Sadr Saying If They Catch US Female Soldiers They Can be Kept As Slaves

[Beetwasher]

Just heard on CBS News...

What a great time to be alive...

[Malva Zebrina]

1. well I am sure that Bush when he hears of this will say

BRING EM ON!!!

[Kahuna]

25. Sorry to laugh. But.. your response was unexpected, dead on...

and funny.

[Cleita]

80. Dupe

eom

[MrSlayer]

Well the torture photos have upped the ante a bit haven't they?

We have got to get out of there. This whole thing has been a disaster and it's going to get worse.

[bucknaked]

2. That'll do wonders for female recruitment goals.

n/m

[Arianrhod]

101. Won't need to recruit. Draft in '05. Females included. n/t

[camero]

3. So

If it comes from CBS it must be true eh?

[Beetwasher]

6. He Said It In His Sermon, in Front of Thousands of People and Videotaped

Today, this Friday's sermon...

Yeah, I believe this report and CBS news has been one of the more objective sources. Got a problem?

[camero]

10. Yeah actually I do

I have a big problem with pravda American Journalism. Have a link to support your assertions?

[Beetwasher]

24. It was reported on CBS Evening News w/ Dan Rather

When they put up a transcript I will be able to post it...

Believe me or not in the meanwhile, I could care less...

Is this something you think Sadr wouldn't do and it's a lie? Do you think CBS is making this up? Or is this something the gov't wants you to believe? Just curious as to what conspiracy regarding this story you subscribe to in order to question my veracity in posting about it...Or maybe you think Sadr is such a sweetheart that he could never say or condone this?

On edit: it might have been one of his aides that said it, but to me that makes no difference.

[camero]

30. I'm certainly not going to stare at the screen blankly

and automatically takes a millionaire anchor's word for it.

If he said it the evidence would be out there so go find it. You're the one that made the assertion. I hardly think that our news outlets are without propaganda.

[Beetwasher]

33. I don't really care to prove anything to you

Believe it or not :shrug: don't matter to me none...Everyone's entitled to have their heads up their asses if they want to...

[camero]

41. It's your choice

If you make an accusation over something you saw on TV then you have the burden of proof.

[Beetwasher]

46. Accusation?

Where? I'm just starting a discussion thread about something I saw on the news.

Maybe you think Sadr or his aides aren't capable of this? Or maybe you think this is a good thing?

[camero]

50. From your post

Sadr Saying If They Catch US Female Soldiers They Can be Kept As Slaves

Just heard on CBS News...


That's what you said. and you just expect us to believe you?

Maybe you would just like to rile up anger at Iraqis in order to intensify the war?

Edit: perfect timing too since there is much anger about the torture photos eh?

[Beetwasher]

52. Bwahahahaha!

Yes, because I wield so much unpatriotic power!! A-rabs around the world salivate in anticipation of Beetwasher's posts to agitate them to kill!

How pathetic and sad.

Do you have a point? What do YOU think about the topic of my post? You don't believe he said that and think I'm lying, I got it and I don't care. Perhaps you love Sadr and think he's incapable of such an horrendous thing. How about this? What if he did say that? What would you think about it then?

[camero]

56. Do you?

I don't think Arabs particularly care for anything you have to say. But People here may.

The extent of your post is saying "Look at the bad Iraqis, we need to kill more of them."

Maybe you love war?

[Beetwasher]

63. I Guess People Bring A Lot of Themselves

into posts they read. If that's what you saw in my post that's pathetic, but you're entitled.

[camero]

69. I think

You're merely trying to spread propaganda. And other posters have shot it down subsequently.

Your lame attacks on me notwithstanding. Congratulations, you're well on the way to becoming a "Good German".

[Beetwasher]

71. Lotsa Links in This Thread Now

Go ahead and read one and make a point about the story, or do you have one? I figure you'll just keep on being pathetic though...

[camero]

72. Do you have any argument

besides personal attacks? That's pretty pathetic IMHO.

[Beetwasher]

74. Uh Huh

Still waiting for your point...You responded to my thread remember? Lot's of links now for you to read or is that too difficult?

[Q]

83. Don't you hate it when...

...someone steps into a thread with absolutely nothing to say? I get the same thing on my threads. Don't worry about it. They're here to distract from the message and nothing else. This story has now been verified by several sources...so the Gadfly will have to find another thread to buzz.

[BattyDem]

86. Beetwasher ... for what it's worth ...

I heard Rather say it, too. :)

It really shocked me. The worst part about it is that we (the USA) can't really bitch about it, can we? What are we going to do? Express outrage at the way the Iraqis are treating our people? :eyes: Thanks to Bushco, not only have we lost the moral high ground, we lost all moral ground! :grr:

[camero]

95. maybe if they weren't there

we wouldn't have to worry about it now would we?

