Dude, I'm not even mad about the "reptile" thing, okay? Relax. And my reference to Shawn was because he'd asked if I got called that a lot or something. So I was talking to him about what you'd said, that's all.
Glad to have this thing cleared up. Let's return to the order of the day, and the flaming expression of it.
I just caught the last few minutes of Sean Hannity's radio show and his buddy Alan Colmes called in and they were talking and Alan had mentioned an exchange that had taken place on last night's "Hannity & Colmes" show on Fox News between Alan and Michael Reagan.
Alan told Sean that he was upset that Michael had used yesterday, which - according to Alan - should be a day of "joyous celebration" at the first real signs of the liberation of the Iraqi people, as a day to (quoting Alan) "beat up on the Left and liberals...".
That reminded me what BRussell posted earlier about this thread: "this went from a happy thread to pscates explaining why liberals suck" or something along those lines.
That's two people who kinda maybe got caught not being as right/on top of it as they'd hoped? Maybe we on the right, war-supporting side had the temptation to...I don't want to say "gloat" because this is not a gloating, frivolous thing, but speaking just for myself and being completely honest, I felt like grinding it in a bit to some of you.
And it was cool to see pfflam and a couple of others here actually say "hmmm...maybe I had this wrong...I might need to rethink this...". I thought that was cool and admirable on his part.
But all this time, leading up to this, we heard SO many gloom and doom, horrible predictions and statements made by many about how much of a disaster this would be, how the Iraqi people wouldn't welcome us, etc.
It was indeed a joyous day, but I got the feeling from listening to Alan earlier (and it triggered my memory of BRussell's post from this morning) that Alan knew he was wrong and instead of Sean and Michael beating him (figuratively, of course) on live TV was painful to him and he just wanted to the subject change and wanted to talk about the "joy" and the "celebration" and the "stunning successes" of the U.S. troops in Baghdad.
I think that's a lot of yesterday: things going better than many had hoped (although many of us knew it would be and were simply waiting for it to happen...waiting for the people to realize Saddam is gone and our troops AREN'T there to kill them, but to liberate them). But those caught kinda on the backside - the "oops" side - understandably got their back up a bit.
Some copped to it, some could admit it and others simply couldn't. Or wouldn't.
In any case, it would be asking A LOT for those of us on the other side, who - after months of all this hassle - have supported this action and were confident in how it would largely go, to resist a bit of "see? What did I tell you?".
We're only human. And, in some cases, it felt good (yeah, I won't lie) to be able to - if only briefly - kinda go "you don't know everything, people...". I know Alan referred to it and I think that was in a lot of BRussell's post because I was on a bit of a joyous high yesterday (still am today, actually).
Beyond all that, I do think it is a good thing. A positive thing. And yes, we can't be everywhere at once and tackle all the other oppression and abuse in the world (but we do what we can), but it doesn't - and shouldn't - diminish the happiness in this particular case. Anyone with a heart and a simple notion of right/wrong and good/bad HAS to look at the progress made and the events of the past several days and go "maybe they'll have a life now?"
I take so much for granted and it takes times like these to make me realize that nothing is guaranteed and that only by luck I was born somewhere where I can say what I want, when I want and how I want and not have the hell beaten out of me. Or worse.
Looks like those people "spontaneously celebrating" were most probably members of the Iraqi National Congress, including henchman Ahmed Chalabi, specially flown in from Northern Iraq.
extracted from a recent article by Elizabeth Schulte:
Quote:
The main group that the Bush administration has shoved into the spotlight is the Iraqi National Congress (INC), which poses as an umbrella organization bringing together several smaller groups.The INC is made up of wealthy Iraqi exiles based in London and Washington who are loyal to the
U.S. but have few connections inside Iraq.
Its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, is a crook. He fled Iraq in 1958, and had to leave Jordan in 1989, where he faces 32 years in prison for embezzling millions from a bank he once owned. Chalabi was made INC leader in 1992 and continues to be a leading spokesperson for the organization, even though the State Department recently discovered that about half of the $4 million that it had given the group wasn?t properly accounted for.....
.....One candidate is Nizer alKhazraji, the top commander of the Iraqi army from 1980 to 1991. Of course, alKhazraji did run Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait that led to the Gulf War. Plus, he?s currently under investigation by the Danish government for war crimes. He?s accused of carrying out the 1988 poison-gas attacks that killed thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq--the very attacks that Dick Cheney repeatedly referred to in insisting that Saddam should be removed from power.
