from the article:

Here are some other facts on how the enemy is doing right now:

* The main Arab Sunni armed groups (including the 1920 Brigade and the Islamic Army of Iraq) have switched sides, agreeing to work with the Iraqi government against foreign terrorists.

* The Sunni Arab tribal sheiks in once-unruly Anbar province have decided to come off the fence and take up arms against al Qaeda, even if this means collaborating with the Americans.

* On the Shiite side, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to lay down arms for six months. He made that decision after dozens of his commanders, former members of Saddam's Republican Guards, had switched to the government side.

* Sadr also saw the writing on the wall after his gunmen tried to seize power in Karbala, Najaf, Wassit, Misan, Dhiqar and Qaddisiyah - and failed.

* Another Iranian-controlled Shiite group, known as the Thar Allah (God's Revenge), has also been crippled, with dozens dead and scores captured by the new Iraqi army.

* The British withdrawal from Basra did not lead to a takeover by Tehran's agents, although both Mahdi Army and Thar Allah did test the waters. Instead, the Iraqi army and police, with support from nationalist Shiite groups such as Fadila (Virtue) and the Islamic Council of Iraq, control Iraq's second largest city. The Basra Bloodbath predicted by some pundits has not materialized.

* The various Sunni and Shiite blocs that had withdrawn from the Iraqi parliament during its summer recess have ended their boycott.

* Prime Minister Maliki's coalition has won a new mandate with the reaffirmation of support by three blocs of parties that account for 85 percent of the seats in the parliament. It is unveiling a full legislative program - tackling such key issues as sharing oil revenues, municipal elections and federalism - as the parliament prepares for a new session.

* Most Arab states have ended their boycott of new Iraq and dispatched diplomatic missions to Baghdad to open embassies. France has also ended its boycott and sent Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to Baghdad with a message of support.

* At a "National Reconciliation Conference" in Redwaniyah, religious leaders of Arab Sunni and Shiite communities denounced sectarianism and pledged support for new Iraq.

* Al Qaeda has had to postpone its promise of announcing the creation of the so-called Islamic Emirate of Iraq on three occasions. Last October, al Qaeda promised to issue a new currency for its putative "Islamic emirate" and name a "Governing Council." Those fantasies had to be shelved as it lost safe havens in Anbar, Diyala and Salahuddin provinces.

* Judging by the pro-terror buzz in cyberspace, al Qaeda is facing recruitment problems. One al Qaeda guru, using the nom de guerre of Sheikh Bassir al-Najdi, recently warned that the organization was unable to replace "lost martyrs" in Iraq.

The buzz in pro-terrorist circles is that a whole generation of jihadists has been wiped out. The funeral industry in the Arab countries where most jihadists originate is booming.

* The number of defectors from al Qaeda is rising. In Saudi Arabia alone, scores of former jihadists in Iraq have surrendered to the authorities and joined a rehabilitation program. Last month, three of them (Saleh al-Quayri, Ahmad Al-Shayi and Saddam al-Qassabi) kept TV audiences captive with accounts of how al Qaeda is losing in Iraq.

* Inside Iraq, al Qaeda has not been able to replace at least five key commanders killed or captured in the past six months.

As in any war, what counts in this war is the protagonists' states of mind. No war is won with a defeatist discourse.

The "surge" was a political signal that the United States did not intend to abandon its allies. That signal persuaded fence-sitters in Iraq - and, beyond it, in the broader Arab world - to take sides. Most chose the side of new Iraq against its internal and external foes.

The Sheiks will stay with the US if they are paid
otherwise they switch sides
Didn't the Romans pay the Germans to play nice?
It Did not work!!!

Still beating that dead horse bow wow?

Bark Bark-Arf Arf-Growl Growl!

Thanks again BOWA, wish this article would receive more publicity.

"Current Iranian law does require Jews and other religious groups to identify themselves as such if they sell food"

sounds like he wasn't far off the mark to me. What is the difference between a yellow stripe and a sign saying "I'm a jew"

Only in Bowa's mind could the fact a private militia has "switched to the government's side" be a good sign.

The sane world, which Bowa may at times peek into, considers the simple existence of private armies sort of a problem to governance.

One should also ask, in the case of Iraq, which PORTION of the government a given militia has switched to---Since not a few of those portions are controlled by, er, militias and not government at all.

I have to commend Bowa---He's committed to the idea propaganda can win a shooting war, and unflaggingly shows it.

"Current Iranian law does require Jews and other religious groups to identify themselves as such if they sell food"

sounds like he wasn't far off the mark to me. What is the difference between a yellow stripe and a sign saying "I'm a jew"

Posted by Litlebritdifrnt

You're a Jew in Iran and you don't sell food. You want to wear a sign around your neck proclaiming your ethnicity, be my guest. But you're not required to do so. Taheri's writing took an entirely different tack which turned out to be a lie. So, there's your difference: write using facts or write using lies.

