They aren't cheering loud enough

[Iriemon]

Re: Constructive Decisions

"Constructive Decisions"
If that were true the US would avenge the Sunni.

By many reports, that is exactly what is going on now. Shiite militia are murdering sunni (and vice-versa) while the Iraqi Military ignores it or outright assists.

Affirm or reject my recollection. The Sunni wanted more (at least equal) representation in the government, eventhough they were the minority, but did not get it, which seemed to precipited, to the greater extent, the military strife.

My recollection is that military strife was occurring well before issues of equal representation in government came up, though I'd agree your recollection is a part of it.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Resolutions

"Resolutions"

By many reports, that is exactly what is going on now. Shiite militia are murdering sunni (and vice-versa) while the Iraqi Military ignores it or outright assists.

There have been situations where the US military has, as is likely the policy, confronted insubordination by the Iraqi military, local governments, and police, when it can find sufficient evidence.

These words lack meaning in a varacious conflict but, seeking revenge and taking matters into ones' own hands is not a defense according the authority that implements the institution of laws. The US has faults but its symbol for justice is blindfolded. The smart thing is to play the pacifist, report the situation to the authorities, and let them (the press will make them) do their job.

My recollection is that military strife was occurring well before issues of equal representation in government came up, though I'd agree your recollection is a part of it.

I agree, military stife was occurring but it led to a dissolution.

At the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraq_Dec05_Elect.png there is a good image. (I cannot get it to load inline).
It indicates the current electorate over land. The land distribution between sunni and shia is equal but the electoral counts based on population differ wildly. Assuming my counts are correct, the sunni have 46 representatives, the Kurds have 44 (the majority of Kurds are Sunni differring ethnically from Arabs), and the shia have 134. Wow, 59 representative in Baghdad, the population density must be huge.

According to the Iraq politics, the insurgents want a caliphate to rule the country. Do you see that as a resolvable oddity? Do you support it?

What exactly could be a difference for a sunni or shia by having a politician of the opposite sect setting policy?

You mentioned oil rights.
How does that affect issues?
What portion of oil revenues did the sunni lose? Were any distributed to shia before the war?
What portion of revenues will each receive now?

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Resolutions

"Resolutions"
There have been situations where the US military has, as is likely the policy, confronted insubordination by the Iraqi military, local governments, and police, when it can find sufficient evidence.

These words lack meaning in a varacious conflict but, seeking revenge and taking matters into ones' own hands is not a defense according the authority that implements the institution of laws. The US has faults but its symbol for justice is blindfolded. The smart thing is to play the pacifist, report the situation to the authorities, and let them (the press will make them) do their job.

Apparently they disagree.

I agree, military stife was occurring but it led to a dissolution.

At the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraq_Dec05_Elect.png there is a good image. (I cannot get it to load inline).
It indicates the current electorate over land. The land distribution between sunni and shia is equal but the electoral counts based on population differ wildly. Assuming my counts are correct, the sunni have 46 representatives, the Kurds have 44 (the majority of Kurds are Sunni differring ethnically from Arabs), and the shia have 134. Wow, 59 representative in Baghdad, the population density must be huge.

My understanding it is, Bahgdad has a population of around 6 million.

According to the Iraq politics, the insurgents want a caliphate to rule the country. Do you see that as a resolvable oddity? Do you support it?

Support what, your contention as to what the article reports, the accuracy of what the article actually reports, the insurgents supposedly wanting a caliphate to rule Iraq, or a caliphate ruing Iraq?

What exactly could be a difference for a sunni or shia by having a politician of the opposite sect setting policy?

I'm all ears.

You mentioned oil rights.
How does that affect issues?

My guess is they all want the $$$.

What portion of oil revenues did the sunni lose? Were any distributed to shia before the war?
What portion of revenues will each receive now?

I'm all ears.

 

[cherokee]

You said Muslims won't listen, that is the problem in Iraq.
I said sure they do, look at Eqypt and Jordon peace accords.
You said that they did that to "save face".
So I said why didn't the Iraqis do that.
So you explain to me why accords worked with Eqypt and Jordon and couldn't work with Iraq.

Sure, as soon as you tell me how its going in the region. How many PeaceKeeper's are still there?..........:roll:

LOL denying your own statements now?

My mistake.

If you are saying all muslims won't listen you are stereotyping based on race.

“If” is a big fooking word isn’t it?

What don't you understand about the statement, sport?

Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
If I was an Iraqi or Muslim now I wouldn't listen to what the US is saying at the moment either because this administration has shown both a strong bias to Isreal and that it is not trustworthy. Hell I'll even expand that to Americans.

Are you afraid to explain what you mean?

So if I understand your proposal for Iraq, the US should BE "wiping out" and "eliminate the sunni and shias" in Iraq, by doing whatever it takes to destroy them. Do I have your solution correct?

That’s what I said. Do you understand what “whatever it takes to destroy them” means?
It means fighting a war without puss’s like you sitting in DC making battlefield decisions for me.

 

[Iriemon]

Sure, as soon as you tell me how its going in the region. How many PeaceKeeper's are still there?..........:roll:

No idea.

My mistake.

It happens.

“If” is a big fooking word isn’t it?

Yes it is, figuratively.

Are you afraid to explain what you mean?

No.

That’s what I said. Do you understand what “whatever it takes to destroy them” means?
It means fighting a war without puss’s like you sitting in DC making battlefield decisions for me.