So, that "celebration" looks like a setup, for the benefit of Washingtons favorite thug and conman who looks set to play a part in a puppet government of Iraq. Whats the betting this guy's just another potential Saddam Hussein? He's not in power yet and already he looks like a real dodgy customer. OK...he's a scumbag, lets not beat about the Bush here.
You're way behind the times there Sammi. I already gave a comprehensive analysis of Chalabi during singalong time last night. Next time come join us around the campfire and then you won't have to regurgitate previously sung facts.
You're way behind the times there Sammi. I already gave a comprehensive analysis of Chalabi during singalong time last night. Next time come join us around the campfire and then you won't have to regurgitate previously sung facts.
A few more links don't hurt! Just so we all know what we are paying all those $$multi-billions for..
You're way behind the times there Sammi. I already gave a comprehensive analysis of Chalabi during singalong time last night. Next time come join us around the campfire and then you won't have to regurgitate previously sung facts.
I think your campfire is one of the main factors in the present day spreading of the SARS virus. But hey, as long as you can indulge in your self-centered hedonims, right?
In any case, it would be asking A LOT for those of us on the other side, who - after months of all this hassle - have supported this action and were confident in how it would largely go, to resist a bit of "see? What did I tell you?"
Well, at least you're admitting you're thumbing your nose at people.
Do think of the other side though. When some crazed suicide bomber blows up some of our marines, those around here who have been saying this action will create more terrorism could come back and thumb their nose as well. That wouldn't be very nice though.
No, it's not really "thumbing my nose" (don't go mis-characterizing it or me, now...). No, simply pointing out things when they hit and reminding some that they don't necessarily always know everything about everything.
"Thumbing my nose" kinda implies a malicious, immature and petulant bent to things. I've been forceful and mouthy, but nothing I've said is false or made up (unless, of course, I'm being sarcastic about something, in which case I try to use a smiley of some sort OR write it in such a way that it's obvious I'm being a smarty-pants).
If that is the explanation.... But even so, would you be happy with the terms "Christianist" or "Americanist"? Insulting.
You mean like Zionist? I see that on this board and have yet to see anyone pipe up about it. But use the terms Islamist or Arabist.....
A quote from Imad Moustapha, Syria's deputy ambassador to United States today "We believe that Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries are dream targets for certain neo-conservative intellectuals here in the United States that are strong allies of the extremist Likudist and Sharonist factions in Israel,"
See, even Arabs and Muslims use .ist. So what, nothing insulting and nothing to get you panties in a bunch over. It is simply used to ascribe extremist behavior of followers of a particular set of ideals.
Comments
Originally posted by pscates
Dude, I'm not even mad about the "reptile" thing, okay? Relax. And my reference to Shawn was because he'd asked if I got called that a lot or something. So I was talking to him about what you'd said, that's all.
Glad to have this thing cleared up. Let's return to the order of the day, and the flaming expression of it.
Alan told Sean that he was upset that Michael had used yesterday, which - according to Alan - should be a day of "joyous celebration" at the first real signs of the liberation of the Iraqi people, as a day to (quoting Alan) "beat up on the Left and liberals...".
That reminded me what BRussell posted earlier about this thread: "this went from a happy thread to pscates explaining why liberals suck" or something along those lines.
That's two people who kinda maybe got caught not being as right/on top of it as they'd hoped? Maybe we on the right, war-supporting side had the temptation to...I don't want to say "gloat" because this is not a gloating, frivolous thing, but speaking just for myself and being completely honest, I felt like grinding it in a bit to some of you.
And it was cool to see pfflam and a couple of others here actually say "hmmm...maybe I had this wrong...I might need to rethink this...". I thought that was cool and admirable on his part.
But all this time, leading up to this, we heard SO many gloom and doom, horrible predictions and statements made by many about how much of a disaster this would be, how the Iraqi people wouldn't welcome us, etc.
It was indeed a joyous day, but I got the feeling from listening to Alan earlier (and it triggered my memory of BRussell's post from this morning) that Alan knew he was wrong and instead of Sean and Michael beating him (figuratively, of course) on live TV was painful to him and he just wanted to the subject change and wanted to talk about the "joy" and the "celebration" and the "stunning successes" of the U.S. troops in Baghdad.
I think that's a lot of yesterday: things going better than many had hoped (although many of us knew it would be and were simply waiting for it to happen...waiting for the people to realize Saddam is gone and our troops AREN'T there to kill them, but to liberate them). But those caught kinda on the backside - the "oops" side - understandably got their back up a bit.
Some copped to it, some could admit it and others simply couldn't. Or wouldn't.
