How to defeat political Islam

[dimreepr]

You are talking black and white, and the situation is gray. What the intelligence now says is that he had them but cut off his program and was going to resume as soon as the inspectors left and the sanctions were lifted. He didn't have any we found. Does not mean he did not destroy what the inspectors did not. He still had them, and wanted to resume manufacture when the world left. The numbers of shells and their condition that existed in Iraq when we got there was not what we expected, almost none. A few old shells here and there. I am not saying we did not find any, nor am I saying we were not wrong in thinking he was still manufacturing when he had suspended manufacture. I am saying he absolutely had WMDs and disposed of them or hid them so they would not be found. Are you suggesting he never had them?

 

 

And you're talking bollocks...

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

You can't prove a negative. Prove to me that Saddam did not have WMDs when we invaded Iraq.

 

Regards, TAR

As in, would Saddam have had WMDs if we didn't invade and had lifted the sanctions. Anything hidden could have been recovered, anything held could have not been destroyed, by international actors or by Saddam himself in an effort to destroy damning evidence.

Consider what happens to the grass at a party when the police are out front. Down the toilet.

Was considering yesterday how somebody like myself with and IQ of probably in the high 120s would fall around the 95th percentile. That would mean 94 percent of the population has a lower IQ than I have and it would mean that about 16,000,000 Americans are smarter than me. If you take a whole country, of sand and ask your generals, who I presume are resourceful to make it so the Americans do not find any WMDs when they get here, I am pretty sure they would get the job done. If you are having a party on the beach and someone says the cops are coming, get rid of the beer, do you think it would be a problem to make it so that the police did not find any beer in your possession?

 

Saying Saddam did not have WMDs is like Bill saying he was not, at the moment, having sexual relations with Monica.

Edited September 13, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

As in, would Saddam have had WMDs if we didn't invade and had lifted the sanctions. Anything hidden could have been recovered, anything held could have not been destroyed, by international actors or by Saddam himself in an effort to destroy damning evidence.

Consider what happens to the grass at a party when the police are out front. Down the toilet.

Was considering yesterday how somebody like myself with and IQ of probably in the high 120s would fall around the 95th percentile. That would mean 94 percent of the population has a lower IQ than I have and it would mean that about 16,000,000 Americans are smarter than me. If you take a whole country, of sand and ask your generals, who I presume are resourceful to make it so the Americans do not find any WMDs when they get here, I am pretty sure they would get the job done. If you are having a party on the beach and someone says the cops are coming, get rid of the beer, do you think it would be a problem to make it so that the police did not find any beer in your possession?

 

Saying Saddam did not have WMDs is like Bill saying he was not, at the moment, having sexual relations with Monica.

Famously in Sec Rumsfeld words there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.

 

Known knowns are things we know we know. Known unknowns are thing we know we don't know. Unknown unknowns are things we don't know we don't know.

 

You are arguing unknown unknowns.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

But on a deeper level, I am arguing from my thoughts and desires at the time of our invasion. Saddam was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the world, and we knew it.

 

Why are you arguing now, that Bush pulled the wool over our eyes and Saddam was pure as the driven snow, and we shouldn't have gone in?

 

Regards, TAR

In terms of what we should have done, we should have followed the guard right to Bagdad when we chased them out of Kuwait. And brought Saddam on charges for adding tremendously to global warming by setting all those wells on fire.

I think of our invasion as a continuation of the Kuwait action, with a bunch of Saddam pulling the wool over our eyes, in between.

Problem was not that Bush was trying to pull the wool over the American people's eyes, the problem was Bush was playing checkers and Saddam was playing Chess.

But Saddam wound up in checkmate, so I guess he lost the game he was playing after all.

Edited September 13, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

But on a deeper level, I am arguing from my thoughts and desires at the time of our invasion. Saddam was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the world, and we knew it.

 

Why are you arguing now, that Bush pulled the wool over our eyes and Saddam was pure as the driven snow, and we shouldn't have gone in?

 

Regards, TAR

In terms of what we should have done, we should have followed the guard right to Bagdad when we chased them out of Kuwait. And brought Saddam on charges for adding tremendously to global warming by setting all those wells on fire.

I think of our invasion as a continuation of the Kuwait action, with a bunch of Saddam pulling the wool over our eyes, in between.

Problem was not that Bush was trying to pull the wool over the American people's eyes, the problem was Bush was playing checkers and Saddam was playing Chess.

But Saddam wound up in checkmate, so I guess he lost the game he was playing after all.

Where did I agrue that? It seem to me you are arguing with yourself.