Sorry to break it to you, but America is full of puss' like me that object to US troops committing mass murder and genocide.

You had better come up with a different plan.

 

[cherokee]

No idea.

Again it doesn’t surprise me.....how about you try goggle and find out how many PK's are still there...:roll:

Sorry to break it to you, but America is full of puss' like me that object to US troops committing mass murder and genocide.
You had better come up with a different plan.

And who said anything about mass murder and genocide. Is war mass murder or genocide? Is that how you view our troops today? Was the Gulf War mass murder or genocide?



Come on iriemon tell me just what you meant....

Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
If I was an Iraqi or Muslim now I wouldn't listen to what the US is saying at the moment either because this administration has shown both a strong bias to Isreal and that it is not trustworthy. Hell I'll even expand that to Americans.

 

[Iriemon]

Again it doesn’t surprise me.....how about you try goggle and find out how many PK's are still there...:roll:

No thanks.

And who said anything about mass murder and genocide. Is war mass murder or genocide? Is that how you view our troops today? Was the Gulf War mass murder or genocide?

"Wiping out" and "eliminate the sunni and shias" in Iraq, by doing whatever it takes to destroy them is mass murder or genocide in my book, sport.

Are are you being PC all of a sudden?

Come on iriemon tell me just what you meant....

I mean

If I was an Iraqi or Muslim now I wouldn't listen to what the US is saying at the moment either because this administration has shown both a strong bias to Isreal and that it is not trustworthy. Hell I'll even expand that to Americans.

because this administration has either lied, been wrong, or misrepresented so many things about Iraq and this war (and many other things as well) that *I* as an American don't believe them. And I am certainly not the only one in that category. And if many Americans don't find our government trustworthy, I certainly wouldn't expect our opponents to.

 

[cherokee]

No thanks. .

Why not? Its easy use Google

"Wiping out" and "eliminate the sunni and shias" in Iraq, by doing whatever it takes to destroy them is mass murder or genocide in my book, sport.
Are are you being PC all of a sudden?

Who me being PC? Never.
Just like in Vietnam you don’t fight a war with you hands tied behind your back. You kill anyone who takes arms against you. No matter who they are. You destroy any place that harbors or supports them. This means innocent will die, they always do in warfare. If all the sunni and shia take arms against you then yes You kill them all!
Now answer my question about our troops today and the first Gulf War.

I mean
If I was an Iraqi or Muslim now I wouldn't listen to what the US is saying at the moment either because this administration has shown both a strong bias to Isreal and that it is not trustworthy. Hell I'll even expand that to Americans.

because this administration has either lied, been wrong, or misrepresented so many things about Iraq and this war (and many other things as well) that *I* as an American don't believe them. And I am certainly not the only one in that category. And if many Americans don't find our government trustworthy, I certainly wouldn't expect our opponents to.

Ok, now tell me about the “many other things” and tell me about Israel.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Consequences

"Consequences"

Apparently they disagree.

All is fair in war.

What portion of oil revenues did the sunni lose? Were any distributed to shia before the war?
What portion of revenues will each receive now?

I'm all ears. My guess is they all want the $$$.

Iraqis near agreement on oil revenue sharing By Edward Wong Published: December 8, 2006
The officials said the authors have reached agreement on one of the most divisive issues in Iraq: How revenues from the oil industry should be distributed. The working draft calls for the central government in Baghdad to collect oil revenues and distribute them to provinces or regions based on population, the officials say. The measure could calm some Sunni Arabs who oppose regional autonomy because of fears that Sunnis would be excluded from a fair share of oil wealth, which is concentrated in Shiite and Kurdish regions.
....
The report released this week by the Iraq Study Group said an equitable oil law was a necessary cornerstone to the process of national reconciliation, and thus to ending the war.

The order was rearranged in speculation that the religious issues may be secondary to the monetary issues. Questions asked but unanswerable are prima facia, if only to find other questions.

According to the Iraq politics, the insurgents want a caliphate to rule the country. Do you see that as a resolvable oddity? Do you support it?

Support what, your contention as to what the article reports, the accuracy of what the article actually reports, the insurgents supposedly wanting a caliphate to rule Iraq, or a caliphate ruing Iraq?

It was my oversight.
To what extent do you agree that the termed "insurgents" want a caliphate and would entirely reject the Iraqi government with or without a satisfactory oil distribution agreement?
Is it possible to speculate on the proportion of destabilizing forces in Iraq that want a caliphate?
Which form of government, a caliphate or the current Iraqi government, do you consider more beneficial in the long run?
Are shia and sunni elements separately forwarding an agenda for a caliphate?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Obsolve? I will obsolve myself as long as I'm the decider. And what am I diluted with?

Propaganda.

I said the Muslim brotherhood has nothing to do with Naziism.

No actually what you said and I quote was:

They are (or were) prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have nothing to do with Naziism though.

Which is totally false they had everything to do with Nazism!

After reading the article (not that it's anything I haven't heard before), I see no reason to alter that position.

Well that's because you must be illiterate, the article shows conclusively that the Muslim Brotherhood was started as an intelligence wing of the Third Reich saying that they have no connection any longer is really quite laughable seeing as the Reich has ceased to exist since 1945.

The connection appears to be that one of the founders of the Muslim brotherhood some seventy years ago had some dealings with the Nazis.

"Some Connections," ??? Are you ****ing kidding me? They were the intelligence wing of the Reich within the middle east!