[Beetwasher]

103. Who's Worrying?

Not me. Still waiting for a point.

[camero]

104. Get the troops home now

Then we don't have to worry about the females becoming slaves when they are taken prisoner.

I think this thread is just meant to stir up hatred against the Arabs and I'm not buying. Go play with someone else.

Just another poster trying to elevate one race over another. Bad Bad.

So long. You knew the point. You just don't want to acknwoledge it. Understandable when you don't have morality on your side, eh?

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

113. Now THIS is an Actual Accusation!

"I think this thread is just meant to stir up hatred against the Arabs and I'm not buying."

Got proof Chester? Or are you just continuing to spout ignorance?

[libhill]

78. ahh, jeezzzas

Knock it off will you two? The fact is, they do keep slaves in the Arab world, that I think is undisputed- and I wouldn`t put it past them to strike back in any way they can, due to our own unadulterated fucking stupidity in allowing these prisoner abuses. Why not put your energy to use to figure out a way to get rid of the fascist assholes that are running this country and destroying our credibility - as if we ever had any in the Middle East.

[DS1]

108. what crawled up your ass today? people report what they saw on the news

all the damn time.

[malachibk]

96. Lay OFF Dan Rather!

He's the only anchor/journalist who actually presents news in a way I can stomach. Fairly and objectively without all the repub spin. Be nice.

[camero]

97. Sorry

He's just as much a part of Corporate Pravda as the others. Better to stop watching the crap altogether.

[markses]

59. You were wrong about this

Nice flair, though.

[Beetwasher]

112. Yeah, So?

I admit as much. More than I can say for you. Or maybe your never wrong?

[AussieInCA]

4. the older ones they can saddle up and use as donkeys too

[Tinoire]

16. Don't laugh. The GIs did that to a 70 yr old Iraqi woman. n/t

On edit... Re-reading your post, I realize you know that :)

What a sad world.

[JHBowden]

5. This guy needs to die.

Leaving Iraq with this clown in power would be ridiculous.

[Jacobin]

7. And you prefer the clown named "Bremer", I suppose

Why not let them pick their own "clown"? Oh, that's right. I forgot. We aren't there to give them "freedom" or allow them to pick their own government. We are there to steal their oil. How silly of me.

[JHBowden]

8. Killing Americans is okay....

as long as they do it democratically. :dunce:

[Jacobin]

19. Uhm, excuse me, but I have a question

WHEN did Iraqis start killing americans?

Wasn't it AFTER we invaded their fucking country on a pretext?

And I suppose you wouldn't take to the streets and kill an invading force if we were invaded???

What is going on here?

[JHBowden]

31. Iraq has always had fundamentalist wackos.

The difference: Hussein would drop 50 tons of nerve gas on them when they acted up.

I don't see how a allowing fundamentalist regime in Iraq is a debatable proposition.

[Jacobin]

37. White man's burden?

Must be tough for you guys to go around the world righting all the wrongs. Who's your next pick for president of, oh say, Zimbabwe? And if that doesn't happen, when should we invade.

Saddam was actually geopolitically good for this country. He was hated by islamic fundies, he was secular and he kept the oil flowing and Iraq together. His humanitarian record rivals our own after one year.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

43. Saddam hasn't had any nerve gas since 1995 when the UN...

...inspectors certified Iraq as WMD-free. So much for one of the alleged reasons we went into Iraq in the first place.

And don't look now, but our very own rightwing "fundamentalist wackos" have been running this country since they took over in December of 2000. I didn't see how allowing a fundamentalist regime to govern America was a debatable proposition, either. But there they are...aren't they doing just wonderful?

[Crunchy Frog]

54. "allowing a fundamentalist regime" When we invaded the country

we pretty much ensured it would happen. Also Americans started killing Iraqis before Iraqis started killing Americans.

I can't really blame Iraqis if they don't believe that American lives are sacred while their own are worthless.

[markus]

87. If the Iraqis choose to institute a theocracy at the first election

do we just bag the entire democracy approach.

Or do you suggest that we just liquidate the people we don't like first?

[DrWeird]

9. No worse than what Americans have done.

This sounds entirely reactionary.

[JHBowden]

11. Sometimes the options are

fucked up and very fucked up. Even installing a puppet regime is better than leaving a situation where al Sadr takes power.

[opihimoimoi]

15. The poor women. Now thanks to the scandal, they gatta carry the last

bullet for themselves.

[Jacobin]

20. BWAaaahahahaha

And you think the puppet regime will last exactly HOW long after the troops are gone??????