[dimreepr]

In terms of what we should have done, we should have followed the guard right to Bagdad when we chased them out of Kuwait. And brought Saddam on charges for adding tremendously to global warming by setting all those wells on fire.

I think of our invasion as a continuation of the Kuwait action, with a bunch of Saddam pulling the wool over our eyes, in between.

Problem was not that Bush was trying to pull the wool over the American people's eyes, the problem was Bush was playing checkers and Saddam was playing Chess.

But Saddam wound up in checkmate, so I guess he lost the game he was playing after all.

 

 

Let's take a quick poll:

 

Who here thinks Bush junior was a better more astute president than Bush senior?

 

Just in case the above glides, agonisingly slow, just above your head, it's a joke...

dimreepr,

 

You can't prove a negative.

 

 

Neither can you, but guess which one of us has tried?

Edited September 13, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

Or if we are playing chess with Putin, a couple years ago he picked up one of our white rooks and painted it black and put it back down on the board, and said "check". And we pondered our next move. Then he sat down at our game with Assad, and started Kibitzing. ISIS is playing full contact tackle and we are still pondering our next chess move. Perhaps "smart" diplomacy that include using military, economic and diplomatic measures, should also involve playing the same game as our opponent, on what ever level they choose to play.

We did none of that. We forced in a gov't of our choosing and called it democracy and then reward U.S. companies with huge contracts to support projects than either support our militaries logistical needs or were meant to aid Iraqis but ultimatley went unfinished.

You arguing that the U.S. did the Iraq thing wrong, for the wrong reasons.

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

You arguing that the U.S. did the Iraq thing wrong, for the wrong reasons.

 

 

Or did they do the wrong thing, for the right (greedy, selfish) reasons?

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

You are the one saying Saddam had no WMDs when we attacked him. Are you not claiming knowing a negative?

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

Yes, because they were never found!!!

 

Yet another fly-by: are you immune to humor?

[tar]

But they were found, just not in the shape or volume we expected to find them in. And that Sarin did show up years later, so the fact that we did not find what we expected to find does not mean it was not hidden well, moved to another country, or destroyed.

And yes, I completely have missed your jokes.

Let me ask a simple question. If the police find no pot at the party, does that mean they should not have raided the place?

Just interested in your logic.

dimreepr,

 

I never was very good at banter, anyway.

 

Besides, I actually want to discuss a way to defeat political Islam.

 

For that we have to first decide what we want to defeat.

 

I don't want to defeat George Bush, or America, or the Republicans, I want to defeat the ideology that is fueling the ISIS fighters. I would rather argue for the U.S. and against those that would take away my way of life, rule of law and human rights and personal freedoms, than look for ways to dis the ideology of the U.S..

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 13, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

Yet another goalpost shift; now we have to define what A WMD actually is, and, no doubt in a future post, how many people it has to kill in order to qualify.

 

Sometimes 'tar' a goal is scored, however strong your desire/wish it hadn't been.

[tar]

So wait, you are saying we went into Iraq because we thought Saddam was further along in his nuclear program than he was?

 

I didn't think that was the reason at the time. I thought we went in expecting him to use nerve gas and mustard gas against our troops, and he did not.

 

My theory is concerned with what he did with his chemical and biological weapons, the nuclear program we have learned was not as far along as we thought.

[dimreepr]

So wait, you are saying we went into Iraq because we thought Saddam was further along in his nuclear program than he was?

 

 

Nope, you are; this could become the basis of a sitcom, along the lines of "till death us do part"...

[Ten oz]

Or if we are playing chess with Putin, a couple years ago he picked up one of our white rooks and painted it black and put it back down on the board, and said "check". And we pondered our next move. Then he sat down at our game with Assad, and started Kibitzing. ISIS is playing full contact tackle and we are still pondering our next chess move. Perhaps "smart" diplomacy that include using military, economic and diplomatic measures, should also involve playing the same game as our opponent, on what ever level they choose to play.

 

You arguing that the U.S. did the Iraq thing wrong, for the wrong reasons.

 

Regards, TAR

As does Sec. Rice, Sec. Powell, and Sec. Rumsfeld (to name a few) and they were in the room when the decision was made. The intel was wrong. We know that now. It is undeniable it has already been admitted to and the associated memos and emails release. You are trying to bait me and switch the topic to what a bad person Saddam was or was not and that isn't what this discussion is about. You do not know what Saddam's WMD capability was prior to the invasion, you do not know if sanctions would have been lift vs changed vs left in place, and you do not know what Saddam would or wouldn't have done had he remained in power. Everything you are saying is just pure speculation.

 

You are exaggerate my words by saying "Saddam was pure as the driven snow". Just a bait and switch tactic.

