Comments on: AlQaida http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/ The “culture” that has evolved here isn’t conducive to sissies Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:18:39 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Gus http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-73245 Gus Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:28:32 +0000 http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-73245 mlah: "sorry gus. your entries in wiki are STILL not valid sources." I didn't link to it to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, only to give some background. And there are plenty of links to real news sources, etc., for important issues. Unless you have a problem with some specific factoid, stop boring us with your anti-WikiPedia sentiment. mlah: “sorry gus. your entries in wiki are STILL not valid sources.”
I didn’t link to it to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, only to give some background. And there are plenty of links to real news sources, etc., for important issues. Unless you have a problem with some specific factoid, stop boring us with your anti-WikiPedia sentiment.

]]> By: mlah http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-72547 mlah Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:37:15 +0000 http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-72547 i guess that's not in wiki? or you'd already have it linked? sorry gus. your entries in wiki are STILL not valid sources. i guess that’s not in wiki? or you’d already have it linked? sorry gus. your entries in wiki are STILL not valid sources.

]]> By: Gus http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-72538 Gus Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:02:43 +0000 http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-72538 Yup: "But Gus, that’s EXACTLY what you said in a previous discussion." If you want to find that thread for us, we'll look at what EXACTLY I said, cuz I honestly don't remember and can't be bothered to look and I certainly can't take your word for it. In any case, if you want to assert that Saddam "killed" his troops, then you must also agree that W "killed" his. How do you plead? Yup: “But Gus, that’s EXACTLY what you said in a previous discussion.”
If you want to find that thread for us, we’ll look at what EXACTLY I said, cuz I honestly don’t remember and can’t be bothered to look and I certainly can’t take your word for it.
In any case, if you want to assert that Saddam “killed” his troops, then you must also agree that W “killed” his. How do you plead?

]]> By: yup http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-72346 yup Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:18:35 +0000 http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-72346 <i>unless GWB could likewise be said to have killed our almost 4000 service people</i> But Gus, that's EXACTLY what you said in a previous discussion. unless GWB could likewise be said to have killed our almost 4000 service people

But Gus, that’s EXACTLY what you said in a previous discussion.

]]> By: Gus http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-72199 Gus Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:17:30 +0000 http://www.mlah.us/2007/11/26/alqaida/#comment-72199 mlah: "while the us press insisted it was a civil war, sunni and shi’ite retaliated against each other for attacks odten commited by alqaida in the others name." Your downplaying of real sectarian violence is ridiculous. You don't think Shi'ites wanted to do some house-cleaning (i.e. blood-letting) when they came out on top politically? You don't think Sunnis were going ballistic resisting same? It's true a few major terrorist incidents (esp. involving suicide bombers) were meant to trigger sectarian strife, but when it sets off Hatfield-McCoy shit, it becomes irrelevant after a while, to the participants, then their cousins, and so on, how it started. And things are still tense, at best, between the sects. PM al-Maliki and his Sunni VP are currently giving each other hell: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8T1JFR80 "a country of some 25 million who experienced some 100,000 killed yearly by saddam are tired of alqaida." Where did you get that killed figure? He was in power for 24 years and the very highest figure I've seen of the total Iraqis killed under his rule is 1 million (half of which is comprised of those lost in the Iran-Iraq war, which it would be debatable to say that HE killed, unless GWB could likewise be said to have killed our almost 4000 service people) which could only account for 10 years at your rate. The years of the Al-Anfal Campaign years (1986-89) are the only ones that come close (100,000 - 200,000 Kurds killed over 2 1/2 years): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign The Reagan administration barely took note of the Anfal campaign. The U.S. Senate passed a bill to impose sanctions on Iraq, but Ronnie prevailed upon the Congress to drop the matter. "if the current trend continues, it will be one of the most important victories in us history." Why did we invade, again? It sure wasn't to defeat Sunni salafists (calling them "AQ in Iraq" implies that they were operationally part of bin Laden's group, which the vast majority of them weren't). If we do rout them, after 5 or more years, it will be like "Well, fuckin' finally! Some 'cakewalk!'" And political progress, for which the Surge was supposed to make room for, is still non-existent. "secularism will be in vogue in the region." Snort! Our major allies in Iraq are all Shi'ite fundamentalists. "witness the success. but forget the us news. they won’t report any of it. they still think we’re losing." It's being reported every day. You must just be missing it because you don't follow the MSM because you distrust it. Here's a great recent NYT piece: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/19/world/middleeast/20071120_BUILDUP_OVERVIEW.html mlah: “while the us press insisted it was a civil war, sunni and shi’ite retaliated against each other for attacks odten commited by alqaida in the others name.”
Your downplaying of real sectarian violence is ridiculous. You don’t think Shi’ites wanted to do some house-cleaning (i.e. blood-letting) when they came out on top politically? You don’t think Sunnis were going ballistic resisting same? It’s true a few major terrorist incidents (esp. involving suicide bombers) were meant to trigger sectarian strife, but when it sets off Hatfield-McCoy shit, it becomes irrelevant after a while, to the participants, then their cousins, and so on, how it started. And things are still tense, at best, between the sects. PM al-Maliki and his Sunni VP are currently giving each other hell:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx-3oYeFwuWKCusr2jrojs98w8wD8T1JFR80

“a country of some 25 million who experienced some 100,000 killed yearly by saddam are tired of alqaida.”
Where did you get that killed figure? He was in power for 24 years and the very highest figure I’ve seen of the total Iraqis killed under his rule is 1 million (half of which is comprised of those lost in the Iran-Iraq war, which it would be debatable to say that HE killed, unless GWB could likewise be said to have killed our almost 4000 service people) which could only account for 10 years at your rate. The years of the Al-Anfal Campaign years (1986-89) are the only ones that come close (100,000 – 200,000 Kurds killed over 2 1/2 years):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign
The Reagan administration barely took note of the Anfal campaign. The U.S. Senate passed a bill to impose sanctions on Iraq, but Ronnie prevailed upon the Congress to drop the matter.

“if the current trend continues, it will be one of the most important victories in us history.”
Why did we invade, again? It sure wasn’t to defeat Sunni salafists (calling them “AQ in Iraq” implies that they were operationally part of bin Laden’s group, which the vast majority of them weren’t). If we do rout them, after 5 or more years, it will be like “Well, fuckin’ finally! Some ‘cakewalk!’” And political progress, for which the Surge was supposed to make room for, is still non-existent.

“secularism will be in vogue in the region.”
Snort! Our major allies in Iraq are all Shi’ite fundamentalists.

“witness the success. but forget the us news. they won’t report any of it. they still think we’re losing.”
It’s being reported every day. You must just be missing it because you don’t follow the MSM because you distrust it.
Here’s a great recent NYT piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/19/world/middleeast/20071120_BUILDUP_OVERVIEW.html

]]>