Oh, I forgot, you support leaving the troops there for the next ten years.

[DulceDecorum]

40. Why? What's wrong with al Sadr?

As long as he keeps his ass in Iraq, why should YOU care?
That is a "headache" for the people of Fallujah and Najaf.

I know a man who killed the person who raped his very young son.
He went to prison.
When he came out he said that he would do it again
and will do it again if anyone sexually molests any of his children.
I have no problem with that man living next door to me.
But then again, I have no plans to sexually molest anyone.
However, the Catholic priest down the street does not seem to see things my way.

Similarly,
I have no problem with Sadr kicking invader ass.
Isn't that what Bush claims to be doing?
It is high time for regime change in the USA.
The current crop of puppets are extremely F***ed up.

[Jacobin]

42. Maybe he's not Jewish enough?

[TankLV]

116. What's good for the goose is good for th gander.

We started this mess, and we expect them to act otherwise?

Can we really blame them?

I'm just surprised it hasn't happened sooner.

We have lost any moral authority to complain about this, considering they are only doing what we have done/are doing.

Thank a lot repukes!

Look at the world YOU have wrought.

Bring our troops home NOW!

[Snoggera]

13. No one needs to die

That's the point. The US does not have the right to torture and murder prisoners or other country's leaders. Similarly, others have no right to rape, torture or murder US troops in captivity or US leaders.

It's called being civilized. Yes, I know, this is a "war." I also believe it is callous to state that anyone "deserves" to die. They may deserve to be captured, tried and jailed, but they do not "deserve" to die.

[JHBowden]

22. al Sadr is a national security threat.

This is more of a smart versus stupid thing, not a right versus wrong thing. An al Sadr government would create problems with international terrorism, WMD, and ethnic cleansing. I'm not certain how al Sadr becomes tried in court; making him disappear is a better option.

If you insist on taking a course of action where an brutal Iraqi government exists, we should at least make the effort to install one favorable to us.

[Jacobin]

27. Seems to me that the "national security threat" to Iraq is the fucking

United States.

What am I missing here?

:-)

Or do you believe Saddam and 9/11 were connected. In which case, we need no longer discuss these things.

[JHBowden]

34. See #28

What I *believe* is less important than evidence. There is nothing justifying a link between Hussein and 9/11. I didn't advocate an occupation precisely because it puts us in the no-win situation we are in today.

[Jacobin]

38. Well then what do you think "the evidence" proves?

Dodging that troubling little question, are ya?

[JHBowden]

44. I did not support an invasion of Iraq.

I gave Howard Dean a bunch of money because he was the only person speaking out against the braindead idea. Hussein's secular government had no WMD, could not attack the shia and the kurds because of the no-fly zones, had ZERO connection to international terrorism, and would do any action in order to keep his regime intact. In addition, we had inspectors on the ground which underwrites the imminent threat argument.

I believe you are arguing against some cartoon character in your head.

I'm merely saying if we leave Iraq, the revolutionary elements are going to have to be murdered one way or the other if we don't want even greater geopolitical problems.

[Jacobin]

49. Let me know when you find a puppet you think will be acceptable to

the Iraqis.

[Ms. Clio]

66. Do you think "the revolutionary elements" consist of just one guy?

How many do you think will have to be "murdered???"

[Snoggera]

32. I don't see al Sadr as a national leader

I see, maybe, Sistani and others more moderate as representing the majority of Shiites, but I could be wrong.

Installing anyone would be only a short term, and highly dangerous, course of action. How's Chalabi working out so far?

The use of language to distort or "prettify" actions has become such an art form. Making someone disappear sounds so much better than murdering them. Making al Sadr disappear would lead to retaliation. His militia would not then lay down their weapons and say "game over."

[bobbieinok]

55. didn't US preemptive invasion create al Sadr, give him credibility???

[theboss]

75. No, his father did

I mean any low-level cleric could have risen up in the vacuum we created by eliminating Hussein, but Sadr is who he is because of his father, whom Saddam killed.

[libhill]

79. yeah, right -

then go back over there in 8 or 9 years, and take them out- again. That`s why we get into these situations, because we can never leave well enough alone. Either "the regime favorable to us" is so fucking corrupt nad brutal that they finally get turned out and replaced with people who hate our guts, as in Shah of Iran, or, we go in and take them out ourselves, thus creating another headache, as in Noriega. Take care of America first, the rest of the world can go to hell in a handbasket. Fuck `em.

[Crunchy Frog]

88. If you're going to rob a house

you should at least make sure that you take the good jewlrey.