Oh, and there's another little wrinkle, Litlebritdifrnt: Are you sure that statement---"Current Iranian law does require Jews and other religious groups to identify themselves as such if they sell food"---is, in fact, accurate?

"...a key question remains unasked: How is the enemy doing?"

Exact same thing was claimed about the NVA and VC in the Vietnam war. Plus, how the USA didn't lose a single battle during its time there. And how even the '68 Tet offensive was, ultimately, a loss for North Vietnam.

Doesn't matter whatsoever. The end results are going to be the same: Dead American soldiers, and for what?

And like in Vietnam, the administration and their syncopaths are trying to pass off a numerology of victory as evidence of "success."

But, ultimately, there will be no deck-of-the-Missouri "victory" in Iraq. Just dead American soldiers.

And for what?

Hans

Note: No rebuttal from the right.

Priceless.

Let's see.

September 12, Bowa posts "Killing the Messenger of Good News," about what a terrible thing it is to raise a peep about Petraeus because he's the bearer of glad tidings.

And on this thread, he posts a mishmash of a "story" by a guy with absolutely no credibility, a writer who's been caught spreading manure and calling in "perfume."

C'mon, Bowa, surely you can do better than this.

Gather yourself back together, kiddo, gird up your loins, square your shoulders, set your jaw, and enter the fray.

But first, remember the words of someone I suspect is probably a heroic figure to you: "Trust, but verify."

We've been hearing bullshit like this for five years now. There is only one prediction the Bush League had right: it won't leave Iraq. It amazes me how Boba Bowa never tires of making excuses for being wrong.

"Just because somebody says things you disagree with doesn't mean they have "no credibility"

If they don't like it, it's a "lie." In fact, it's a lie before it's even TOLD. Just ask General "Betray Us."

I've picked apart Taheri's articles before. He sucks. It's the bias that does him in, as hes an otherwise intelligent and well read person.

Too bad this story is in a MSM publication. Maybe if it was in prison planet.com, the lefties would embrace it.

Or would they? Good news from the war front is something they've not been known to welcome. It's always shot full of holes -- just before they go and quote conspiracy planet.com as an "it's gotta be true" story.

Probably the paradox would short circuit their brains.

has accused

I know the truth hurts, truth hurts, but people accuse others of a lot of things that aren't true. Especially when they disagree with them.

I'm sure both General Petraeus, President Bush, Amir Taheri, and many others would agree.

And even in my own experience, I have been accused of many things by other bloggers here which simply aren't true.

"Americans have suddenly struck tactical security alliances with Sunnis who formerly were our sworn enemies"

You mean the dead guy?

Shake hands with Bush, get blown up.

Shake hands with Bush, get blown up.

zat, That is certainly what al-Qaeda wants Iraqis to believe.

"I've picked apart Taheri's articles before. He sucks. It's the bias that does him in, as hes an otherwise intelligent and well read person."

That's because you're the smartest sumbitch to ever shit between a pair of run-down heels, Alex. I see you've quoted Marie Cocco so I've compared her bio to Taheri. I'm a little more inclined to go along with Taheri on Middle East matters.

"Born in Malden, Mass., Cocco graduated summa cum laude from Tufts University, were she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and won the Peter S. Belfer prize in political science.

She earned a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University, where she won the Robert E. Sherwood prize for studying and reporting on American issues.

Cocco began working as a reporter for the Daily Register of Monmouth County, New Jersey. She joined Newsday in 1980 as a local reporter, and soon advanced to the statehouse bureau in Albany. Since joining the paper's Washington bureau as a reporter in 1986, she has covered economics, taxes, Capitol Hill and the White House. She covered the last four presidential campaigns, the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the 2000 election deadlock and the transition of Hillary Rodham Clinton from first lady to senator. In 2002, her twice-a-week column was syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group. In 2005, she left Newsday to devote full-time to the column."



"Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe. His writings focus on the Middle East affairs and topics related to Islamist terrorism. Taheri's public speaking engagements are arranged by Benador Associates, a public relations firm with a predominantly neoconservative clientele.
Taheri's biography at Benador Associaties states that he was educated in Tehran, London, and Paris.[citation needed] Between 1972 and 1979, he was executive editor-in-chief of Kayhan, Iran's main daily newspaper. He has also worked as editor-in-chief of Jeune Afrique and Middle East editor for the London Sunday Times, and has written for the Daily Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Daily Mail and other leading British publications.

He has been a columnist for the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat and its sister publication Arab News along with International Herald Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and The Washington Post. He was also an editorial writer for the German daily Die Welt and has written for Der Spiegel, Die Zeit and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in Germany, La Repubblica in Italy, L'Express, Politique Internationale and Le Nouvel Observateur in France, and El Mundo in Spain. He is currently a contributor to the German weekly Focus, the National Review and the New York Post.