[tar]

ya know I think I just figured out this charge of me shifting the goal posts

 

Something is said, that has assumptions behind it, that I do not agree with. I explore the validity of the assumptions I question, and make a good point about the assumptions, and am then accused of shifting the goal posts.

 

At the time of the Iraq invasion there were anti-American and anti-Zionist propagandists working in the world. I was against them then, and am against them now.

Edited September 13, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

 

 

ya know I think I just figured out this charge of me shifting the goal posts

 

Something is said, that has assumptions behind it, that I do not agree with. I explore the validity of the assumptions I question, and make a good point about the assumptions, and am then accused of shifting the goal posts.

 

At the time of the Iraq invasion there were anti-American and anti-Zionist propagandists working in the world. I was against them then, and am against them know.

 

 

 

Nope, it's just the reason we've gone from, "how to defeat political Islam" to, What constitutes a WMD, and how wise Bush junior was; You can't slide below that one, surely...

Edited September 13, 2016 by dimreepr

[tar]

I keep trying to ask what we are talking about in terms of political Islam, I just react to other people's posts.

 

In terms of WMDs you are talking about this.

 

"The Niger uranium forgeries were forged documents initially revealed by SISMI (Italian military intelligence), which seem to depict an attempt made by Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase yellowcake uranium powder from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.

 

On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq violated United Nations Iraq sanctions by attempting to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating weapons of mass destruction."

 

I do not deny that happened, nor do others. But those were not the only WMDs that Saddam had, there were those "other indicators" and I am after those others.

So I would be glad to get back on topic.

 

What about political Islam, should we try to defeat?

This is a thread that should cover the wider range of issue than the ISIS thread.

 

By defeating political Islam I mean either destroying the movement completely or at least weakening it to such a degree that it is not able to attract a significant number of followers, and therefore, unable to seize power anywhere.

 

The main discussion should be global strategy - i.e. the one that can be used on a wide scale. But discussion about "tactical" level (limited to one contry or even a single region of some country) are welcomed as well.

 

The timescale about 2015-2050 - what to do and what not to do. We may also discuss the current "war on terror" and it's consequences - positive and negative.

So Hans, do you think there is any way to separate political Islam from Islam? Would we not need Muslims to do it, instead of the Great Satan doing it?

Like if your kids are terrorizing the neighborhood, shouldn't you stop it, before someone calls the police?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

 

This site has some verses and some political and historic context to the verses. The politics of Islam are closely tied to Muhammed's rule.

Edited September 13, 2016 by tar

[Carrock]

So wait, you are saying we went into Iraq because we thought Saddam was further along in his nuclear program than he was?

 

I didn't think that was the reason at the time. I thought we went in expecting him to use nerve gas and mustard gas against our troops, and he did not.

 

My theory is concerned with what he did with his chemical and biological weapons, the nuclear program we have learned was not as far along as we thought.

My understanding was that there was one unconfirmed report from a source, who was believed by those who dealt him to be lying, that Sadam could deploy small scale 'weapons of mass destruction' within 45 minutes if he was attacked.

 

This was the only stated justification for invasion.

 

As the French might have said: 'Sadam is very evil; if you attack him he will defend himself.'

 

Afterwards, of course, it was convenient to suggest that there are secret yet to be discovered weapons.

 

Like if your kids are terrorizing the neighborhood, shouldn't you stop it, before someone calls the police?

You don't stop it; a neighbour tells the police you have illegal firearms you'll use to protect yourself and your family if attacked.

 

Despite thoroughly searching your home, the police fail to find even one of your kalashnikovs, proving you are truly an evil genius the law cannot touch.

 

To pre-emptively defend themselves, the police shoot up your house with all the guns they can get hold of, making sure to kill or imprison all unlawful combatants.

 

Afterwards, it's only a matter of time until they find evidence of your hidden guns.

[Ten oz]

My understanding was that there was one unconfirmed report from a source, who was believed by those who dealt him to be lying, that Sadam could deploy small scale 'weapons of mass destruction' within 45 minutes if he was attacked.

 

This was the only stated justification for invasion.

 

As the French might have said: 'Sadam is very evil; if you attack him he will defend himself.'

 

Afterwards, of course, it was convenient to suggest that there are secret yet to be discovered weapons.

 

 

You don't stop it; a neighbour tells the police you have illegal firearms you'll use to protect yourself and your family if attacked.

 

Despite thoroughly searching your home, the police fail to find even one of your kalashnikovs, proving you are truly an evil genius the law cannot touch.