That doesn't mean they have anything to do with Nazis today, or that the ideologies are connected. If you can show me that the Muslim brotherhood wants to bring about another Reich with the Nordic/ Germanic people as the master race, then I will concede the point. Until then, that's what Naziism was about, first and foremost.

Really is that why the Reich attacked Poland and Russia which have more blonde hair and blue eyed people than Germany? What they were about first and foremost is solving the Jewish question as is the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim brotherhood has other plans entirely.

Ya reestablishing the Caliphate and killing Jews, the Nazi ideology was Islamized and lives on to this day.

In any case, if you think this sort of thing proves that the Muslim brotherhood are Nazis, you'd also have to think the Neocons are Nazis. Prescott Bush, the Grandfather of the current president, did handle a lot of money for the Nazis and supplied them with a large portion of their industrial materials.

Spout propaganda much? That was disproven long ago during Bush 41's presidential run; Thysenn (Bush's so called Connection to the Reich) was denouncing Hitler by 1939 and was exiled from Germany.

He was apparently quite fond of Nazi ideology. You'd also have to assume that the catholics are Nazis since then Pope Leo was quite cozy with Hitler. You'd also have to believe that Germany today is still a Nazi state, since the Germans supported Naziism. Also, the Austrians.

Quite cozy? How exactly? If you recall the vatican was living under Mussolini at the time and infact the Nazi's killed many a Catholic.

There were quite a few Americans that thought the Nazis were pretty cool, too, some of them very prominent. So at least certain segments of our country would also be Naziis by the same reasoning.

Yes if people though that the Nazi's were pretty cool then they would be Nazi's but were any of them forming an organization that was a Nazi intelligence wing of the Reich in the Middle East? Did any of them organize Waffen SS units of Arabic descent for the Eastern front?

Hopefully by now you get the point. For someone to be a Nazi, and deserve the label, they have to have some kind of present and immediate connection, not some distant connection that occurred long ago. I would bet that no current members of the Muslim Brotherhood ever corresponded with the Nazis.

lmfao ok:

"There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops." -- Yaser Arafat

What your saying is quite frankly laughable by your logic if the Nazi party changed their name they would cease to be Nazi's, the Muslim Brotherhood was a branch of Nazi intelligence, that's their origin it's where they came from and what their ideology is based on.

Only because anything is debatable.

No it's because I seriously doubt that you've done more research than I have which is proven conclusively by bringing up Prescott Bush's ties to the Reich was disproven conclusively many years ago I guess the left wing useful idiots forgot to print that tidbit in their hit piece though.

Then why resort to name calling? If you've got something that actually backs up your position,

Already posted it you brought up Prescott Bush to try to play down the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islam are direct descendents of the Reich.

why not just state it? Are you just being coy or something?

Coy? No I said what I meant plainly.

Then the surest way to get rid of me is to beat me with sound argumentation.

How by arguing with someone that thinks disproven slanders and ideological sympathizers are analogous to being an intelligence wing of the Reich???

 

[ashurbanipal]

Propaganda.

How does anyone get diluted with Propaganda? Doesn't seem like they'd be in the same domain...

Quote:
I said the Muslim brotherhood has nothing to do with Naziism.

No actually what you said and I quote was:


Quote:
Originally Posted by you

They are (or were) prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have nothing to do with Naziism though.

The above sequence makes zero sense. You just agreed with me, as far as I can determine, while claiming not to agree.

Which is totally false they had everything to do with Nazism!

The only people who had everything to do with Naziism are Himmler, Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, Rohme, and a few others.

Well that's because you must be illiterate, the article shows conclusively that the Muslim Brotherhood was started as an intelligence wing of the Third Reich saying that they have no connection any longer is really quite laughable seeing as the Reich has ceased to exist since 1945.

Few articles show anything conclusively. I'm willing to take Mr. Loftus at his word about the connection that existed at one time. That hardly means that the Muslim brotherhood today is involved with Naziism. And it sure as heck doesn't mean that anyone who happens to say anything remotely sympathetic to Muslims or critical of Israel or America is a Nazi--which was what my original complaint was about.

"Some Connections," ??? Are you ****ing kidding me? They were the intelligence wing of the Reich within the middle east!

So what if they were? So what if they were Hitler and Goebbels in disguise? That hardly proves a present connection, which is what you need for your argument to have any force. The people who are today calling for western influence to leave the middle east are not Nazis, and if you say they are, then you're calling them names.

Really is that why the Reich attacked Poland and Russia which have more blonde hair and blue eyed people than Germany? What they were about first and foremost is solving the Jewish question as is the Muslim Brotherhood.

No, they had plans for Africans, Middle Easterners, Chinese, Japanese, etc. etc. Hitler wasn't expecting to achieve those plans in his lifetime.

Anyway, I'm more than happy to discuss the ideology of Naziism with you as it's something I've studied some. But I don't think that's got anything to do with the point.

Ya reestablishing the Caliphate and killing Jews, the Nazi ideology was Islamized and lives on to this day.

First of all, they're harkening back to a time that never really existed. The Islamic "empire" was never ruled by one person except briefly after Mohammed's death, and then for a while under Sala-al-din.

Secondly, if you can find a single statement from the Muslim brotherhood (with a valid source) from within the last 20 years or so in which they explicitly state that they'd like to kill all the Jews, I'll shut up.