Taheri is a commentator for CNN and is frequently interviewed by other media including the BBC and the RFI. He has written several TV documentaries dealing with various issues of the Muslim world. He has interviewed many world leaders including Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, King Faisal, Mikhail Gorbachev, President Anwar Sadat, Chou En-lai, Indira Gandhi and Chancellor Helmut Kohl. He was also a member of the Board of Trustees of the Institute for International Political and Economic Studies (IIPES) and member of the Executive Board of the International Press Institute (IPI) from 1984 to 1992."

I've picked apart Taheri's articles before. He sucks. It's the bias that does him in, as hes an otherwise intelligent and well read person.


Alex, one thing I've found since I started blogging is that when one person charges another with "bias" it usually means that they are in disagreement over which facts and metrics are most relevant to the issue at hand.

When any person, on the Right or Left, builds an argument, they are going to choose those facts they believe are relevant to support that argument and ignore or minimize those facts which they believe have no relevance.

But just because a person makes an argument based on facts which they believe are more relevant then the facts you believe are relevant doesn't mean they have "no credibility".

And the truth is that Taheri is an "intelligent and well read person" who often uses facts and metrics to make arguments that many on the Left find are without merit.

I rarely find people who go so far as to call him a liar though, because his facts are truthful -- but it is the interpretation of those facts and the importance given to them, that many people find disagreeable.

I'm a little more inclined to go along with Taheri on Middle East matters.

It's not the author, it's what Alexandrite wants to hear. That's how he determines a person's credibility -- by content, not credentials.

"It's not the author, it's what Alexandrite wants to hear."

He states that he has "picked apart Taheri's articles before..." Maybe he THINKS he has picked them apart. How he can suppose he knows more about the subject than Taheri kinda cracks me up. He's a legend in his own mind, I guess.

Argument by authority Jest. It's a common fallacy and not a reliable way of determining truth. Seeing that we've been hearing reports of "progress" like this for the past five years, apologists have no credibility.

This is all smoke in mirrors. In fall of 2008 we'll still be arguing over whether Bush is showing progress.

The most vital statistic of all:
"Resentment against Americans is undiminished, and has reached such levels that 57 percent of Iraqis say that violence against U.S. forces is acceptable, up six points from when the survey was last conducted in March. In February 2004, only 17 percent of Iraqis said they condoned violence against the Americans in their midst."

Argument by authority Jest. It's a common fallacy and not a reliable way of determining truth.

Does that apply to proponents of Global warming as well Ray?

Yes it does Bowa. I think the facts support global warming, but they don't support human causation.
The facts of science are not determined by consensus and mathematical modeling.

I'm always a little suspicious of "polls," including the one reported by Marie Cocco and mentioned here:

"Six in 10 Iraqis say security in Iraq overall has worsened since the surge began. That is their grim assessment, according to an extensive national poll conducted jointly by ABC News, the BBC and NHK, a Japanese broadcaster."

On the other hand, these "bullets" are prety much well-known FACTS reporte by Taheri. I'm inclined to accept this data, not so sure about those "polls.".

"* The main Arab Sunni armed groups (including the 1920 Brigade and the Islamic Army of Iraq) have switched sides, agreeing to work with the Iraqi government against foreign terrorists.

* The Sunni Arab tribal sheiks in once-unruly Anbar province have decided to come off the fence and take up arms against al Qaeda, even if this means collaborating with the Americans.

* On the Shiite side, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to lay down arms for six months. He made that decision after dozens of his commanders, former members of Saddam's Republican Guards, had switched to the government side.

* Al Qaeda has had to postpone its promise of announcing the creation of the so-called Islamic Emirate of Iraq on three occasions. Last October, al Qaeda promised to issue a new currency for its putative "Islamic emirate" and name a "Governing Council." Those fantasies had to be shelved as it lost safe havens in Anbar, Diyala and Salahuddin provinces.

* Judging by the pro-terror buzz in cyberspace, al Qaeda is facing recruitment problems. One al Qaeda guru, using the nom de guerre of Sheikh Bassir al-Najdi, recently warned that the organization was unable to replace "lost martyrs" in Iraq.

* The number of defectors from al Qaeda is rising. In Saudi Arabia alone, scores of former jihadists in Iraq have surrendered to the authorities and joined a rehabilitation program. Last month, three of them (Saleh al-Quayri, Ahmad Al-Shayi and Saddam al-Qassabi) kept TV audiences captive with accounts of how al Qaeda is losing in Iraq.

* Sadr also saw the writing on the wall after his gunmen tried to seize power in Karbala, Najaf, Wassit, Misan, Dhiqar and Qaddisiyah - and failed.

* Another Iranian-controlled Shiite group, known as the Thar Allah (God's Revenge), has also been crippled, with dozens dead and scores captured by the new Iraqi army.

