"Religion of peace" strikes again

[Loren Pechtel]

That's revisionist history! The Taliban hosted a group that attacked the US. We asked them to give up the group. They denied. Then we took them out. The nation building effort came after the needed invasion.

I have revised nothing.

The Taliban were willing to work with the US. They merely asked for evidence that the things the US said were true.

But the US does not need evidence to do the things it does. Nor does it provide evidence to support the claims it makes.

So rather than try to find some peaceful alternative the US attacked and also decided nation building was a good idea despite the fact that GW specifically said in the debates that US nation building was a bad idea.

No--they wouldn't have handed him over even if we proved he was responsible. They didn't even have the ability to hand him over if they wanted to! It was just a distraction to muddy the waters and fool those who don't look carefully.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

ISIS is a national power, a power of the Arab Nation.

They control territory in Iraq and Syria.

That is binational in terms of territory, but they are neither part of the Iraqi or Syrian government so not national at all.

They act like a nation. They're a nation.

 

[untermensche]

They control territory in Iraq and Syria.

That is binational in terms of territory, but they are neither part of the Iraqi or Syrian government so not national at all.

They act like a nation. They're a nation.

That's fine.

A new nation suddenly taken.

Not seen since Israel.

No--they wouldn't have handed him over even if we proved he was responsible. They didn't even have the ability to hand him over if they wanted to! It was just a distraction to muddy the waters and fool those who don't look carefully.

So they had no control over bin Laden and his gang?

So they bear no responsibility.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They act like a nation. They're a nation.

That's fine.

A new nation suddenly taken.

Not seen since Israel.

No--they wouldn't have handed him over even if we proved he was responsible. They didn't even have the ability to hand him over if they wanted to! It was just a distraction to muddy the waters and fool those who don't look carefully.

So they had no control over bin Laden and his gang?

So they bear no responsibility.

He had sufficient power that they weren't going to be able to arrest him. They could have quit supporting him, though.

 

[Bomb#20]

By that criterion the Taliban aren't national at all. They control territory in Afghanistan and Pakistan, binational in terms of territory, and are neither part of the Afghan or Pakistani government so not national at all. You argue for your contention that the Taliban are national and ISIS non-national only by dancing back and forth, using one set of definitions for the Taliban and conflicting definitions for ISIS.

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan. They are a displaced national power. ISIS never controlled either Iraq or Syria. It is made up of pieces of both and people from many nations.

So at exactly what point did the Taliban magically transform from an ISIS-like binational/non-national gang into a totally-not-ISIS-like national power? When their country-control-fraction rose above some important-in-your-mind threshold that ISIS has yet to crest? When they overran the capital city and forced the existing government to relocate to a more defensible province? When they were recognized as a legitimate government by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and no one else ever?

The people were attacked as well as anybody in the way.

It was a massive act of State terrorism.

Proof by repetition, par for the untermensche course.

Proof that simple facts can be ignored by the deceitful.

I.e., anyone who expresses a contrary opinion to yours already knows you're right and is lying about it. That must save you a ton of time on the whole applying-critical-thought-to-your-own-views front.

The way you understand actions is to say how would you label them if they happened to you.

So if I were a Sunni and my kid was just murdered by a Shi'ite militia in a revenge attack for some other Sunnis blowing up their mosque, I'd label it "My kid was just killed by American terrorists", would I?

 

[untermensche]

The way you understand actions is to say how would you label them if they happened to you.

So if I were a Sunni and my kid was just murdered by a Shi'ite militia in a revenge attack for some other Sunnis blowing up their mosque, I'd label it "My kid was just killed by American terrorists", would I?

If you were rational you would ask why did the American's come and terrorize us and start splitting up everything according to sects leading to unseen sectarian violence?

Bremer and his plan to divide neighborhoods and the government according to sect is what led to all that sectarian violence. As well as the destruction of civil society by the Americans.

And of course once there is violence it tends to lead to more violence.

You just want to deflect away from responsibility as fast as possible.

Deceitful.

What part of the US attack of the Iraqi people do you think was justified and why?

And the way you know if something is justified is if everybody is allowed to do it. You cannot justify anything with double standards.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If you were rational you would ask why did the American's come and terrorize us and start splitting up everything according to sects leading to unseen sectarian violence?

Bremer and his plan to divide neighborhoods and the government according to sect is what led to all that sectarian violence. As well as the destruction of civil society by the Americans.

I'd be very surprised if the sectarian animosity between Sunni and Shia only began after the Iraq invasion of 2003.