Spout propaganda much? That was disproven long ago during Bush 41's presidential run; Thysenn (Bush's so called Connection to the Reich) was denouncing Hitler by 1939 and was exiled from Germany.

After Prescott Bush had already sold Nazi Germany a considerable portion of their industrial materials and handled a lot of their money. So if you think that because a couple prominent members of the Muslim brotherhood were at one time Nazi sympathizers means that all hardline Muslims are Nazis, you must also conclude that the Neocons are Nazis, since the Grandfather of the current Neocon leader was doing business with the Nazis.

Yes if people though that the Nazi's were pretty cool then they would be Nazi's but were any of them forming an organization that was a Nazi intelligence wing of the Reich in the Middle East? Did any of them organize Waffen SS units of Arabic descent for the Eastern front?

Of course they didn't but why does that matter? Is that (specifically) what someone has to do to be a Nazi in your eyes?

What your saying is quite frankly laughable by your logic if the Nazi party changed their name they would cease to be Nazi's

Of course they would. Why wouldn't they? The name is a descriptor. Read Zins und Bedeutung by Gottlob Frege.

the Muslim Brotherhood was a branch of Nazi intelligence

Yeah, but are they today? If not, then don't call them Nazis. Furthermore, are they saying the same sorts of things that the Nazis were saying? If not, then quit implying that they're somehow Nazis, because it's absurd.

that's their origin it's where they came from and what their ideology is based on.

No, it is not.

No it's because I seriously doubt that you've done more research than I have which is proven conclusively by bringing up Prescott Bush's ties to the Reich was disproven conclusively many years ago I guess the left wing useful idiots forgot to print that tidbit in their hit piece though.

It was not disproven conclusively. Are you denying that what I've said about Prescott Bush is true--namely, that he sold Nazi Germany large quantities of industrial materials, that he handled a lot of Nazi money, and that he is the Grandfather of the current President? Those are the three things I've said about him. Can you deny any of them?

Already posted it

In this post. You hadn't when I posted previously, so this is disingenuous.

you brought up Prescott Bush to try to play down the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islam are direct descendents of the Reich.

1) The Muslim brotherhood is not a direct descendant of the Reich. They were founded prior to Naziism, and do not subscribe to Nazi beliefs today.

2) I wasn't trying to "play down" anything--it was not a rhetorical device. Your position seems to be that the Muslim brotherhood is a) completely derived from Naziism, and is indeed Naziism in disguise and b) all hardline Muslims derive from the Muslim brotherhood. I attacked a by showing that plenty of other people have ties to Naziism, but that doesn't make them Nazis.

3) I will also attack b; I don't think you can show that all hardline Muslims are derived from the Muslim brotherhood.

Coy? No I said what I meant plainly.

You slung a bunch of names around (in post thirty, extant in this thread). You didn't make any kind of argument.

How by arguing with someone that thinks disproven slanders and ideological sympathizers are analogous to being an intelligence wing of the Reich???

I'm a reasonable man, and I've changed my position before on any number of things in the face of new information and argument. I can even show you a couple times on these boards that I've conceded points. It doesn't matter what I believe now. Show me a reason I ought to change, make that reason compelling, and I'll change.

In the meantime, for personal reasons I won't go into (except to say I'm not a Nazi; I really despise Naziism and Nazis), I've spent a lot of time studying Naziism. One thing that strikes me as a little "off" about what you're saying is that the Nazis would not have ever thought of anyone of non-Germanic descent as an equal. Hitler may have used Al-Banna for a while, but he would have been shining Al-Banna on. He certainly wouldn't have considered anyone in North Africa an intelligence operative of the Reich, except in the same way he thought of Jews as industrial workers.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How does anyone get diluted with Propaganda? Doesn't seem like they'd be in the same domain...

Your brain is diluted with propaganda, have you never heard the expression before?

[quote
The above sequence makes zero sense. You just agreed with me, as far as I can determine, while claiming not to agree.[/quote]

No you make zero sense you said that Al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb had nothing to do with Nazism, that is out and out false, they had everything to do with Nazism and formed the Muslim Brotherhood as a Middle Eastern intelligence wing of the Reich.

The only people who had everything to do with Naziism are Himmler, Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, Rohme, and a few others.

The Muslim Brotherhood was the intelligence wing of the third reich in the Middle East, they distributed translated versions of Mein Kompf, and their ideology was based on the same conspiratorial bullshit and uber nationalism as the Nazi party, Sayyid Qutb even wrote a book entitled "Our Struggle With the Jews," which is very very similar to Mein Kampf.

Few articles show anything conclusively. I'm willing to take Mr. Loftus at his word about the connection that existed at one time. That hardly means that the Muslim brotherhood today is involved with Naziism.

It was formed as the Middle Eastern branch of the Nazi party you sound like those white power people who deny being Nazi's, don't take the name of Nazi, yet spout the exact same propaganda all the while denying their Nazi roots.

And it sure as heck doesn't mean that anyone who happens to say anything remotely sympathetic to Muslims or critical of Israel or America is a Nazi--which was what my original complaint was about.

Umm no it wasn't you came to defense of the Islamic Fascist POS that started this thread which defends Islamic Fascism.

So what if they were? So what if they were Hitler and Goebbels in disguise? That hardly proves a present connection, which is what you need for your argument to have any force.

OMFG, their ideology is based on anti-semitism, conspiratorialism, and pan-Islamic nationalism, their connection is through their origins and their ideology.