* The British withdrawal from Basra did not lead to a takeover by Tehran's agents, although both Mahdi Army and Thar Allah did test the waters. Instead, the Iraqi army and police, with support from nationalist Shiite groups such as Fadila (Virtue) and the Islamic Council of Iraq, control Iraq's second largest city. The Basra Bloodbath predicted by some pundits has not materialized.

* The various Sunni and Shiite blocs that had withdrawn from the Iraqi parliament during its summer recess have ended their boycott.

* Prime Minister Maliki's coalition has won a new mandate with the reaffirmation of support by three blocs of parties that account for 85 percent of the seats in the parliament. It is unveiling a full legislative program - tackling such key issues as sharing oil revenues, municipal elections and federalism - as the parliament prepares for a new session.

* Most Arab states have ended their boycott of new Iraq and dispatched diplomatic missions to Baghdad to open embassies. France has also ended its boycott and sent Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to Baghdad with a message of support."

I think the facts support global warming, but they don't support human causation.

Well, we are in agreement on that.

But I disagree that "argument by authority" is "not a reliable way of determining truth".

I think that much weight must be given to those who are in a position to know, have the background and experience to know, have earned the respect of their peers, and have a proven track record of acting with honesty and integrity.

But such "authority" only goes so far. And as we have seen over numerous issues, people with similar "authority" are often in disagreement -- but not because as you suggest that one authority is lying and the other authority is truthful -- but rather it is because they interpret the same facts and metrics in different ways -- and the things one authority might find relevant, the other authority doesn't and vice-versa.

No Credibility?...Just because somebody says things you disagree with doesn't mean they have "no credibility" -- I think a lot of people forget that.
Posted by Bowa at 2007-09-15 09:48 A

You're right, Bowa. Just because somebody says something I don't agree with doesn't mean they've "no credibililty."

The problem with Taheri is he plays fast and loose with the "facts," and has been exposed as a lair.

"Just because somebody says things you disagree with doesn't mean they have "no credibility"
If they don't like it, it's a "lie."
Posted by jestgettinalong at 2007-09-15 10:00 AM

Jest, you're in way over your head on this. Did you check the links I posted at: Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2007-09-14 03:37 PM ?

What do you think of the critique of Taheri and his "work"? For that matter, Bowa hasn't been able to refute any of those critiques, either. How about it, Bowa, care to give it a whirl? You're back in Obama kindergarten kondom country and you just look silly.

ROTFLMAO

But I disagree that "argument by authority" is "not a reliable way of determining truth".

If that argument was true Bowa, schools would still be teaching facts according to Aristotle and there would be no science. You can find that fallacy in every textbook on logic.

Your problem is that you lack critical thinking skills because of your over-reliance on authority. I see people like you all the time who can't think for themselves.

And when one thinks about how many times Bush as been wrong in the past, I don't think anything can shake you faith in authority. You would be lost without it. Politics is religion by another name.

Your problem is that you lack critical thinking skills because of your over-reliance on authority. I see people like you all the time who can't think for themselves.

Ray, Actually, I find those people who will just accept anything they are told by anyone regardless of provenence in order to "feel good" and justify their positions are the one's who can't think for themsleves. And lack the critical thinking skill necessary to develop informed opinions.

The bumper sticker mythology for example of "Bush Lied Us Into War" that is parroted up and down the food chain on the Left -- still has not been proved with the "authority" such an accusation demands -- and as far as I know there are still no plans to prove the accusation true by congressional investigation or special prosecutor. The Democrats will investigate a doorknob, but it won't investigate the one area that if proven true would lead to immediate impeachment and the removal of the President from office.

And you know why they won't, because they lack the "authority" to be able prove the accusation true.

So don't dismiss "authority" out of hand ray. In this Blogosphere time we are living in with so much opionion, accusation, speculation, and hearsay masquerding as "truth" and "fact" those proven authorities and legislative, judicial and scientific infrastructures which have established themselves over time, are even more important and relevant now in providing a way for the public to separate truth from bullshit.

Bowa
Whether Bush lied or not, he turned out to be wrong, and I knew he was wrong at the time (no point in rehashing), just as I can tell you that the Petreaus dog-and-pony show is all smoke and mirrors. I remembering telling you months ago what we could expect. But alas, we'll have to wait another year to prove me right.

There are other ways of thinking outside of the ideological world of political authority. For the record, my political views are from an anarcho-capitalist perspective, though I don't foresee it displacing the State.

"the Iranian clothing article"

LOL.

Bowa was Jason Blair's biggest defender, too.

It's kind of a big thing to get wrong, doncha think?

That Iran passed a law mandating that Jews wear stars?

But I'd like to make a further point, Bowa: You see it as a success that we are now backing and arming the very people we toppled from power?