 

[untermensche]

If you were rational you would ask why did the American's come and terrorize us and start splitting up everything according to sects leading to unseen sectarian violence?

Bremer and his plan to divide neighborhoods and the government according to sect is what led to all that sectarian violence. As well as the destruction of civil society by the Americans.

I'd be very surprised if the sectarian animosity between Sunni and Shia only began after the Iraq invasion of 2003.

You attack and terrorize a nation.

You begin to split up neighborhoods and the government by sect.

In a terrorized nation with no social services all kinds of violence occurs. It is survival of the fittest. And people begin to look for a gang to protect themselves and to get goods. A likely gang but not the only kind of gang is a religious sect.

But once there is sectarian violence a cycle of violence begins between sects.

And in a wasteland of a nation with no police this cycle can spin out of control.

And hostilities that hadn't existed in hundreds of years in Iraq begin that are still going on to this day.

 

[Bomb#20]

So if I were a Sunni and my kid was just murdered by a Shi'ite militia in a revenge attack for some other Sunnis blowing up their mosque, I'd label it "My kid was just killed by American terrorists", would I?

If you were rational you would ask why did the American's come and terrorize us and start splitting up everything according to sects leading to unseen sectarian violence?

Bremer and his plan to divide neighborhoods and the government according to sect is what led to all that sectarian violence. As well as the destruction of civil society by the Americans.

Good grief. There was no grand plan to divide neighborhoods according to sect. That happened piecemeal, in one poorly thought-out response after another to the sectarian violence. Dividing government by sect was obviously a mistake in retrospect and ended up causing a great deal of the sectarian violence; but Bremer was in a bind. He found his better options for setting up an Iraqi government obstructed on the one side by Sistani and obstructed on the other side by the lack of any heavyweight Sunni politicians to be counterweights to Sistani, due to the U.S.'s deBaathification policy, which was also what torpedoed civil society. Bremer went for sect-based allocation because it looked to him like the alternative was a government that would just give Sistani whatever he asked for. And we didn't do deBaathification because we wanted all those unforeseen consequences. We did it because our political and military leadership has very little imagination, and deNazification worked out okay in Germany after WWII. Duh!

You just want to deflect away from responsibility as fast as possible.

You have no basis for that claim. You made it up out of whole cloth. You made up that falsehood about me because you consistently prefer to paint people who disagree with you as villains than to make the slightest effort to understand what they say to you. You prefer that approach to debate because you are a religious fanatic.

The U.S. is fully responsible for everything that went wrong. Bush lied us into an unnecessary war, and the checks and balances that should have stopped him massively dropped the ball. What you fail to understand is that this doesn't make it terrorism or an attack on the Iraqi people -- we attacked Saddam and we attacked military targets -- and when you unreasonably call it terrorism and attacking the Iraqi people, any reasonable person will tell you you're wrong; and the fact that he tells you you're wrong does not magically transform him into a Bush apologist.

Deceitful.

Grow up.

What part of the US attack of the Iraqi people do you think was justified and why?

What part of beating your wife do you think is justified and why do you still do it?

And the way you know if something is justified is if everybody is allowed to do it.

So what is it that you think I "allow" the US to do that I don't "allow" other people to do?

You cannot justify anything with double standards.

Dude, you are the king of double standards. You wallow in double standards like a pig, in practically every political post you write. Every time somebody from a group you sympathize with does something reprehensible, you trace a chain of cause and effect back to the misdeeds of some oppressor group -- usually the Americans -- and blame the oppressor. But you never provide that service to the groups you don't sympathize with. The Americans never get a pass on account of our having been merely reacting in a predictable way to other people's misdeeds. Chains of cause and effect apparently begin with acts of contracausal free will by Americans. I guess that's our superpower.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd be very surprised if the sectarian animosity between Sunni and Shia only began after the Iraq invasion of 2003.

You attack and terrorize a nation.

You begin to split up neighborhoods and the government by sect.

In a terrorized nation with no social services all kinds of violence occurs. It is survival of the fittest. And people begin to look for a gang to protect themselves and to get goods. A likely gang but not the only kind of gang is a religious sect.

But once there is sectarian violence a cycle of violence begins between sects.

And in a wasteland of a nation with no police this cycle can spin out of control.

And hostilities that hadn't existed in hundreds of years in Iraq begin that are still going on to this day.

The problem is you continue to blame the west for what the Arab meddlers did to Iraq.