The people who are today calling for western influence to leave the middle east are not Nazis, and if you say they are, then you're calling them names.

People who are calling for a pan-Islamic Fascist state are Nazi's the connections of the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood to Nazi Germany are clear, Nazi ideology was Islamisized by Sayyid Qutb, Al-Banna, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and that ideology lives on to this day and is shared by Arab Nationalist world wide.

First of all, they're harkening back to a time that never really existed. The Islamic "empire" was never ruled by one person except briefly after Mohammed's death, and then for a while under Sala-al-din.

Secondly, if you can find a single statement from the Muslim brotherhood (with a valid source) from within the last 20 years or so in which they explicitly state that they'd like to kill all the Jews, I'll shut up.

What don't you get here, the Muslim Brotherhood was formed by Sayyid Qutb and Al-Banna, they created the ideology, and they were Nazi's.

After Prescott Bush had already sold Nazi Germany a considerable portion of their industrial materials and handled a lot of their money. So if you think that because a couple prominent members of the Muslim brotherhood were at one time Nazi sympathizers means that all hardline Muslims are Nazis, you must also conclude that the Neocons are Nazis, since the Grandfather of the current Neocon leader was doing business with the Nazis.

No he wasn't those assertions are patently false, Prescott Bush A) had nothing to do with neo-con ideology, and B) had no ties to the Reich.

Of course they didn't but why does that matter? Is that (specifically) what someone has to do to be a Nazi in your eyes?

That's not what they have to do, but if they did it it would certainly make them a Nazi.

Of course they would. Why wouldn't they? The name is a descriptor. Read Zins und Bedeutung by Gottlob Frege.

A rose by any other name is still a rose, a Nazi by any other name is still a Nazi.

Yeah, but are they today? If not, then don't call them Nazis. Furthermore, are they saying the same sorts of things that the Nazis were saying? If not, then quit implying that they're somehow Nazis, because it's absurd.

It's not absurd their ideology is very much the same as that of the Reich, read Sayyid Qutb's "Our Struggle With the Jews."

No, it is not.

Yes it is.

It was not disproven conclusively. Are you denying that what I've said about Prescott Bush is true--namely, that he sold Nazi Germany large quantities of industrial materials, that he handled a lot of Nazi money, and that he is the Grandfather of the current President? Those are the three things I've said about him. Can you deny any of them?

Yes the first two are patently false even the Anti-Defemation League has come out and said that the assertions are complete bullshit:

"Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated."

In this post. You hadn't when I posted previously, so this is disingenuous.

Umm wtf are you talking about? I posted the article proving that the Muslim Brotherhood was a direct descendent of the Reich 3 posts back.

1) The Muslim brotherhood is not a direct descendant of the Reich. They were founded prior to Naziism, and do not subscribe to Nazi beliefs today.

No the Muslim Brotherhood was created in 1928 and the Nazi Party was formed in 1920 and their beliefs are based on Pan-Islamic Nationalism mixed with puritanical Islam and Nazi anti-semetism, it is Islamized Nazism but it is still Nazism.

2) I wasn't trying to "play down" anything--it was not a rhetorical device. Your position seems to be that the Muslim brotherhood is a) completely derived from Naziism, and is indeed Naziism in disguise and b) all hardline Muslims derive from the Muslim brotherhood. I attacked a by showing that plenty of other people have ties to Naziism, but that doesn't make them Nazis.

A) Prescott Bush never had ties to Nazi Germany the assertions to the contrary are false and politically motivated.

B) You said something about the Pope, did the Pope create the Catholic Church or its ideology? Well Sayyid Qutb, Al Banna, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem created the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideology.

3) I will also attack b; I don't think you can show that all hardline Muslims are derived from the Muslim brotherhood.

Not hardline Muslims but rather Arab Nationalists, Sayyid Qutb, Al Banna, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem began the Pan Arab movement and were also Nazi's and what they preached had very strong ideological ties to Nazism.

You slung a bunch of names around (in post thirty, extant in this thread). You didn't make any kind of argument.

Your damn right I slung a bunch of names around the kid was likening terrorists to freedom fighters funny that what they fight for is the furthest thing from freedom one could imagine.

I'm a reasonable man, and I've changed my position before on any number of things in the face of new information and argument. I can even show you a couple times on these boards that I've conceded points. It doesn't matter what I believe now. Show me a reason I ought to change, make that reason compelling, and I'll change.

In the meantime, for personal reasons I won't go into (except to say I'm not a Nazi; I really despise Naziism and Nazis), I've spent a lot of time studying Naziism. One thing that strikes me as a little "off" about what you're saying is that the Nazis would not have ever thought of anyone of non-Germanic descent as an equal. Hitler may have used Al-Banna for a while, but he would have been shining Al-Banna on. He certainly wouldn't have considered anyone in North Africa an intelligence operative of the Reich, except in the same way he thought of Jews as industrial workers.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Your brain is diluted with propaganda, have you never heard the expression before?

Nope.

No you make zero sense you said that Al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb had nothing to do with Nazism, that is out and out false, they had everything to do with Nazism and formed the Muslim Brotherhood as a Middle Eastern intelligence wing of the Reich.

I can see where you would think that--I meant that the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with Naziism. Not Al-Banna and Qutb.

The Muslim Brotherhood was the intelligence wing of the third reich in the Middle East, they distributed translated versions of Mein Kompf, and their ideology was based on the same conspiratorial bullshit and uber nationalism as the Nazi party, Sayyid Qutb even wrote a book entitled "Our Struggle With the Jews," which is very very similar to Mein Kampf.