Bowa-
From the article:

the groups wearing the al Qaeda label and the Iran-backed Shiite militias - are not doing well. Indeed, one might say that both have already lost their bids for power.

Um, the Shiites control the gov't we back, al Qaeda is Sunni, and yet we are arming the Sunnis...

But what kind of analysis do you really expect from a paper that is owned by your other prominent news source (two liberals agree!!!), Fox News?

But I'd like to make a further point, Bowa: You see it as a success that we are now backing and arming the very people we toppled from power?

Like morons, they make that mistake over and over again.

Look, Bowa, I would love to see "victory" in Iraq, but the enemy is different on a yearly basis. It used to be Sunnis and Bathists, and now it's the Shia who control the gov't we ostensibly back(see Bush's speech), but now we are arming some Sunnis who are allegedly against an "al Qaeda" who weren't there when we went in.

It's such a clusterfuck, and I really don't see any good to come out of it, unless you think that bombing Iran is a net positive.

It's such a clusterfuck, and I really don't see any good to come out of it, unless you think that bombing Iran is a net positive.

Bowa claims to be a moderate. Of course!

Whether Bush lied or not, he turned out to be wrong, and I knew he was wrong at the time (no point in rehashing),

Ray, I agree that Bush turned out to be wrong - - on WMD's and on the intensity of the insurgency that would develop in the wake of Saddam's reign. That said, I don't believe Bush lied but followed the prevailing view on Iraq at the time that was generally accepted by most intel agencies, military people, politicians, and pundits around the world. Those who believed otherwise (like yourself apparently) were marginalized or ignored. They seem like geniuses now, in the same way as those handicappers do who pick a longshot winner at the track.

My support for the war now is based on the belief that whatever mistakes may have been made it is still by far in the best interest of America to try and help Iraq become a sustainable democracy that is not tyrannized by thugs, terrorists, and other forces seeking to oppress the Iraqi people yet again. Our Victory, would be to withdraw from an Iraq that had become a valued member of the world community and one not overrun by al-qada warlords, or Iranian backed militias which destroy the hope expressed by 80% of Iraqis to have a democracy, a constitution, and their own national identity.


I remembering telling you months ago what we could expect. But alas, we'll have to wait another year to prove me right.

frankly, I thought the summer would be a much bigger bloodbath then it was -- I thought for sure al-qaeda and the Iraian backed militias would have took out all the stops and been relentless in attacking the US/Iraqi coalition -- I don't think I as in the minority in believing that would happen. But it didn't, and in fact there is plenty of evidence that al-quada is losing and the Iranian backed militia's (like Sadrs) have been forced to regroup and rethink their position.

That's one other reason (beyond just his authority) why I find Petraeus' overall positive assesment of the surge credible and one which I can agree with.

I think the comparison betweeen Iraq and the "US Civil War" is now more apropos then any comparison to Vietnam.

In the Civil War, Lincoln always had the manpower and the resources but he lacked the right strategy or commanders to turn those advantages into victory. Finally, aftter two years of bllody and costly mistakes, he hit upon Grant and Sherman and the strategy to win the war -- but not before almost losing the election of 1864 to people (like yourself) who claimed no victory was possible and had conceded defeat by arguing in favor of dividing the union.

Similarly, even though our military might was far superior, Bush made numerous mistakes in the first few years of the Iraq war that pushed us to the brink of losing -- and then he implemented a new counter-insurgency strategy, with a new commander that has turned the war around. It remains to be seen if the news approach and added security will jump-start the political process on a national level as it has on the local level. But that is certainly worth finding out given how high the stakes are.

And I am very glad, Ray, that we have another year to prove you wrong.

I didn't respond to the links you posted Doc because If you are going to claim that Taheri's entire body of work should be dismmised because of one article, then what is the sense of arguing with you for.

Actually, I suspect you didn't respond in large part because you didn't read the linked pieces. The shredding of Taheri's credibility does not rest on one fallacious article alone but a pattern of spreading misinformation and/or disinformation, as you'd know had you actually read and comprehended the linked materials.

I'm certainly not expecting you to do so, however, since that would challenge your existing notions about what is and what is not "true."

Bowa
If Bush wasn't lying, then he and the CIA are inhabited by idiots.

Those who believed otherwise (like yourself apparently) were marginalized or ignored. They seem like geniuses now, in the same way as those handicappers do who pick a longshot winner at the track.
No luck involved. I get better intelligence on the web.

My support for the war now is based on the belief that whatever mistakes may have been made it is still by far in the best interest of America to try and help Iraq become a sustainable democracy that is not tyrannized by thugs, terrorists, and other forces seeking to oppress the Iraqi people yet again.

You have it reversed. As I posted earlier.
The most vital statistic of all:
"Resentment against Americans is undiminished, and has reached such levels that 57 percent of Iraqis say that violence against U.S. forces is acceptable, up six points from when the survey was last conducted in March. In February 2004, only 17 percent of Iraqis said they condoned violence against the Americans in their midst."