[Tinoire]

18. Do you have another clown you prefer? Maybe a domestically bred one? n/t

[SlavesandBulldozers]

23. you seem to miss the entire

fucking point. Saddam was the boogeyman, remember? We got him. We stayed. Al-Sadr emerged, now he's the boogeyman. Do you see a pattern developing here?

[JHBowden]

28. I did not argue overthrowing Hussein's government.

Hussein had no links to international terrorism, had no-fly zones imposed on him, and had inspectors crawling around his country. In addition, Hussein would do anything necessary to survive.

Al Sadr, in contrast, is a wacko fundamentalist ready to suicide himself and his followers for hocus pocus. The fact he wants to enslave foreign combatants should be convincing in itself.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. To what galaxy will you be returning when your vacation is over?....

We created that "clown" by our policies in Iraq. If you want to blame somebody for this mess, blame Junior-boy.

[jimshoes]

92. If they let the Iraqi's vote for who they want

it's really what we went there for, was it not? To set up a democracy, right?

Well they've botched it. Big time! The best thing we could do is allow them to decide for themselves how they want to run their own friggin country.

[rocktivity]

12. I'm shocked--SHOCKED!

What in the world would cause him to SAY such a thing?

:headbang:
rocknation

[SayitAintSo]

14. Here it comes .... We have yet to see the pictures and videos that .....

Truely make us sick to our stomachs for our country's misdeeds.

[markses]

17. Sadr didn't say that, nor did CBS News say that Sadr said it

One of Sadr's deputies in Basra said it. Sadr spoke subsequently, and did not repeat it.

CBS News was a little sly about it, but they clearly said that it was somebody connected to Sadr that said it.

[Beetwasher]

29. I'll Have to Read the Transcript

You could possibly be right as I wasn't paying complete attention, but I thought I heard it was Sadr who said this in his sermon today.

IMO, it doesn't matter if it was one of his clerics as obviously he was sending a message.

[markses]

35. It was quite clear that Sadr didn't say it

There is also a news story in LBN about this.

As far as it being obvious that Sadr was sending a message through his deputy, I'll have to beg off and say I find it far from obvious. I'd like to see more support on that.

[Beetwasher]

45. Well

If it's not obvious to you that he was sending a message through his deputy, then you're quite naive or disingenous.

As for the clarity of the CBS report, obviously it's clarity is in question. Even you yourself said they were a "little sly about it" and I already said I wasn't paying full attention to the TV at the time. How can they be quite clear about it while also being a little sly?

Either way, this is not good. Maybe you think it's a good thing or not so bad since it's only one of his top aides that said it?

[markses]

53. No

You're making the claim that it is obvious; you have to support that claim.

What is the relation between Sadr and the guy in Basra? What are we to make of this relation of deputy? How independent are the different elements of Sadr's organization? Is the guy generally more excitable than Sadr? Less excitable? Has he been known to make wild claims in the past? Has he ever had differences with Sadr about strategy? Do they currently have differences? Have he and Sadr been in recent contact? Can they be in contact?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions and, since you didn't even know that it wasn't Sadr who said it, I'm guessing that neither do you. Until we have some sense of the relationship, it is far from obvious that Sadr is sending a message through this person. In fact, it's about as far from obvious as can be. Don't call me naive or disingenuous simply because I ask for you to support your contention with some reasons (and hell, a fact or two might help as well!). You're not only claiming a direct connection, you're claiming that the connection is obvious. It is not. Calling me naive doesn't make it so.

And no, I don't think it is a good thing that this "top aide" said it. And I think the suggestion is ludicrous and insulting. I was merely pointing out a FACT that you got wrong. I'm surprised that that turns me into a Sadrist, but I guess I shouldn't be.

[Beetwasher]

60. Uh Huh

I still say you're disingenous or naive if you really believe the bullshit you just wrote. It's just as far from obvious as can be that this is in fact a message from Sadr? You really think that? Too funny! If only I were as gullible as you pretend to be I might believe you...

[markses]

67. Petulance is not support for an argument

As much as you would like to believe that it is. Here's the actual news story. I thought you should get up to speed on the basic facts of the story since you appear to have been unaware of them, despite a virtual mountain of prose from you:

The Story You Missed, Yet Felt Qualified to Extrapolate On

For all your yabbering, you still haven't produced a hint of an argument. Here's a google page on Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli. Yes, you hardly knew his name but an hour ago, but here you go anyway. Perhaps you can start supporting your claims with something other than huffing, puffing, name-calling and nonsenses:

Some Desperately Needed Evidence for Your So-Far Fatuous Non-Argument

Good luck with that.

[Beetwasher]

68. In The Meantime

I still say it's obvious to anyone with any sense. Thanks for the links but I had already read some of them in the time since I started the thread.