So? Show me a modern connection with Naziism, and I'll concede the point. I don't care what the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood were into; the critical issue is what are they into now, and what are hardline Muslims into now. Hint--it isn't Naziism.

Umm no it wasn't you came to defense of the Islamic Fascist POS that started this thread which defends Islamic Fascism.

The thread is about pointing out that we do not get objective coverage of the situation in Iraq (or the world, for that matter) in our mainstream media. You jumped in and called the thread author a Nazi for having suggested that maybe we ought to try to understand why the Iraqi insurgents could be angry with us. I called you on it, and now you're trying to justify your name-calling by telling us that 60-70 years ago a couple founders of the Muslim Brotherhood were Nazis.

I acknowledge that they were, if not Nazis, at least sympathetic. So what? How does that equate to the Muslim Brotherhood today being Nazi? How does that equate to anyone who suggests that we might be in the wrong being a Nazi?

OMFG, their ideology is based on anti-semitism, conspiratorialism, and pan-Islamic nationalism, their connection is through their origins and their ideology.

Again, show me a statement from the Muslim brotherhood made any time in the last 20 years in which they state they want to kill all the Jews in the world. Do that, and I'll concede the point as long as it's well-sourced.

No he wasn't those assertions are patently false, Prescott Bush A) had nothing to do with neo-con ideology, and B) had no ties to the Reich.

A) Of course, grandfathers never have influence on their children and grandchildren. You're pounding on an organizational connection; I'm talking about a family connection. I think usually family ties are considered to be a little stronger.

B) Yes he did. See:

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

That's not what they have to do, but if they did it it would certainly make them a Nazi.

Then people can do other things and still be considered Nazis or Nazi sympathizers? You exempt those that sell industrial supplies to Nazis, knowing what they're up to?

A rose by any other name is still a rose, a Nazi by any other name is still a Nazi.

No, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It is whatever that other name is. There is sense and reference. You're relying on a confusion between the two, more or less.

It's not absurd their ideology is very much the same as that of the Reich, read Sayyid Qutb's "Our Struggle With the Jews."

Show me something modern. Show me some statement that they believe in a final solution right spankin' now.

Yes the first two are patently false even the Anti-Defemation League has come out and said that the assertions are complete bullshit:

See above.

Umm wtf are you talking about? I posted the article proving that the Muslim Brotherhood was a direct descendent of the Reich 3 posts back.

No the Muslim Brotherhood was created in 1928 and the Nazi Party was formed in 1920 and their beliefs are based on Pan-Islamic Nationalism mixed with puritanical Islam and Nazi anti-semetism, it is Islamized Nazism but it is still Nazism.

The Nazis were hardly in contact with, or could have been in contact with, the Muslim brotherhood in 1928. That is what I meant; if you think they were created a Nazi organization, you'd need to show the opposite.

B) You said something about the Pope, did the Pope create the Catholic Church or its ideology? Well Sayyid Qutb, Al Banna, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem created the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideology.

Not hardline Muslims but rather Arab Nationalists, Sayyid Qutb, Al Banna, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem began the Pan Arab movement and were also Nazi's and what they preached had very strong ideological ties to Nazism.

So now you're saying that the Iraqi insurgency has nothing to do with Naziism?

Your damn right I slung a bunch of names around the kid was likening terrorists to freedom fighters funny that what they fight for is the furthest thing from freedom one could imagine.

Not everyone who attacks American Soldiers, especially when they're occupying another country, is a terrorist.

I don't think they're terrorists, and it doesn't make me a Nazi to say so.

 

[Iriemon]

Who me being PC? Never.

Just like in Vietnam you don’t fight a war with you hands tied behind your back. You kill anyone who takes arms against you. No matter who they are. You destroy any place that harbors or supports them. This means innocent will die, they always do in warfare. If all the sunni and shia take arms against you then yes You kill them all![/QUOTE]

Why would you say we need to "Wipe out" and "eliminate the sunni and shias" if the do not all take arms against you?

Are you claiming "all the sunni and shia take arms" against us? If not, they why are you saying we need to wipe them out and eliminate them?

Obviously our soldiers kill anyone they can who takes arms against them. I mean, duh. And many tens of thousands of innocents have die. Their blood is on the hands of our nation.

But we have been doing that for 4 year now. What are you suggesting that is new? We should kill more innocent civilians? They just hanged a guy for doing that.

Now answer my question about our troops today and the first Gulf War.

Was the Gulf War mass murder or genocide?

I don't believe so.

Iriemon: If I was an Iraqi or Muslim now I wouldn't listen to what the US is saying at the moment either because this administration has shown both a strong bias to Isreal and that it is not trustworthy. Hell I'll even expand that to Americans.

because this administration has either lied, been wrong, or misrepresented so many things about Iraq and this war (and many other things as well) that *I* as an American don't believe them. And I am certainly not the only one in that category. And if many Americans don't find our government trustworthy, I certainly wouldn't expect our opponents to.

Ok, now tell me about the “many other things” and tell me about Israel.

You never heard about this before, eh?

o Iraq had WMDs
o Iraq was a supporter of Al-Queda
o Iraq had hundreds of tons of Chemicals to make chem weapons
o Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons [program]
o Iraq would welcome us as liberators.
o Hostilities would last at most 6 months.
o Iraqi oil would cover most of the cost of the invasion and occupation
o Mission accomplished
o The resistance is in its last throes

 

[Iriemon]

Re: Consequences

"Consequences"
All is fair in war.

