Discussion World Forum  


Go Back   Discussion World Forum > Politics & Current Events > War and Conflict

War and Conflict UN, NATO, Iraq, Afghanistan, War on Terror, Israel & Palestine, and all international political conflicts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old Aug 24th 2010, 08:06 PM
The_Dot The_Dot is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 431
Default Re: Where in the hell...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
I didn't issue a word of doubt that there has been quite a bit of systematic ugliness going on in Iraq since 2003. Indeed, the ugliness is piled on ten feet thick over there. No doubt about that. Enough murdering going on over there to make Johannasburg look safe by comparison (barely).

My point was all about the evidence that Muqtada al-Sadr was the mastermind or even the leader of such operations is essentially non-existent.
Yeah, it's Probably silly to think al-Sadr has much influence in "Sadr City". What was I thinking?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
My long-standing analysis of Muqtada Al-Sadr stands on its own merits. If you want to critique my views on Muqtada Al-Sadr, there are several threads in this forum where the issue is addressed, including this one. I'll be happy to defend my views against any reasoned argument or evidence. Bush Admin propaganda doesn't count.
I must profess a curiosity about what your "long-standing" analysis - upon what is it based? News articles, or first hand info?

Personally, I've not been there, and thus can only rely upon reports from those who have.
__________________

I am the 0.00000033%
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old Aug 25th 2010, 06:16 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,819
Default Re: Where in the hell...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dot View Post
Yeah, it's Probably silly to think al-Sadr has much influence in "Sadr City". What was I thinking?
I don't know what you were thinking.

How much influence did Saddam have there when it was called Saddam City? Btw, the name was changed only after the overthrow of Saddam. The Sadr family doesn't own or control that section of Baghdad - it is merely influential there. Indeed, I believe the choice of name seeks to commemorate the Ayatollah Sadr who was assassinated by Saddam's security service in the early 1990's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dot View Post
I must profess a curiosity about what your "long-standing" analysis - upon what is it based? News articles, or first hand info?

Personally, I've not been there, and thus can only rely upon reports from those who have.
I've never been to Iraq, nor do I speak Arabic. I do rely upon a wide variety of information sources, most of which are non-American for my news about Iraq. I do find such sources are usually several months ahead of mainstream American media reporting.

The point that I was making there is that my 'track-record' of analysis of events in Iraq, that I've been posting about since 2002, is pretty damn good at actually predicting the actual outcomes of events (even if I do say so myself). Several members at this forum can attest to the accuracy of my predictions about Iraq over the years.

Btw, I identified Muqtada al-Sadr as the most important political player in Iraq back in 2004. I also correctly predicted the intensity of the Sunni-Shia 'civil war' and the success of Sadr's call to end it. I also correctly predicted the collapse of the SCRII in the last two elections and the continued rise and influence of the Sadr-block in parliament. The point being that my analysis of events in Iraq has a proven track record that puts to shame the vast majority of professional American political and military analysts on this topic.

That being said, I'm not always right about everything and I'm always open to discussion on this topic that I have indeed invested a whole lot of time and energy into researching over the years.

As for accusations of anti-Americanism, I consider that trite and tiresome. Over the years, depending on the topic or the issue of the day, I've been repeatedly accused of being anti-American, anti-European, anti-British, anti-French, anti-Scottish and anti-Israel. I've also been accused of being too pro-American and too pro-British. I've even been accused of being pro-French as well when I defended France's position in 2002/03. I've also been accused of being pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist with equal regularity. So you'll have to forgive me if I act rather dismissive about such accusations and tend to perceive malicious intent (and/or ignorance) on the part of such accusers.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old Aug 26th 2010, 09:35 AM
The_Dot The_Dot is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 431
Default Re: Where in the hell...

I think the claim that the forces conducting the sectarian cleansing in the areas loyal to al-Sadr were "rogue" elements is a bit too pat and convenient. It certainly seems that Sadr's "non-rogue" forces did nothing to prevent the acts.

Do you find it possible that Sadr is at least tacitly involved, or perhaps issued a Becket approval for the actions?

FWIW, when someone accuses another of posting "Bush propaganda", that often raises concerns that the person involved harbors some anti-American feelings. Some would tend to perceive malicious intent (and/or ignorance) on the part of such accusers. Just a thought, since we're sharing perceptions of people we don't really know over the internet, and all.