"Al-Bahadli, al-Sadr's chief representative in southern Iraq, spoke at al-Hawi mosque in central Basra."

His chief rep in S. Iraq says this, but to you there's no obvious evidence that this might be a message from Sadr. It's obvious to me. But you can remain in denial and ignorance.

Pretty pathetic.

[markses]

70. The only thing that's pathetic

Is your absolute refusal to make an argument. I learned early to reach for my wallet when somebody keeps insisting on the obviousness of something, but refuses to make an argument about it. It's a bad habit called critical thinking. You can, of course, continue with your petty name-calling, but it will never substitute for a careful argument. I provided a few questions that I'd like to see answered before I assent to your proposition. You can go at it or not, but your current tactics amount to childishness and petulance. If it is so obvious, it should be easy for you to make a case. Since you refuse to, I'll leave you to your pouting.

[Beetwasher]

73. Yes, Run Away

Once again.

I'll say this real slow, since you're pretending to be dense, I'll treat you as such:

One of his chief aides said this. That's good evidence right there that it very well might be coming from Sadr. I believe it is and so would any person who looked at this objectively. Since there can never be absolute proof on something like this, I'll go w/ the obvious. You can choose to wallow in ignorant denial.

How's that for an argument? Where's yours, except "Prove it!" for something you know can never be proven? You are incredibly transparent and, yes, once again, pathetic.

Run Away!

[markses]

91. I'll give it another try

I went to watch a movie with my wife. "The Cooler," with Alec Baldwin and William H. Macy. A bit predictable, which was annoying for a gambling movie, but what the hey.

Now on to your "argument."

You say that one of his chief aides said this, and therefore "it very well might be coming from Sadr." I agree with this claim. It (and by "it" I mean the slavery comment) may very well be coming from Sadr. It may also be a statement made by Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli without Sadr's approval. I offer for evidence of this the well-known fact that Sadr's group is "loosely organized." To believe your "obvious" point (about which more later), we'd have to accept that Sadr dictated the contents of al-Bahadli sermon this morning. It is certainly a possibility, but it is not at all supported by anything, much less obvious.

To test your hypothesis, we might ask why Sadr didn't make a similar proclamation in his own sermon. Too much to lose? But he's already wanted for murder and has a judgment on his head by the CPA. Doesn't want to be stained with that brush? But how could he avoid it if it is so "obvious" to everyone that he's behind it? Plausible deniability? Again, why would he need it and who would believe it?

We might also ask about the particulars of the contact between the two. How was this directive transmitted? Are they in contact at all? Again, lacking any facts on this, we can go so far as to say that it's possible Sadr was "behind the declaration," but we can hardly say that it's obvious. And we'd once again run into the problem of Sadr's own sermon, which says nothing of the kind.

So we move on to your reasoning for sticking with "obvious," when even your own good sense tells you that it is only possible, or that it might very well be the case. Let's follow it, since it is instructive:

I believe it is and so would any person who looked at this objectively. Since there can never be absolute proof on something like this, I'll go w/ the obvious.

A wonderful muddle. First, you believe it is the case. What's the basis for the belief? The possibility of it being so. Fair enough. Now we find out that anybody looking at it objectively would come to the same conclusion. One wonders what objects we're supposed to be looking at objectively, since you've provided none. I'll take this as a rhetorical flourish, since it is question begging in the extreme. Next, you move on to the supreme non sequitor: It cannot be proved absolutely, so you'll take it for a certainty! This is a fine work of illogic. First, you confuse "absolute proof" with a minimum of argument. I never asked for absolute proof. I asked for any argument at all. I suppose your nonsensical move from a possibility to a probability, and from a probability to an absolute certainty will have to count as argument here, since you'll offer no other. It still doesn't follow that because one can't provide absolute proof for a claim that the claim can then be taken as obvious. In fact, it should be precisely the reverse.

As for my argument, it is quite simple. Here's the thesis in case you missed it: It is not obvious that Abdul-Sattar al Bahadli statements this morning were either approved by or transmitted by Moqtadr al-Sadr. That's my argument. I've come at it a number of different ways. Is it an easier argument to make since I am only refuting a positive claim made by you? Yes. You say that X state of affairs is certain. I say that it is not certain. It's an easy argument, since the burden is on you. And remains on you. You're getting there, though. You've at least admitted that it "may very well be the case," and your subsequent scrambling for obviousness should have been painful to write even for you, since it makes no sense at all.