Disagree.

Iraqis near agreement on oil revenue sharing By Edward Wong Published: December 8, 2006
The officials said the authors have reached agreement on one of the most divisive issues in Iraq: How revenues from the oil industry should be distributed. The working draft calls for the central government in Baghdad to collect oil revenues and distribute them to provinces or regions based on population, the officials say. The measure could calm some Sunni Arabs who oppose regional autonomy because of fears that Sunnis would be excluded from a fair share of oil wealth, which is concentrated in Shiite and Kurdish regions.
....
The report released this week by the Iraq Study Group said an equitable oil law was a necessary cornerstone to the process of national reconciliation, and thus to ending the war.

The order was rearranged in speculation that the religious issues may be secondary to the monetary issues. Questions asked but unanswerable are prima facia, if only to find other questions.

Wonderful.

It was my oversight.
To what extent do you agree that the termed "insurgents" want a caliphate and would entirely reject the Iraqi government with or without a satisfactory oil distribution agreement?

I dont' know, but I'm sure some do.

Is it possible to speculate on the proportion of destabilizing forces in Iraq that want a caliphate?

You can speculate on anything.

Which form of government, a caliphate or the current Iraqi government, do you consider more beneficial in the long run?

I personally am a fan of a democracy. I believe it is generally the best form of government.

Are shia and sunni elements separately forwarding an agenda for a caliphate?

I don't know. The article you cited said some are, which doesn't surprise me. I certainly disagree that is the sole motivating force of the insurgents.

 

[duretti]

Lying is exactly what you did. You used a figure (unsourced, which I trusted enough to take at value) and attempted to produce whole truth.

The figure was not unsourced – if you had read my posts, you would see that it came from the lancet study. What do you mean by “whole truth”? Those are the casualty figures. You may believe there to be special exceptions which legitimise those deaths. I don’t. I called fallujah a massacre the same way as people call the Somme a massacre. Yes, it was a battle, that doesn’t change anything.

But, let's use our brains for a moment. Let's check out the credibility of the Lancet report, which other "credible" reports have already shunned for how it conjured up its numbers.....

Pray explain.

It is a joke to sugest that the UN would produce an unbiased account, when 2 members of its security council are the occupying force.

I cannot think of a more biased source than the Iraqi government which is fighting the insurgency.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you now as desperate as suggesting that insurgents that are armed with IED's and slaughtering their own Muslims are Gandhis? Are you now trying in vain to suggest that a religion that is very much defined by its origins in the Middle East are practicing Gandhi tactics? What part of Iraq are you seeing this? What part of Islam versus Hindu do you not understand?

What I am talking about are non-violent resistors. Are you telling me that where huge numbers of people willing to die to defeat the occupation, there are none who have engaged in non-violent protests. Obviously they are not the same people as those fighting the occupation violently.

So now you are suggesting that FOX, CNN, ABC, etc. should completely dismiss the fact that they are American citizens as they cling to this nonesense that they claim to belong to a global media?

Of course they shouldnt let their nationality bias their reporting. This is not because they should identify with some “global media”, but because they should be objective.

Are they to imbed with our enemies and film their deeds just for the sake of full coverage (entertainment for some civilians?)

They should imbed in with *your* enemies (as I have stated, objective media does not have “enemies”) and film their deeds. This is not for entertainment, it is because an objective media is an essential feature of a functional democratic system.

And if our media is biased towards the military (as you erroniously state) why would you trust what they would say while imbedded with murderers?

I don’t. As far as possible, I seek primary sources. However, when I see something which does not flatter their biases, I see no reason that it should automatically be wrong.

If Al-Jazeera is untrustworthy (as you admit) how would you trust their input at all?

I don’t. I have never watched Al-Jazeera.

What exactly are trying to present here?

What I said in the original post. That when people call the liberal media “anti-american/anti-war”, that what they are really saying is not that they are insufficiently “pro-american/pro-war” – because the liberal media are pro American and pro war.

 

[duretti]

Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines terrorism as "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the persuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

My apologies. I was wrong, my source was out of date. The definition I gave remains the one used by the majority of academics in the field of politics.

By the above definition, pretty much any act of war/political violence can be defined as terrorism - its all about the word "lawful" - which means whatever the powerful decide. I imagine the "shock and awe" campaign fills the criteria magnificently (seeing as the invasion contravened international law). The WWII french resistance would also be terrorists by the above definition.

Today, the Islamic terrorists and the insurgency in Iraq are focused on you when they slaughter their own. They are striving to create such a carnage that people will demand them their victory by opposing their enemies.

proof?

And this is the side you want to see get a fair shake in the media?

1. Everyone gets a fair shake in an objective media. 2. They are not a singular cohesive side. It is unfair to tar those who attack only military targets with the same brush as those who attack civilians.

The roadside bombs that destroy families and and civilians at market is "not terroristic?"

Roadside bombs that kill only soldiers should not be considered terroristic by any sensible definition. Surely you see a difference between attacking enemy military, and attacking civilians? I maintain that the media plays up insurgent attacks on civilians, and plays down insurgent attacks on military targets.

 

[duretti]

And who's fault is it they live under these conditions? Is it not the of SA and the people who give them the power to control them IE..the people of SA?