And I am very glad, Ray, that we have another year to prove you wrong.

LOL. I've been right every time since 911 while you have been wrong at every turn, always forced to parrot Republican talking points.

But it didn't, and in fact there is plenty of evidence that al-quada is losing and the Iranian backed militia's (like Sadrs) have been forced to regroup and rethink their position.

You shouldn't think for a second that their resistance has wained; they have a strategic reasons. I don't know what they are. But as the Palestinians have been resisting for 60 years, there are no quislings in their culture.

In a year from now, instead of diminished violence in Iraq, I foresee increased violence with the war extended to Iran and Syria. Not to mention that the effects from Bush's reckless spending will be more apparent then ever. Print this post and file it. If politics were a religion, you would be a fundamentalist.

Sorry I am late to respond but Doc the quote came word for word from your Wikpedia link.

That's right, Litlebritdifrnt, and my question remains: Are you sure that statement---"Current Iranian law does require Jews and other religious groups to identify themselves as such if they sell food"---is, in fact, accurate? Or do you assume it to be accurate/inaccurate because of the source? Because it's online? Because it looks like a printed page?

If Bush wasn't lying, then he and the CIA are inhabited by idiots.

It seems that way, Clinton too, as well as british, russian, and israeli intelligence.

No luck involved. I get better intelligence on the web.

Maybe you can google your way into the CIA -- they obviously need you.

"Resentment against Americans is undiminished, and has reached such levels that 57 percent of Iraqis say that violence against U.S. forces is acceptable, up six points from when the survey was last conducted in March. In February 2004, only 17 percent of Iraqis said they condoned violence against the Americans in their midst."

I believe that is from the BBC poll conducted in face-to-face interviews which are notoriously sunbjective in their interpretation. So I think it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I would have liked the poll much better if they had also asked about resentment against al-qaeda, or any of the insurgent groups in their midsts.

LOL. I've been right every time since 911 while you have been wrong at every turn, always forced to parrot Republican talking points.

Come on Ray, that's a lame response given, by the same criteria then, you must be forced to parrot Democrat and Liberal talking points.

You shouldn't think for a second that their resistance has wained; they have a strategic reasons. I don't know what they are. But as the Palestinians have been resisting for 60 years, there are no quislings in their culture.

It will take the Iraqi people themselves to say enough is enough. And we are certainly trying to help giv e them enough of an opportunity to determine their own destiny -- wea re "priming the pump" if you will. And I don't think pointing out the palestianians hatred of Israel and it's desire for poverty and to embrace terrorism and self-destruction instead of developing their own peaceful society is proof that all Arabs just want to live in oppressive tyrannies or kill each other.

In a year from now, instead of diminished violence in Iraq, I foresee increased violence with the war extended to Iran and Syria. Not to mention that the effects from Bush's reckless spending will be more apparent then ever. Print this post and file it.

Well, I hope you are wrong and you should hope you are wrong too. That would be a horrible turn of events if it came true.

If politics were a religion, you would be a fundamentalist.

Far from it Ray. If someone on the Left could make a compelling case that it would be in the best strategic interest of the United States to withdraw not, then I would support pulling out. But nobody has or can, so I continue to support the best of all the bad options -- which is to continue to try to stabilize Iraq and hope that we can jump start governemnt reconciliation over the next year.

This is not like Vietnam, where there was no real security or strategic interest that was at stake by the time we pulled out. The "cold war" reason that made the "Vietnam War" a necessity in the 1960's was the fear of a Russian-Chinese communist alliance agaisnt the US/Nato. Once we realized however that China and Russia hated each other as much or more then they hated the USA, then the threat of world domination by Communism was over and we no longer had a reason to be in Vietnam.

One could make a reasonable argument that the cold war really ended when Nixon visited China and opened up a working realtionship between the 2 nations.

In any case, put an end to the argument that losing Vietnam would create a domino effect for communism toppling nations all over and asia and throughout the world.

Unfortunately, Islamo-Fascism is still ascendant, and so the argument that losing Iraq would lead to further instability in the region and throughout the world resonates -- and there is no reason to believe, at this time at least, that it is not the truth.

"I've been right every time since 911 while you have been wrong at every turn, always forced to parrot Republican talking points."

I Concur and Agree 100 % !!

The Statement Above Is True And Correct !!

-Sarge

Bowa...

Here's the most common sense, logical, rational reason for announcing and expedited withdrawal plan of the US military from Iraq:

Its the only strategic arrow left in our quiver that has the ability to scare the Iraqis into putting aside their differences and working together!

I do not understand why the Congressional Democrats don't start asking this simple question to every witness before their committees:

"Do you think its possible that by setting a withdrawal timetable from Iraq as a purposeful point of strategy it might lead the Iraqis to meaningfully work in reconciling their political differences for the good of holding together their country?"

