s gotta change radically.
The Al-Sauds practice a so-called Shari’a law. In my opinion, their laws are disgraceful to Islam, humanity, and freedoms. So, that’s gotta go as well. Let the people decide on what’s what, not some bearded “erudite”.
Hereditary absolutism’s gotta go as well.
I would expect a popular vote to kick foreign companies out and nationalize their wealth (see Bolivia or Venezuela). If the people choose to keep the foreign private corporations, so be it. Vox populi, vox dei.
I would also expect a return of freedom of faith. Churches and synagogues spurring around the place to accommodate non-Muslims.
Women would get their full rights back. That is, they get the right of self-determination. If they wanna walk around in jeans, lycra tops, and high heels, I say let them! If they chose to adopt a more modest dress with a hijab covering most of their hair, they must have the right to do so. For the radicals who would prefer a niqab, I say it’s their call. Individual choice.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Lixy, given the arguement that Iran is sorounded on all sides by the evil and hostile Great Satan, give us your proof that they ARE NOT arming the Taliban, or al-qaeda. [/quote]
You really have a lot to learn in argumentation. Actually, in common sense as well it seems.
Proving a negative is close to impossible in these matters. That’s exactly why Saddam was doomed from the start because the burden of proof was laid on him by the US. They said “prove to us that you don’t have WMDs”! That’s the path Iran is taking. Sooner or later, the US will come knocking on their door demanding proof that they are not building nuclear weapons.
Sure they are. What’s wrong with that? Al-Sadr is Iraqi and his political power is substantial.
If I knew, it wouldn’t be a secret anymore, now will it?
You’d be amazed at the number of crooks (actually, you’d probably call them businessmen) that gather “lost shipments”, or old weaponry from the Soviet block and sells them on the black market.
You’re seriously thinking that I’d consider proving a negative?
I’ll tell you what, if you can prove to me that you are NOT stupid, I’ll play along.
Absolutely. The best solution is around a table, not on the battlefield. But as pacifist as I am, I recognize the right of people to resist occupation, and by most standards, that’s what As-Sadr and his crew are doing.
So, let’s review the events, shall we? Iranians sent a mediator to Washington to show their willingness to negociate. The US, it the heat of the moment and fully aware of their military superiority, gets all cocky and tells them to fuck off.
That said, the US and Iran have confilcting interests in Iraq. None of these countries should have a say in how Iraq is ran. Iraq is not a cake!
Lixy,
Good article. Thanks for anwsering my questions.
I recall a similar story about talks scheduled and then an arm shipment to Hezbollah was uncovered and everything was shot to hell.
Good reason why the war on terror should have been the war on al-qaeda. And when Israel said they would combat terror on their own, we should have let them know that Hezbollah was their problem. Then the shipment of arms would have meant nothing.
We should have met with them, imo.
Gkhan asked:
Are they secretly controling the shites in the Iraqi government?
Lixy replied:
If I knew, it wouldn’t be a secret anymore, now will it?
Gkhan says:
I think they are, maybe not the Iranians, but the militia. I saw a report on CNN about it. The militia controls the police, or atleast some of it. That’s why the US soldiers caught Iraqi police planting a roadside bomb. Hear about that one?
Al Sadr and his crew are responsible for some of the worst acts in Iraq, against Iraqis. Unbelievable.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I think they are, maybe not the Iranians, but the militia. I saw a report on CNN about it. The militia controls the police, or atleast some of it. That’s why the US soldiers caught Iraqi police planting a roadside bomb. Hear about that one? [/quote]
Likely. I mean, you don’t need a Ph.D in political science to realize that neighboring states will try to influence a weak and shattered Iraq. Mere common sense.
But then again, no matter how much influence the Iranians have exerted on Iraqis since 2003, it’ll always be a few orders of magnitude less than the influence the US has on Iraq.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
I think they are, maybe not the Iranians, but the militia. I saw a report on CNN about it. The militia controls the police, or atleast some of it. That’s why the US soldiers caught Iraqi police planting a roadside bomb. Hear about that one?
Likely. I mean, you don’t need a Ph.D in political science to realize that neighboring states will try to influence a weak and shattered Iraq. Mere common sense.
But then again, no matter how much influence the Iranians have exerted on Iraqis since 2003, it’ll always be a few orders of magnitude less than the influence the US has on Iraq.[/quote]
Of course, US influence has been an attempt at building schools, hospitals, shoring up a fledgling democracy, stopping sectarian violence, etc. No matter what one feels about having gone in, that is it’s mission.
Iran, on the other hand, is attempting to to train and arm sectarian death squads and drive the country further into chaos.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Al Sadr is his crew are responsible for some of the worst acts in Iraq, against Iraqis. Unbelievable. [/quote]
What’s unbelievable is that you’d expect the Iraqis to just ignore your presence on their soil and get on with their lives. We’re not talking about Ba’athists or Al-Qaeda here. We’re talking about Saddam’s sworn enemies. Didn’t your president sell you a story where they welcome you with flowers?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Al Sadr is his crew are responsible for some of the worst acts in Iraq, against Iraqis. Unbelievable.
