View Single Post
Old 01-05-2007, 07:40 PM   #24
Spider AL
@Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
Spider AL's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Just tell me, does every single one of your posts have to be arrogant and condescending? Because I have not seen one that isn't, not one.
I reject utterly the notion that my posts are arrogant, or condescending. I disagree with you and others on many issues, but that does not make me condescending. I think that many of the ideas expressed by you and your fellows are sheer nonsense, but that does not make me arrogant.

I try to present logical argument and factual evidence to show that those arguments I disagree with... are fallacious and wrong. That is not arrogance nor condescension. If you don't like it, that really is your problem, and not mine.

However, never let it be said that I'm closed-minded. If you want to go to my first post in this thread, and edit it so that it is no longer what you would call "arrogant", and then PM me the edited version, I will surely look at it carefully and dispassionately evaluate the changes you make.

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

It's true that Iran was where they held the Holocaust denial conference, that they held a "Holocaust cartoon contest" in reply to the Mohammed cartoons, that through his comments and actions (such as telling America to change it's policies on Israel) it seems Ahmadinejad is hell bent on the genocide of the Jews. It may be neo con, extreme right wing kook, Butcheress of Abu Gharib to criticise Iran and Ahmadinejad over Israel

Feel free to criticise the attitude of Iran's government. I'll join you in criticising that. But what you said was different. You stated that we should "watch" Iran, because it posed a genuine threat to Israel's existence. And that's just silly. It's like saying:

"we should watch that horse carefully, because it poses a genuine threat to that elephant's existence."

In this analogy, the horse is Iran, the elephant is Israel. Iran doesn't have the capacity to rival Israel's military might, which is considerable. Israel is one of the best armed countries on the planet. The Iranian government can bluster all it likes about obliterating Israel... but it simply isn't capable of the act in question, barring some insanely freak occurrance. And it's just parroting neo-con propaganda to suggest otherwise.

Of course, the same could be said of Palestine. Israel is in no danger of being obliterated by the Palestinians, no matter how often our governments try to paint the Israel vs. Palestine conflict as an "even match".

It so isn't. But I digress...

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

Sunnis and Shi'a have been fighting for centuries, and it doesn't look like they're terribly interested in stopping soon. It was going on before Saddam and will likely continue for some time.
There have always been sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia muslims. That is obvious fact. But the idea that our respective governments encourage us to believe: that Sunni and Shia in Iraq were just itching for the slightest opportunity to kill each other... is not supported by much in the way of hard evidence.

For example: when Saddam's Baath regime was weakened during the eighties, Shi'a muslims had several opportunities to start an uprising. And they were encouraged to do so by Iranian Shia propaganda. But the Iraqi Shia were in the main loyal to the Iraqi government under Saddam, and there was no overthrow of the Baathists.

No, as stated before, the only reason there is serious sectarian violence in Iraq now, is because we not only OPENED the religious can of worms, we also put extra worms in before opening it! We didn't merely release existing tensions (which would be bad enough), we actively exascerbated them. Our fault, plainly and simply.

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

'Iranian agents' isn't quite the right way to look at it. It's 'Shi'a agents who happen to be Iranian' because religion drives politics there as much as, if not more than, nationality.
Strictly speaking, this statement is grossly incorrect. According to experts, power and money are driving the current Iraqi strife, and religion is merely a convenient excuse.

The aforementioned US intelligence chief, Brigadier General Custer, stated in 2005 that concerns of money/power was driving the insurgency. Religious ideology, he said "doesn't feed the kids".

He stated further that 95% of those insurgents that US forces had captured or killed were Iraqi Arab Sunnis. He also stated in another interview (as noted in my last post) "If I could snap my fingers and move Iran out of the picture, it wouldn't change -- it wouldn't end the conflict, it wouldn't drastically change the conflict. It's not decisive."

So much for the dastardly Iranian Shia influence.

Also in June 2005, General John Vines (at the time, a senior commander of coalition forces in Iraq) stated of the Iraqi domestic insurgency: "These insurgents don't have an ideology except violence and power."

Robert Fisk often reports from Iraq on the confusion that many normal Iraqi people feel when they're told by westerners that what they're experiencing is a "Sunni/Shia civil war". He notes that prior to our illegal invasion of the nation, Sunni/Shia relations weren't all that bad, considering their divisive religious schism.

All in all, it's easy for people to parrot neo-con propaganda on the subject. Because that lets us off the hook. The major problem in Iraq... is us.

Whatever way you cut it, whichever way you look at it, it's us. So Saddam's execution? It's an irrelevance. It's a showpiece, as was his illegitimate trial. It just distracts people from the truth.

[FW] Spider AL
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: