Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
Did you leftists get the memo?
Topic Started: Jan 21 2009, 12:22 AM (1,060 Views)
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
I've never connected the two. I think that the invasion of Iraq was a case of unfortunate timing. I may be wrong, but I don't recall any official claim that the two were connected, either. Eh... Then again, I don't watch TV.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Darth Cheney, in particular, tried to link the two.

As just three examples:

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there." - Vice President Cheney, 1/22/04

"There was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03

"I think it's not surprising that people make that connection between Saddam and 9/11" - Vice President Cheney, 9/14/03
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Hrmmm... Well, there is evidence that there was contact between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Exactly what the nature of that contact was, and to what extent... That's the real question, isn't it?

The media and politicians employ this sick tactic all the time, though: Taking the merest sliver of truth and then pouring a flood of supposition over it and making tenuous extrapolations from it, and then passing such things off as truth in order to manipulate the minds and views of the public.

And this is precisely one of the primary reasons why I don't watch TV anymore.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jan 22 2009, 10:54 AM
I don't recall EVER seeing anyone suggest we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden.
you can go back to ignoring me, but folks are suggesting just that sort of thing.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 01:07 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 22 2009, 10:54 AM
I don't recall EVER seeing anyone suggest we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden.
you can go back to ignoring me, but folks are suggesting just that sort of thing.


First, can you show me where in that article the author suggests we negotiate with bin Laden? He alludes to exactly the opposite.

Quote:
 
The place to start on a new course is to leave the "war on terror" behind and recognize that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban -- all of which have legitimate nationalist aspirations, but wrapped in Islamist garb -- cannot be lumped into the same category as the cosmic terrorists of Al Qaeda who want to attack the US directly. The former you can negotiate with by addressing their grievances. You can't deal with Al Qaeda because their claims are in another realm beyond this earth.


Aside from that, I disagree with his premise. The Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas are fundamentalist extremist groups and cannot be negotiated with, regardless how much GWB cozied up to the Taliban before he was POTUS.

Second, labeling this guy(never heard of him) as speaking for the left as whole is erroneously painting with a pretty broad brush, so I hope you're not attempting to do that.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 01:07 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 22 2009, 10:54 AM
I don't recall EVER seeing anyone suggest we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden.
you can go back to ignoring me, but folks are suggesting just that sort of thing.
Can I go back to ignoring you after I explain that Hamas and the Taliban are not the same as Osama bin Laden? You remember him ... the guy who took out the WTC?

Curiously enough, bin Laden's name doesn't even appear in the article. Perhaps you were hoping that no one would read it?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jan 22 2009, 11:14 AM
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 09:37 AM
OperaTenor
Jan 22 2009, 09:25 AM
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism, so, as Phlebas alluded, there is nothing to wager.

Of course there is something to wager. The notion that "semantics aside" makes no sense when it can be argued that leftists waged a war of semantics against Bush.

It's really simple, OT. Bush used the language of "war" against terrorism and properly fought against terrorism. Obama is using the language of "war" against terrorism and will properly fight against terrorism. Bush was widely attacked for using the term.

The wager is: Do you think that Obama will be widely attacked for using the term? I bet "no". Would you bet "yes"? If not, why not?
In your opinion.
My opinion of what? That there was a battle of semantics over the use of the term? Do you have any reason for doubting that? That is something one can bet on? :blink:
Quote:
 
At this juncture, I could start speculating on the relevance of context of the usage of term with regards to GWB vs. Obama(BTW, I appreciate you not referring to him as "Obie" anymore - thank you), but to me that seems conjectural to the point of mental masturbation. Just as I did with GWB, I'll wait and see how he goes about waging the "war" before I pass judgment.
None of that has to do with the issue. It is about the terminology which Obama uses.
Quote:
 
I would have to say yes, seeing's how he's already being attacked by you. :D

Are you honestly not following what I've said here? I support Obama both in the use of term and the point of waging war against our enemies. It is the Left that shows itself to be hypocritical if they accept the same semantics coming from Obama that they attack Bush for using. Any other point you are trying to make causes me to wonder why you seem opposed to mental masturbation when you seem so eager to get it on.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jan 22 2009, 11:19 AM
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 09:40 AM
OperaTenor
Jan 22 2009, 09:25 AM
Semantics aside, I can't think of a single person who has said we should not be engaged in fighting terrorism, so, as Phlebas alluded, there is nothing to wager.

BTW, Since I am answering your question, please answer mine:
But for the sake of discussion, war can basically be understood as a protracted military action against hostiles. Do you have a problem with that idea, or that it can coherently be used to describe our actions against forces of international terrorism?
Once again, this is purely conjectural, IMO. I believe we have to approach these threats with a broad palette of tools to counter them with at our disposal. They are unconventional enemies, and they need to be countered with unconventional means, which requires thinking outside the box. So, military action might be the way to address it in some circumstances, and in others it might not. I'm not a professional or expert in these areas, so I couldn't begin to discern where to apply what. However, IMO, it's been pretty clear where conventional application of military strength has and has not been effective in recent history.

Which is basically saying nothing to the point of the question. Never was it mentioned about conventional military tactics or strategy. It is simply about the applicability of the term "war" as a protracted military action against hostiles to the matter of fighting international terrorism.

Do you or do you not think that the term is used coherently?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OperaTenor
Jan 22 2009, 01:19 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 01:07 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 22 2009, 10:54 AM
I don't recall EVER seeing anyone suggest we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden.
you can go back to ignoring me, but folks are suggesting just that sort of thing.


First, can you show me where in that article the author suggests we negotiate with bin Laden? He alludes to exactly the opposite.

Quote:
 
The place to start on a new course is to leave the "war on terror" behind and recognize that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban -- all of which have legitimate nationalist aspirations, but wrapped in Islamist garb -- cannot be lumped into the same category as the cosmic terrorists of Al Qaeda who want to attack the US directly. The former you can negotiate with by addressing their grievances. You can't deal with Al Qaeda because their claims are in another realm beyond this earth.


Aside from that, I disagree with his premise. The Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas are fundamentalist extremist groups and cannot be negotiated with, regardless how much GWB cozied up to the Taliban before he was POTUS.

Second, labeling this guy(never heard of him) as speaking for the left as whole is erroneously painting with a pretty broad brush, so I hope you're not attempting to do that.
Since I never suggested that he was speaking for the Left as a whole (when it is obvious that no one person does), you might want to get that reading comprehension tested.

You simply suggested "I don't recall EVER seeing anyone suggest we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden." Given that the Taliban is supporting and protecting bin Laden, I was simply giving you some references since you didn't recall EVER seeing anyone suggest we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden. The Taliban supported and protected Bin Laden before 9/11, and their refusal to turn him over then was the cause for the sanctions against the Taliban, as it is now.

And of course just today Ghaddafi advised Obama to negotiate with Bin Laden, so you can now be sure that some people are suggesting that we negotiate with Bin Laden.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jan 22 2009, 01:21 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 22 2009, 01:07 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 22 2009, 10:54 AM
I don't recall EVER seeing anyone suggest we should negotiate with Osama bin Laden.
you can go back to ignoring me, but folks are suggesting just that sort of thing.
Can I go back to ignoring you after I explain that Hamas and the Taliban are not the same as Osama bin Laden? You remember him ... the guy who took out the WTC?

Curiously enough, bin Laden's name doesn't even appear in the article. Perhaps you were hoping that no one would read it?
The Taliban has supported and protect Bin Laden since before 9/11. You obviously missed the language of " folks are suggesting just that sort of thing". That sort of thing is different from "that exact thing".You make it more difficult to discuss things when you don't evince a basic grasp of syntax.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Ghaddafi is a few MORE bricks shy of a load these days.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Of course Ghaddafi wants Obama to negotiate with Bin Laden. Mumar is near the top of Osama's hit list of Arab secular tyrants to be overthrown in a sweeping and bloody pan Arab Islamic Revolution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Oh no doubt about that. Just wanted to keep Quirt up to date on what he knows. :lol2:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4