Call it the Strategy of Withdrawal (Strategic Redeployment) and see what happens. The beauty of this strategy is twofold. Realizing that the jig is up will either do one of two things to the Iraqis. They will either further fracture and retrench into their own sects to wait for the inevitable full-blown civil war, or they will actually accomplish political compromises, not wanting to degenerate into an even bloodier domestic conflict, particularly the Sunnis who know that own the American umbrella is gone, the Shiites will declare open season upon them if they so desire.

Frankly, its the only thing we haven't tried, and even if the withdrawal proposals all have more strings attached than a fleet of kites, it may be worth it if it springs the Iraqis into meaningful action instead of their usual measured slumber while Americans and innocent Iraqis continue to suffer. We would all know in a very short while whether the Iraqis are willing to fight for their country or whether they'd rather it fall into total anarchy and chaos beyond what it is today. And lastly, if the Iraqis move toward reconciliation, then we can agree to stay in larger numbers until they're able to take over national security.

Bring the players to the negotiationg table and lay down the law. Its time that America stop treating the Iraqis like petulent children and let them see that our support does have its limits regardless of what Bush continues to say.

"always forced to parrot Republican talking points."
-Ray

"Islamo-Fascism"
-BOWA

Again With This Bullshit Word !!


Here Please Read:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
fascism /f ... z'm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 192243.


------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------

[Origin: 191520; < It fascismo, equiv. to fasc(io) bundle, political group (see fasces) + -ismo -ism] Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source fascism (fsh'z''m) Pronunciation Key n. often Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]

fascis'tic (f'-shs'tk) adj.

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
fascism [(fash-iz-uhm)]

A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and "impure" people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the "cult of personality"), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.

Now What Government Do They Rule, What Industry Do They Run, What Economic Power Do They Have, And What Racism Do The Posses When they Request Others To Convert So Then They Would Be Open To Any And All Races To Convert

So In Closing You Use NEOCON Talking Point That Have No Factual Basis Other Than Some Writer Years Ago Decided He Was Going To Make Up A Term, Which By All Scholastic Standard Makes No Sense !

Case Closed !!!

"Look, Bowa, I would love to see "victory" in Iraq, but the enemy is different on a yearly basis."

"...a key question remains unasked: How is the enemy doing?"

Exact same thing was claimed about the NVA and VC in the Vietnam war. Plus, how the USA didn't lose a single battle during its time there. And how even the '68 Tet offensive was, ultimately, a loss for North Vietnam.

Doesn't matter whatsoever. The end results are going to be the same: Dead American soldiers, and for what?

And like in Vietnam, the administration and their syncopaths are trying to pass off a numerology of victory as evidence of "success."

But, ultimately, there will be no deck-of-the-Missouri "victory" in Iraq. Just dead American soldiers.

And for what?

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-09-14 07:12 PM

"Islamo-Fascism"
-BOWA


Associating the religion of Islam with fascism is an offensive and inaccurate political epithet

"The idea that there is some kind of autonomous "Islamofascism" that can be crushed, or that the west may defend itself against the terrorists who threaten it by cultivating that eagerness to kill militant Muslims which Christopher Hitchens urges upon us, is a dangerous delusion. The symptoms that have led some to apply the label of "Islamofascism" are not reasons to forget root causes. They are reasons for us to examine even more carefully what those root causes actually are." He adds "'Saddam, Arafat and the Saudis hate the Jews and want to see them destroyed' . . . or so says the right-wing writer Andrew Sullivan. And he has a point. Does the western left really grasp the extent of anti-Semitism in the Middle East? But does the right grasp the role of Europeans in creating such hatred? -- Richard Webster
The use of the term "Islamofascist" by proponents of the War on Terror has prompted some critics to argue that the term is a typical example of wartime propaganda.


"Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own." --Joseph Sobran, syndicated columnist.
In the aftermath of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, George Bush described the fight against terrorists as a battle against "Islamic fascists... will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom". The Council on American-Islamic Relations wrote to him to complain, saying that the use of the term "feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam".

Security expert Daniel Benjamin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies claims the term was meaningless. "There is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term," he said.

Journalist Eric Margolis agrees: "There is nothing in any part of the Muslim World that resembles the corporate fascist states of western history. In fact, clan and tribal-based traditional Islamic society, with its fragmented power structures, local loyalties, and consensus decision-making, is about as far as possible from western industrial state fascism. The Muslim World is replete with brutal dictatorships, feudal monarchies, and corrupt military-run states, but none of these regimes, however deplorable, fits the standard definition of fascism. Most, in fact, are America's allies.

Jim Lobe remarked that "As noted by the Associated Press (AP) this week, "fascism" or "Islamic fascism", a phrase used by Bush himself two weeks ago and used to encompass everything from Sunni insurgents, al-Qaeda and Hamas to Shi'ite Hezbollah and Iran to secular Syria, has become the "new buzzword" for Republicans.