[Beetwasher]

102. Unfortunately for you

You're wrong. I can never prove that Sadr is behind his top lieutenants actions or prounouncements any more than I can prove Cheney is really running this country. Both are obvious to any one paying attention and not provable, but they don't have to be. It's common sense, perhaps you're not familiar w/ that. Either your not paying attention, or your full of it. Now that's simple.

[markses]

106. Fine

If you want to be childish about it, then there you go. You made a statement of fact and you can't back it up. It is not at all common sense, and I went to the trouble of showing how it is not common sense. That's a weak fall back position for your inability to support yourself with even a minimum of argument.

I should at least do you the honor that you refuse to do me and deal with your specific arguments. You say that just as you know Cheney is behind Bush, you know that Sadr is behind his deputy. This analogy might even hold - though you don't apply it directly. But to believe your initial claim, following the analogy, we'd have to believe that everything that Bush says in public is carefully planned by Cheney, or, less strictly, is in a general range of Cheney-accepted statements. I'd assent to the notion that most of what Bush says is carefully coordinated by a political regime, and that Cheney has significant power over this regime, but not everything. Not even all important pronouncments. The number of "re-statements" made by the Adminsitration after Mr. Bush has screwed up are evidence enough for this. Add to this the differences in coordination between Cheney and his cohort, on the one hand, and Sadr and his cohort on the other, and we see that even the analogy is greatly strained, your supposed "common sense" (which appears to little more than a cover for lack of common knowledge) starts to evaporate.

I'd also be able to make an argument for why I think Cheney is the real power in the Administration. Not absolute proof, but an argument. At it's most basic, a series of clauses that start "Cheney is the real power in the Bush Administration because...." followed by some support for each claim. Y'know, an argument. I certainly wouldn't say that because I can't produce absolute proof, I take it as a certainty, then hide behind "common sense" in a feat of argumentative cowardice. I wouldn't do that.

I understand what happened. You got locked into a stupid position, and now you don't want to abandon it for fear of shame. That's fine, and understandable. I won't indulge your fantasies further however, unless by some miracle you have something more that could actually qualify as an argument. Your current stance is the argumentative equivalent of "lalalalala" with fingers locked firmly in ears. I'll leave you to it, as it is an embarrassing spectacle indeed.

[Beetwasher]

107. All You Did Was Write A Lot and Say Nothing

You can say it's not obvious and I can say it is obvious and it all boils down to opinion as to what people find obvious. I never said it's a fact, just that it's obvious. To me it's obvious for example that Bush could care less about this country and only cares for himself and his own. To a Republican, that would not be obvious (maybe). Is that a fact? No, it's not, but it sure is obvious as hell to a lot of people, though I'd suspect you'd also say that's NOT obvious either.

To me and I'm sure many others, it's obvious this declaration by Sadr's aide was almost certainly a message from Sadr. To you it's not obvious, though I think you're full of shit and you know damn well it is. There's no proof either way, though you keep ignorantly asking for proof you know damn well doesn't exist because you're disingenuous. That's also obvious to me. But go ahead, keep pretending to be naive and ignorant, it's no skin of my nose. I do think it's par for the course for you though to keep peddling tripe like that.

[markses]

110. But you are saying it is a fact

You are making a statement of fact. How can you say that you are not? You call me ignorant, and you make laughable statements like this:

I never said it's a fact, just that it's obvious.

What's obvious, now?

it's obvious this declaration by Sadr's aide was almost certainly a message from Sadr.

A subtle change to reflect your weakening argument. Are you certain that the declaration by Sadr's aide was (by the way, the term "was" here indicates a FACT or a STATE OF AFFAIRS) a mesage from Sadr? Is it "almost certain," which is to say, not certain? If you are not certain, then you and I agree. I am not certain, and that has been my argument all along. I'll spare you the cut and paste where I say this. The modification is significant. Before you said it was obvious that Sadr's aide was relaying a message from Sadr. That would be a statement of fact, not opinion, as you are representing an actual state of affairs. Now you say that it is obvious that it is almost certainly a message from Sadr. A bit muddled, but a drastic change indeed, this shift from certain to not certain with respect to the facts of the case.

As for your accusations that I don't believe my argument, I will assure you that I believe it fervently. I don't think we know enough to say whether Sadr's aide's statements were a message from Sadr or a statement of this aide independent of Sadr. And I think the stakes are high here, since it is important that we know what Sadr's actual policies are, and that we undestand the general character of Sadr's organization. These are crucial pieces of knowledge as we move forward, which is why I'm even bothering to engage you on this question. The worst thing we can do is assume a particular policy and a particular organization without a thorough investigation of the facts on the ground. To ignore these facts in favor of what you currently fancy "obvious" is the very definition of ignorance, sir, and it is what YOU are practicing here, not me. I am asking for more knowledge. Rather than trying to provide it, you are sticking to an argument WITHOUT knowledge, seemingly for the sake of argument alone. That's ignorance, friend. Asking for an argument is not ignorance, it is the search for knowledge. Falling back on the obvious without any argument is ignorance, as you well know.