No. Power in opressive states comes from violence - which comes from weapons supplied by the US government. The people of SA "give" their government so much power because they have american guns to their heads.

So now you change to "*is currently*"? Nice try...
Your argument/message is clear..:roll:

If I wanted to debate the justice of the Iraq war, I would have started a thread in the Iraq section. I wanted to debate media bias in the coverage of the iraq war, so I posted here. In order to debate media coverage, one must discuss the events being covered.

Originally Posted by duretti
Completely agreed. But the civilian deaths caused in this way are a drop in the ocean compared to the coalition bombings of iraqi cities.

Originally Posted by duretti
I suppose destroying their infrastructure and law & order was doing everything they can to help? As was killing over 100000 civilians by 2004 (lancet study again)? As is ensuring that oil is not nationalised, so american companies can control it as they do in saudi arabia, ensuring iraq will remain in poverty?

Originally Posted by duretti
No, I do not believe it is ok. I do believe it is better to focus opposition on larger scale killings - such as those perpetrated by the coalition. Attacks on civilians are not only wrong in their own right, but bad tactics longterm as they severely undermine support.

All these are responses to questions and assertions, not part of my original post. Read my first few posts, where I keep saying the thread is going off topic.

Originally Posted by duretti
In contrast, Whilst the coalition is responsible for a very large percentage of civilian deaths (84% by october 2004), only a tiny fraction of the coverage given to iraqi civilian deaths is that of those killed by the coalition.

You havent disproved a word of this, and its about media coverage.

 

[cherokee]

Did you ever google to see just how it’s going with Israel, Egypt and Jordan?
No?
You think you can talk your way thru anything when if real life you cant. You think you can apply peace accords from Israel, Egypt and Jordan to Iraq. The sunni and shia have been spilling each others blood for 1400 years why would they listen to anything from anyone? This is a holy war between two Islamic sects not a war in which your military is on the verge of being destroyed but the Israeli military.

Why would you say we need to "Wipe out" and "eliminate the sunni and shias" if the do not all take arms against you?
Are you claiming "all the sunni and shia take arms" against us? If not, they why are you saying we need to wipe them out and eliminate them?

I am claiming any who wish to do so or any who wish to carry out this holy war should be killed. I am claiming any person (s) who supports any of the groups should be targeted as well.

Obviously our soldiers kill anyone they can who takes arms against them. I mean, duh.

Yes they do kill any who fire upon them but why then do you have ROE restrictions why is it such a pain in the azz to go after sunni and shia clerics? Why was the Fallujah battle stopped to allow the insurgents to re-supply and dig in? Why isn’t the full weight of the US military being brought down upon Iraq?

From the presidents own speech..
....”In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods. And Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

And many tens of thousands of innocents have die. Their blood is on the hands of our nation.

Who’s killing whom? How many did the US kill and how many have the sunni and shia holy war killed?

But we have been doing that for 4 year now. What are you suggesting that is new? We should kill more innocent civilians? They just hanged a guy for doing that.

I am suggesting we take the gloves off. We go after the sunni and shia leaders no matter who or where they are, we stop Iran and Syria from flooding people and material in. I am suggestion we use an Iron fist.
My reference to the Gulf War is an example of how to wage a war.

You never heard about this before, eh?
o Iraq had WMDs
o Iraq was a supporter of Al-Queda
o Iraq had hundreds of tons of Chemicals to make chem weapons
o Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons [program]
o Iraq would welcome us as liberators.
o Hostilities would last at most 6 months.
o Iraqi oil would cover most of the cost of the invasion and occupation
o Mission accomplished
o The resistance is in its last throes

Yes you told me about Iraq but I asked about the “Many other things”, why did you leave out Israel?

 

[duretti]

So, anyone want to discuss the OP, and media coverage, rather than just cheer for the home team?

 

[cherokee]

So, anyone want to discuss the OP, and media coverage, rather than just cheer for the home team?

Sure lets talk about the coverage of the 160 plus civilians killed the past few days in their little holy war.

 

[duretti]

Sure lets talk about the coverage of the 160 plus civilians killed the past few days in their little holy war.

A word of caution is in order here. However much media is biased in your favour, you can always think of things it could have covered in more depth, which would have provided better propaganda for your position. An excellent example of this is the massive condemnation the soviet military command gave to pravda for its "anti-sovietism" during the first afghanistan war. They endlessly cited attrocities by the muajahdeen which were not covered, or they felt should have been covered in more depth. Simmilarly "heroic" successes of the soviet military, which were not covered, or the high command felt, not given enough prominence.

Few, however, would contend that pravda did not exhibit a massive pro-soviet bias.

IMO, if you want to look at really specific cases, the best way to analyse media bias, is to take paired examples (in this case similar actions perpetrated by the coalition, and the insurgents), account for any reasons for different coverage not related to bias, and observe the differences in the media coverage. Also, it is probably best to use examples from a while ago, because more information about them will have come to light.

I will take up your challenge, however, because i think it will demonstrate one of my points brilliantly. Can you prove that those 160 people were killed by insurgents (defined as groups or individuals engaged in violent resistance to coalition forces - no sneaky making all iraqi murderers insurgents by definition). Can you prove that they weren't killed by sectarian groups not engaged in attacks on the coalition, apolitical groups killing for family or tribal feuds, or just common murderers? Because the media doesn't seem to need proof when it labels such killings the work of insurgents.