 

To pre-emptively defend themselves, the police shoot up your house with all the guns they can get hold of, making sure to kill or imprison all unlawful combatants.

 

Afterwards, it's only a matter of time until they find evidence of your hidden guns.

Arguing that we'll never know is an acceptable argument when discussing what might have happened if a sports team hadn't traded a specific key player traded. As the justification for invading a country, ousting its that countries government, and killing hundreds of thousands of people the argument is insane.

[tar]

Carrock,

 

Yes, I get that argument. We wanted to go in for various reasons, which all turned out to be bogus, and therefore America had a bad, stupid leader interested only in the oil and that pulled the wool over the eyes of the world and the American people in doing the thing.

 

Except that is not what happened. And follows the anti Zionist anti American propaganda, that spins all against America. Saddam was pulling the wool over the eyes of the world, alternately allowing inspectors and foiling them, lying and shifting stuff around, while threatening the region, including Israel, with a very powerful army Years of no fly and sanctions had not reduced the threat. He would take aid and what came through the blockade for his own political benefit, starving his enemies and taking care of his friends. Meanwhile blaming the coalition blockade for starving children. When we did go in, I remember how he was publically speaking about how the mighty Iraqi forces were victorious over the advancing U.S. WHILE U.S. tanks were rolling into the city blocks away. I did not trust him a whit, while I did trust my own country and my president to do my bidding, which was to remove Saddam from power. That 20 20 hindsight showed his chemical arsenal was depleted, and he had no ties to Bin Laden, and his nuclear program was not as far along as we feared, did not change my feelings that we needed to take him down, and I am glad we were successful in doing it, and subsequently finding him and having him tried and executed by Iraqis. Now what was bad, was the Shiite, Sunni split that caused. Shiites in power, Sunnis in jail. Laid the groundwork for years of civil war and resistance against occupation. Caused inhumane slaughters of Sunnis by Shiites and retaliatory killing the other way. Laid the ground work for Iranian influence to grow against the Sunnis and resulted in the Sunni remanants of the Saddams guard, releasing Sunni political prisoners from jail and creating ISIS.

 

The U.S. wanted regime change, also in Syria. We did not invade. We did not have U.N. permission. Instead we backed the rebels, and encouraged the Arab Spring. Just as dangerous as going into Iraq. 5 and a half years of a quarter million deaths and refugees destabilizing the whole area including Europe. Yet we are scolded for going into Iraq, and thought wise to stay out of Syria. I am thinking we tried to do the right thing, in both cases and it turned out we did not do it right. 20 20 hindsight can make a fool or a hero out of anybody you want, depending on your overall philosophy and what sides you choose to take. I have chosen to take the side of the U.S. and my way of life, and I parse the world from that position.

I am not interested in striving 'til all the world is for Allah. Makes no sense. If Allah is true then the whole world is already his by definition. Being that I know for a fact, that Gabriel did not visit Mohammed in the cave and relay God's last messages to us, I have to take the thing as figurative, and therefore take Muhammed's conquests as literal. And that being said, 'til all the world is for Allah, is completely political, and there is no humanism in it, and it is reverence only to Mohammed and his successors.

 

To defeat that, you have to either tell Muslims to stop requiring children to memorize the Koran, or ask Muslims to stop requiring children to memorize the Koran.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 14, 2016 by tar

[dimreepr]

To defeat that, you have to either tell Muslims to stop requiring children to memorize the Koran, or ask Muslims to stop requiring children to memorize the Koran.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

It's almost as though you haven't read a single post in this thread, but you clearly read the words, you just never listen for an answer, you're to busy searching for the question.

[tar]

dimreepr,

 

So, please, tell me what you mean by political Islam, and what would be a good way to go about defeating it?

 

Regards, TAR

In words I can only take as you mean them.

[dimreepr]

As I've said, more than once, political Islam, by which, given the context of the OP, means ISIS and such and the way to defeat them is through intelligence.

[Carrock]

It's almost as though you haven't read a single post in this thread, but you clearly read the words, you just never listen for an answer, you're to busy searching for the question.

 

Carrock,

 

Yes, I get that argument. We wanted to go in for various reasons, which all turned out to be bogus, and therefore America had a bad, stupid leader interested only in the oil and that pulled the wool over the eyes of the world and the American people in doing the thing.

 

Except that is not what happened......

Regards, TAR

I did not make that argument or claim. Attempting to refute the argument you just gave is simply a way of ignoring my post.

 

I am rather puzzled that you made no attempt to refute your argument/claim that 'America had a bad, stupid leader interested only in the oil.'

 

This is my last post in this topic, so feel free to misrepresent it if you want.