[Beetwasher]

111. Your Convoluted, Semantic Bullshit

won't work w/ me Chester. I never said nor even implied I thought it was a fact.Where did I do that? I never did. Please show where I ever claimed it was a fact. Just because I said it's obvious, doesn't mean it's a fact, nor does it imply it. Maybe in your twisted world, but not in mine. There are limitless things that are considered obvious but not facts.

The bottom line is this; no matter how you try to convolute things, I say it's obvious to anyone w at least half a brain that this is a message from Sadr passed on by one of his lieutenants. You seem to think that observation and interpretation is somehow the farthest thing from obvious. You have no evidence for your conclusion. My evidence is that the statement was issued by one of Sadr's top aides, damn good evidence in anyone's book. If it's not obvious to you or rather, if you think the idea that it is obvious is loony or farfetched, then your deluded, naive, ignorant or disingenuous. Take your pick.

[markses]

115. Oh, something's obvious. That's for sure.

You have a very strange definition of the obvious. The obvious, for me, and for most others, is that which is easily perceptible and clear, or that which is apparent. You are making a statement of fact here:

I say it's obvious to anyone w at least half a brain that this is a message from Sadr passed on by one of his lieutenants.

You've even managed to add a specific element of your factual claim here (the lieutenant). This is not semantics. What else can you call your claim but a factual claim. You are claiming that something happened in actuality. That is a factual claim. You are claiming that it is a fact that "a message from Sadr" was in fact "passed on by one of his lieutenants." That is the ONLY possible interpretation of it being OBVIOUS that this action took place. I can't believe that you wouldn't understand this, since you seem to be an otherwise functioning and thinking human. You are making a factual claim.

Now, you ask me to "Please show where I ever claimed it was a fact." Alright. In Post #60, you say

It's just as far from obvious as can be that this is in fact a message from Sadr? You really think that? Too funny!

In fact a message from Sadr? You say the words here, not me. Or is this just a matter of semantics on your part, and when you say "in fact" here, you don't really mean that it is a fact. I suppose it was just a matter of expression. Please. Your attempts here are amateurish. I've stated my argument several times, now you're reduced to making laughable claims about the meaning of "obviousness" and denying that claiming an event actually happened is a factual claim! If I said "It's obvious Jenny stole that book," I would be making a factual claim, a claim about a fact, and you know that. I wouldn't be saying "It's my opinion that Jenny stole that book," which is a much weaker claim. I would be asserting a level of certainty about the facts of the matter.

Your arguments here are case studies in projection. You accuse me of ignorance when you refuse to provide any real support for your arguments. You accuse me of semantics when you enter into the most absurd contortions in order to escape the bind you've entered into.

[Beetwasher]

119. You Just Busted Yourself! How Pathetically Dishonest! Hahahahahaha!

"It's just as far from obvious as can be that this is in fact a message from Sadr?" That's actually a paraphrase of your quote in post #45 and you know it!:

"In fact, it's about as far from obvious as can be." -Markses post #45

How pathetic! You don't even know what you said!!! Comprehend reading much? I never said it was a fact, I'm paraphrasing what you said, genius! YOU said fact, not me and I paraphrased your comment. Notice the question mark at the end?

Oy!

Ha Ha! You keep getting more convoluted and pathetic, but keep going!

[markses]

120. If you can't see the difference

Between those two propositions, you have more problems than I thought. Your "paraphrase" changes the meaning of the phrase, and you know that. It's either a bad paraphrase, or you have serious reading comprehension problems. I'll allow that you are not a very good writer, and were thus unable to paraphrase without changing the meaning of the statement.

When I say "In fact, it's far from obvious..." I'm saying that the "far from obvious" is a fact.

When you say "It's far from obvious that this is in fact a message from Sadr..." you are claiming that it is a fact that Sadr sent a message. This is about 5th grade reading comprehension. So your paraphrase is either severely deficient in understanding, or it is dishonest. So, you either can't write, or you're projecting once again.

Let's review, since you seem to lack basic skills. There are several types of arguments. I'll just review a few, since that is all that is necessary:

1) Arguments of Fact - Here, you would be claiming that something is a fact, or actually happened. Example: The third cheerleader from the left missed a step in the routine. To put it in your form, "It is obvious that the third cheerleader from the left missed a step during the routine." You would have to provide evidence for this claim. You are stating that X is a fact.