__________________

I am the 0.00000033%

Last edited by The_Dot; Aug 26th 2010 at 09:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old Aug 26th 2010, 11:13 AM
Americano's Avatar
Americano Americano is offline
Globetrotter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,614
Default Re: Where in the hell...

Citing 'Bush Propaganda' is factual and has no malicious intent. Unless revisionist historians have started reinterpreting that administration's Iraq policies and if so they deserve a room at the creationist museum.
__________________
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
~H.L. Mencken~
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old Aug 26th 2010, 06:47 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,819
Default Re: Where in the hell...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dot View Post
I think the claim that the forces conducting the sectarian cleansing in the areas loyal to al-Sadr were "rogue" elements is a bit too pat and convenient. It certainly seems that Sadr's "non-rogue" forces did nothing to prevent the acts.

Do you find it possible that Sadr is at least tacitly involved, or perhaps issued a Becket approval for the actions?
It is credible to accuse Sadr of not preventing it, or not stopping it. He was one of the only people who might have been able to, but I really don't think he could have stopped it even if he wanted to - the will for sectarian violence unleashed by the removal of Saddam was long predicted to be ferocious and unstoppable.

One has to keep in mind Iraqi recent history. It was Saddam's policy to move Sunnis into the old Saddam City (and clear Shi'ites out to make room for them). In this context, removal of Saddam merely presented the opportunity to reverse Saddam's policy and have Shi'ites push those Sunnis back out again and return to the way it was before.

The Sunnis do have a lot of blood on their hands from Saddam's rule. The Kurds and Shi'ites have certainly indulged in a fair bit of revenge, no doubt of that. That's why many people, including myself, were ferociously opposed to the US overthrow of Saddam - no matter how bad he was, removing was going to unleash a wave of sectarian violence that would make Saddam's bloody rule look peaceful by comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dot View Post
FWIW, when someone accuses another of posting "Bush propaganda", that often raises concerns that the person involved harbors some anti-American feelings. Some would tend to perceive malicious intent (and/or ignorance) on the part of such accusers. Just a thought, since we're sharing perceptions of people we don't really know over the internet, and all.

As Americano pointed out above, "Bush Admin Propaganda" is a fact - not some partisan talking point. The evidence for the Bush Admin perpetuating lies about Iraq is substantial. Likewise, there is ample evidence that large US media networks uncritically published these Bush-Admin planted stories without any fact-checking at all. That's propaganda by any definition.

As I said, I'll be happy to discuss any aspect of Iraqi politics. I will not take any Bush Admin propaganda at face value - I've learned the foolishness of that. Bush Admin propaganda is what put the US military into Iraq and has been used to keep it there as long as possible (apparently the goal is a permanent US military presence in Iraq).

Btw, if there was any credible evidence that Muqtada al-Sadr was in any way ordering the massacre of anyone, why did the issue immediately go silent as soon as the Bush Administration no longer needed the domestic political policy of demonizing Sadr? Fact is, the Bush Admin needed to justify their occupation for the US 2004 election and the 2006 mid-term elections. Once that 'need' passed, all US accusations about Sadr seem to have vanished into thin air. Funny how that worked out.

Indeed, accusations about Sadr seem to have even less evidence than the infamous "WMD's" that Saddam had that supposedly justified the invasion in the first place.

Bottom line is that when it comes to US foreign policy, the US government always lies to the American people. Quite remarkable that is, but I don't make the rules, I just observe them. One only has to look at the "Gulf of Tomkin" episode to see the proof of that.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old Aug 27th 2010, 04:00 PM
The_Dot The_Dot is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 431
Default Re: Where in the hell...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
As Americano pointed out above, "Bush Admin Propaganda" is a fact - not some partisan talking point. The evidence for the Bush Admin perpetuating lies about Iraq is substantial. Likewise, there is ample evidence that large US media networks uncritically published these Bush-Admin planted stories without any fact-checking at all. That's propaganda by any definition.
I don't see Americano's posts. Shortly after I arrived here, he declared me to be a "racist" and announced I was on his "shit list", perhaps expecting me to care. As such, I improved my personal experience on this forum by placing him on ignore.

Can you in any way demonstrate that the two articles I cited were "planted" by the Bush bogey man? Absent evidence, this seems to me like a convenient way to avoid examination of accounts that conflict with a pre-determined view of al-Sadr.
__________________

I am the 0.00000033%

Last edited by The_Dot; Aug 27th 2010 at 04:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old Aug 29th 2010, 09:39 AM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,819
Default Re: Where in the hell...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dot View Post
I don't see Americano's posts. Shortly after I arrived here, he declared me to be a "racist" and announced I was on his "shit list", perhaps expecting me to care. As such, I improved my personal experience on this forum by placing him on ignore.

Can you in any way demonstrate that the two articles I cited were "planted" by the Bush bogey man? Absent evidence, this seems to me like a convenient way to avoid examination of accounts that conflict with a pre-determined view of al-Sadr.
"Planted"? That sounds like you are looking for evidence of conspiracy theory. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

In other words, I don't see any reason to address your point. If you want to assume that some unsourced and vague accusation in TIME magazine is authorative, that's your perogative. I see no profit in engaging that line of discussion.

I have no need to prove anything at all about Sadr. You are free to believe what you want to believe. If you want to discuss Sadr, I'm open to that. I consider discussions about bias and partisanship in US news media to be a circular deadend.

If you want to try to convince me that Muqtada al-Sadr is some kind of murderous monster, then I think you will need to provide some better source than those particular news articles from 2006. From what I read of the fellow, he's a quite reasonable, clever and painstakingly patient political player who is clearly working towards re-building a viable Iraqi state that is free of subservience to either the USA or Iran. Politically speaking, I think Sadr is providing the nationalist-leadership that Iraq desperately needs right now in the long process of building a viable democratic state. I'm willing to defend this view of Sadr. If you object to it, the onus is on you to supply a counter-argument and evidence to the contrary. An unsourced accusation without evidence published by TIME magazine in 2006 doesn't cut it.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old Aug 30th 2010, 06:35 PM
The_Dot The_Dot is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 431
Default Re: Where in the hell...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
"Planted"? That sounds like you are looking for evidence of conspiracy theory. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.
But, kind Sir, you opened that particular rabbit hole:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
As Americano pointed out above, "Bush Admin Propaganda" is a fact - not some partisan talking point. The evidence for the Bush Admin perpetuating lies about Iraq is substantial. Likewise, there is ample evidence that large US media networks uncritically published these Bush-Admin planted stories without any fact-checking at all. That's propaganda by any definition.
Plainly, you are the one who brought the concept of "Bush-Admin planted stories" into the mix.

So, now that we have re-established the context of the "planted" allegation (to whit - you asserted it), perhaps you would now care to sustain your own allegation?

To paraphrase your last post: "An unsourced accusation without evidence doesn't cut it." If that is to be your standard for other people's posts, then it stands to reason you would apply the same standard to your own?

Cheers.
__________________

I am the 0.00000033%
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old Aug 31st 2010, 03:48 PM
The_Dot The_Dot is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 431
Default Re: Where in the hell...

Perhaps the evidence of "planted" stories isn't as "ample" as was claimed?
__________________

I am the 0.00000033%
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old Aug 31st 2010, 07:04 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is offline
Administrator
Herder of Cats
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 14,819
Default Re: Where in the hell...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dot View Post
But, kind Sir, you opened that particular rabbit hole:
As I said, I'm not interested in discussing Bush Administration lies. That topic is old and tired. This thread is about Sadr. If you want to discuss Sadr, go right ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dot View Post
Plainly, you are the one who brought the concept of "Bush-Admin planted stories" into the mix.
No. You referenced it with your TIME article link. I rejected your source as entirely without any credibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dot View Post
So, now that we have re-established the context of the "planted" allegation (to whit - you asserted it), perhaps you would now care to sustain your own allegation?
No. As I said above, I can't be bothered to. The issue doesn't interest me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dot View Post
To paraphrase your last post: "An unsourced accusation without evidence doesn't cut it." If that is to be your standard for other people's posts, then it stands to reason you would apply the same standard to your own?

Cheers.
Bush Adminstration lies regarding Iraq are well documented. I'm not going to do your research for you.

Like I said. When you come up with a relevant issue about Sadr, I'll discuss it, until then, you are just trolling.
__________________
Remember what the dormouse said: Feed your head!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008 - 2017, DiscussionWorldForum.com