In any case, it would be asking A LOT for those of us on the other side, who - after months of all this hassle - have supported this action and were confident in how it would largely go, to resist a bit of "see? What did I tell you?".
We're only human. And, in some cases, it felt good (yeah, I won't lie) to be able to - if only briefly - kinda go "you don't know everything, people...". I know Alan referred to it and I think that was in a lot of BRussell's post because I was on a bit of a joyous high yesterday (still am today, actually).
Beyond all that, I do think it is a good thing. A positive thing. And yes, we can't be everywhere at once and tackle all the other oppression and abuse in the world (but we do what we can), but it doesn't - and shouldn't - diminish the happiness in this particular case. Anyone with a heart and a simple notion of right/wrong and good/bad HAS to look at the progress made and the events of the past several days and go "maybe they'll have a life now?"
I take so much for granted and it takes times like these to make me realize that nothing is guaranteed and that only by luck I was born somewhere where I can say what I want, when I want and how I want and not have the hell beaten out of me. Or worse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Apr7.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com...D66/17554.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2842.htm
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissin...11&sid=1752803
extracted from a recent article by Elizabeth Schulte:
The main group that the Bush administration has shoved into the spotlight is the Iraqi National Congress (INC), which poses as an umbrella organization bringing together several smaller groups.The INC is made up of wealthy Iraqi exiles based in London and Washington who are loyal to the
U.S. but have few connections inside Iraq.
Its leader, Ahmed Chalabi, is a crook. He fled Iraq in 1958, and had to leave Jordan in 1989, where he faces 32 years in prison for embezzling millions from a bank he once owned. Chalabi was made INC leader in 1992 and continues to be a leading spokesperson for the organization, even though the State Department recently discovered that about half of the $4 million that it had given the group wasn?t properly accounted for.....
.....One candidate is Nizer alKhazraji, the top commander of the Iraqi army from 1980 to 1991. Of course, alKhazraji did run Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait that led to the Gulf War. Plus, he?s currently under investigation by the Danish government for war crimes. He?s accused of carrying out the 1988 poison-gas attacks that killed thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq--the very attacks that Dick Cheney repeatedly referred to in insisting that Saddam should be removed from power.
So, that "celebration" looks like a setup, for the benefit of Washingtons favorite thug and conman who looks set to play a part in a puppet government of Iraq. Whats the betting this guy's just another potential Saddam Hussein? He's not in power yet and already he looks like a real dodgy customer. OK...he's a scumbag, lets not beat about the Bush here.
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2001/msg00000.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...927055,00.html
http://64.176.94.191/article1433.htm
Some more reading:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK19Ak02.html
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
You're way behind the times there Sammi. I already gave a comprehensive analysis of Chalabi during singalong time last night. Next time come join us around the campfire and then you won't have to regurgitate previously sung facts.
A few more links don't hurt! Just so we all know what we are paying all those $$multi-billions for..
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
You're way behind the times there Sammi. I already gave a comprehensive analysis of Chalabi during singalong time last night. Next time come join us around the campfire and then you won't have to regurgitate previously sung facts.
I think your campfire is one of the main factors in the present day spreading of the SARS virus. But hey, as long as you can indulge in your self-centered hedonims, right?
Originally posted by pscates
In any case, it would be asking A LOT for those of us on the other side, who - after months of all this hassle - have supported this action and were confident in how it would largely go, to resist a bit of "see? What did I tell you?"
Well, at least you're admitting you're thumbing your nose at people.
Do think of the other side though. When some crazed suicide bomber blows up some of our marines, those around here who have been saying this action will create more terrorism could come back and thumb their nose as well. That wouldn't be very nice though.
"Thumbing my nose" kinda implies a malicious, immature and petulant bent to things. I've been forceful and mouthy, but nothing I've said is false or made up (unless, of course, I'm being sarcastic about something, in which case I try to use a smiley of some sort OR write it in such a way that it's obvious I'm being a smarty-pants).
I told you I was honest.
Originally posted by Chinney
If that is the explanation.... But even so, would you be happy with the terms "Christianist" or "Americanist"? Insulting.
You mean like Zionist? I see that on this board and have yet to see anyone pipe up about it. But use the terms Islamist or Arabist.....
A quote from Imad Moustapha, Syria's deputy ambassador to United States today "We believe that Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries are dream targets for certain neo-conservative intellectuals here in the United States that are strong allies of the extremist Likudist and Sharonist factions in Israel,"
See, even Arabs and Muslims use .ist. So what, nothing insulting and nothing to get you panties in a bunch over. It is simply used to ascribe extremist behavior of followers of a particular set of ideals.