What’s unbelievable is that you’d expect the Iraqis to just ignore your presence on their soil and get on with their lives. We’re not talking about Ba’athists or Al-Qaeda here. We’re talking about Saddam’s sworn enemies. Didn’t your president sell you a story where they welcome you with flowers?[/quote]
What’s unbelievable is your pacifism, while downplaying the extreme brutality Iran is purposefully exporting to the likes of Al Sadr and his crew. These folks are responsible for some of the most prolific death squads to be found in Iraq. The one criticism you could rightfully level against the US is this; Why is Sadr still free, or even breathing? But, you ask “what’s wrong with that?”
And, do you believe the “legitimate resistance” is committing war crimes, against international law? Where are their military markings? Why are they taking it upon themselves to “resist.” Who elected them to make this decision?
In fact, could you name the “legitimate resistance” groups, Lixy? You’ve mentioned them many times, yet haven’t named one. I’m curious.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s unbelievable is your pacifism, while downplaying the extreme brutality Iran is purposefully exporting to the likes of Al Sadr and his crew. [/quote]
Extreme brutality? Does that come in bottles or something?
And oh, duplicating a grammatical construction loses its charm when repeated too often.
It’s not like you didn’t try multiple times to kill him. But you failed, and in doing so, blew any chance of him ever trusting you or even considering to negotiate. Nice going!
Sure. What’s wrong with Iraqis trying to kick invaders out.
International law? Are you on dope?
What are you talking about? Civilians have every right to resist occupation.
Because it’s their freakin’ country!!!
Are you implying that an occupied country that was violently invaded (multiple times), wouldn’t resist the occupier? You really have a lot to learn my dear. This will fill the gap if you’re serious about learning the different factions opposing US presence in Iraq (skip the first two):
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
This from the guy who said there will never be peace in Iraq as long as one man was alive, in a thread from a month or 2 ago.
No, you moron!
I said that Iraqis will always resist your presence on their soil. Peace at gunpoint is extremely hard to achieve. [/quote]
Saddam did that. Are you saying that the way to a peaceful Iraq is to adopt his tactics? Won’t the terrorists force anyone who did take over in Iraq to adopt Saddam’s tactics?
The terrorists hate the American occupiers. So, they seek to drive us out and have someoen like Saddam take over and exterminate them.
The logic of that escapes me.
Do they think that THEY would be in charge? What’s the guarantee of that? Mao Tse Tung’s backers thought they’d found nirvana when they gave him the top job. He killed them all and turned China into a hell.
They propose to establish a government in which the head guy knows that they are murderous terrorists. I know I’d trust those kinds of people around me (sarcasm). I’d kill 'em all, kind of just like Saddam did…
[quote]lixy wrote:
sloth:
These folks are responsible for some of the most prolific death squads to be found in Iraq. The one criticism you could rightfully level against the US is this; Why is Sadr still free, or even breathing?
Lixy:
It’s not like you didn’t try multiple times to kill him. But you failed, and in doing so, blew any chance of him ever trusting you or even considering to negotiate. Nice going![/quote]
Are you serious? The US has been restrained from killing him specifically. The bastard still gives sermons out in the open for crying out loud.
Iraqis have a military and police force. Sadr’s death squads, as much as it pains you, are neither of those. He, and the non-elected terrorist goons, aren’t entitled to make these decision, for the country.
Oooooh, so the US must be bound by laws of war, but your murderous resistance, should not? Even if they’d fall under PoW status, or “Protected Person,” they are responsible for any crimes of war they commit. You know, like DEATH SQUADS, hiding amongst non combatant civilian populations, collective punishment (death squads again), no military insignias, etc.
Oh, but even civilians who organize as militias are bound by the laws of war. Militias must bear a distinct insignia. The point is to clearly define who the combatants are, and further spare civilian populations. Your murderous thugs don’t. Yet, you rush to their defense, knowing they are intentionally using a tactic which will inflict greater loss of civilian life. It is deliberate and calculated.
[quote]
Why are they taking it upon themselves to “resist.”
Because it’s their freakin’ country!!![/quote]
No, it is not THEIR freakin’ country, it is the country of all Iraqis. And the Iraqi government (elections, remember) has not asked for Sadr and his ilk to plunge their country into chaos. Meanwhile, the UN has recognized the Iraqi government’s request for the continued presence of US/coalition troops. Get over it!
[quote]
Sloth:
In fact, could you name the “legitimate resistance” groups, Lixy? You’ve mentioned them many times, yet haven’t named one. I’m curious.
Lixy:
Are you implying that an occupied country that was violently invaded (multiple times), wouldn’t resist the occupier? You really have a lot to learn my dear. This will fill the gap if you’re serious about learning the different factions opposing US presence in Iraq (skip the first two):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm[/quote]
No sir, I’m asking you, in your own words, which groups you’ve identified as “legitimate.” It could prove enlightening.