The head of the Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson, said that recasting the war on terrorism as "a war against Islamic fascism" by U.S. President George W. Bush and other Republicans was inaccurate and added to a misunderstanding of the religion. Mattson did acknowledge, however, that terrorist groups "do misuse and use Islamic concepts and terms to justify their violence.

So Using Some NEOCON Term To Some How Increase The Impact Of Islamic Terrorist Is Inaccurate And Disingenuous.

-Sarge

If Bush wasn't lying, then he and the CIA are inhabited by idiots.
It seems that way, Clinton too, as well as british, russian, and israeli intelligence.

Each has a motive. The Russians love nothing better than for us to be stuck in a tar pit. The Israelis are savage dogs while the Brits are poodles. Successful politicians are born liars; it's the nature of the beast.

Maybe you can google your way into the CIA -- they obviously need you.
They obviously wouldn't want me.

I would have liked the poll much better if they had also asked about resentment against al-qaeda, or any of the insurgent groups in their midsts.

Al Quada is an unwelcome outside group. Just basic common sense should tell you that the US is unwelcome and resented.

Come on Ray, that's a lame response given, by the same criteria then, you must be forced to parrot Democrat and Liberal talking points.

I told you before that I'm an anarchist. I resent them as much as Republicans and conservatives. I started out as a Goldwater Republican thinking that the Republicans were the party of small government. My main source is antiwar.com, a libertarian website.

It will take the Iraqi people themselves to say enough is enough.

They've been saying that about the American occupation but they are not given that choice.

Well, I hope you are wrong and you should hope you are wrong too. That would be a horrible turn of events if it came true.

I know politics and economics too well to be far off. You better start building your ark now, because the edges of a nasty economic storm is just starting to hit the coastline.

If someone on the Left could make a compelling case that it would be in the best strategic interest of the United States to withdraw not, then I would support pulling out.

Whether the next president is Republican or Democrat, they won't pull out until the occupation exhausts the US economy. It's only a matter of when.

"Whether the next president is Republican or Democrat, they won't pull out until the occupation exhausts the US economy. It's only a matter of when."

And should that happen then it will be:

Taliban/Islamic extremists: 2

Superpowers: 0

Hans

Hey gang, just though of a new term for those like Bowa that continue to support a strategy which diminishes the US' ability as a superpower:

Nero-conservatives: Those when faced with the results of an ill-planned, ill-executed war of choice continue to erroneously cling to the fallacy that admitting error and removing our troops from a militarily impossible situation somehow equates to giving a "victory" to forces not even remotely in position to control the aggrieved country since the "enemy" is a natural foe for the majority regardless of US input whatsoever.

Key mental picture: George W. Bush, slowly playing his violin as the humanitarian crisis, which is Iraq, rolls further and further into chaos for the people trying to survive the carnage and desperation of existence in a broken society.

I can see a bunch of pinheads took cheap shots at me while I was gone...

Taheri puts a lot of OPINION and wishful thinking in his articles, and leaves out facts that hamper his sunny outlook. It is NOT hard to argue with his material at all.

As far as credentials go, goatman...they don't matter if you ignore key facts when constructing a piece.

The big two main points of his article are bullshit:

Al Qaeda's strategy had two parts. One was based on the assumption that, by killing enough Americans, it would enable the party of defeat in the United States to force President Bush to surrender. That failed when Bush decided to increase, rather than reduce, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The other part assumed that, by fomenting a sectarian war, al Qaeda would force Shiites, Iraq's majority, to run away - allowing Salafi Sunnis to seize power in Baghdad. That also failed: Not only did the Shiites not run away,but also many who had fled under Saddam Hussein decided to return to Iraq.

1- Al Qaeda WANTS us to stay in iraq. It is bleeding our economy, stretching our military thin, and giving them easier american targets to murder.

More US troops = More targets.

2- Taheri is completely ignoring the massive number of Iraqis that have fled the country, the broken infrastructure(lets see a counter revolution work with no water). Iraq's infrastructure is so UTTERLY BROKEN that they now have 7000 cases of Cholera and rising.

Again , Thaeri leaves out key KNOWN facts to contruct a "loss" for "the bad guys" that's actually more of a loss to US and the average iraqi.


THERE IS A REASON THIS GUY WRITES FOR THE NYPOST. Figure it out.

In case you missed it, I believe Taheri was the author of that BS article that claimed iran was going to force jews to wear yellow stars.

A story that was thankfully debunked after having run for days on the "librul MSM" and it was canned before Bush co could use it as aen excuse to bomb bomb bomb iran.

Taheri has been proven to not only have a huge bias and agenda, but to be a blatant liar. This is worse than anything Dan Rather did, and you bozos are still crying about him...