2) Arguments of Definition - Here, you would be claiming that some quality is essential to a subject. Example: Cheerleading is a sport. To put it in your form, "It is obvious that cheerleading is a sport." Notice how the "obviousness" of this claim is different than the obviousness of a factual claim. Nevertheless, there are ways to make definition arguments.

3) Arguments of Value - Here, you would be evaluating a subject. Example: That cheerleading routine was excellent. To put it in your form, "It is obvious that that cheerleading routine was excellent." You would have to set out some criteria for what constitutes excellence, then show how the routine meets those.

Now, before you launch into more sad invective, I should admit that i didn't make these categories up. Far from it, in fact. They've been around for 2500 years. Given these categories - which are not bullshit semantics but basic fucking argument - it is clear the kind of argument you are making when you say "Sadr's top-aide was transmitting a message sent by Sadr" is a factual argument (X happened). Do you provide evidence for it? Well, some, I suppose. Your evidence goes like this: Since he is one of Sadr's top aides, it must be a message from Sadr."

My problem, all along, is that the relayion itself is not a sufficient reason to believe that his statements came directly from Sadr. Not a sufficient reason. I've already reviewed the reasons why I think it is insufficient. Now, you believe it is sufficient. I don't. You can either show more, or you can fall back into your silliness about obviousness. In argument, the honorable thing to do would be to add more reasons in order to attain a level of sufficient reason, or to show why my dispute is ineffective, and how the current reasons ARE sufficient. Unfortunately, you've taken the dishonorable path throughout our dispute, resorting to name-calling and nonsense. the only reason I can see for this dishonorable behavior is your rank inability to either add more reasons or show why my dispute is wrong. Yours is an argument ad hominem - and worse, ad personam - which is a public embarrassment for you, and generally distasteful to honest and upright people.

[Beetwasher]

121. HEY LOOK EVERYONE! THIS GUYS BUSTED!! Ha Ha!

None of your semantic bullshit can change your dishonesty.

But keep wasting your time writing long meaningless posts filled w/ semantic bullshit and keep wallowing in your feigned ingnorance and naivete, it's your choice.

Ha Ha!

I'm sure you'll go ahead and try to have the last two posts deleted to because you know how embarrassing they are. Good luck!

[markses]

122. That's cowardly, sir, and a definitive retreat on your part

Here are the two statements:

markses: Until we have some sense of the relationship, it is far from obvious that Sadr is sending a message through this person. In fact, it's about as far from obvious as can be.

Beetwasher: It's just as far from obvious as can be that this is in fact a message from Sadr? You really think that? Too funny! If only I were as gullible as you pretend to be I might believe you...

I welcome public scrutiny. I challenge anyone to say that your paraphrase is an accurate paraphrase of my statement. I challenge anyone to say that your paraphrase does NOT declare it a fact that the message was from Sadr.

Now, either you were being dishonest, or you were never taught to write very well, or taught basic word order, which you seemingly cannot understand. I'm open to public judgment on this. You obviously have no strength left to defend your specious arguments (which shouldn't be a surprise, since you started the argument completely wrong on the facts of the case), and so you've chosen this cowardly strategy. I don't blame you. Nor am I afraid of public judgment.

[Beetwasher]

123. Yup, there it is!

I'll even print it again!:

"markses: Until we have some sense of the relationship, it is far from obvious that Sadr is sending a message through this person. In fact, it's about as far from obvious as can be.

Beetwasher: It's just as far from obvious as can be that this is in fact a message from Sadr? You really think that? Too funny! If only I were as gullible as you pretend to be I might believe you..."

Uhh, genius, the guy is Sadr's top aide, I'd say that gives us some sense of their relationship! And my paraphrase is spot on to anyone w/ at least half a brain.

Keep it up! You're doin' great!

Ha ha!

Keep 'em coming, I got a smile a mile wide over what a fool you're making of yourself, but keep digging!

[markses]

124. I've already stated

That the fact that he is one of ("one of" on edit for accuracy) Sadr's top aides is not a sufficient reason for certainty that his pronouncements came directly from Sadr. That's the crux of the case. You state that a it is obvious that the message came from Sadr, which is a factual claim. I say it is not obvious. The rest of your nonsenses only divert from this basic issue. If you cannot provide additional reasons, nor show why my challenge of insufficient reason is incorrect (and you have refused to do so), then the rest is clearly just sad bluster. In any case, I am also smiling, since it is clear that you cannot argue the case, and so resort to piddling name-calling and other nonsense. I welcome public scrutiny of this dispute, and don't feel at all foolish in my arguments. Nor will I be so bold as to imagine what others might think, but I'll let the case stand on its merits.

[Beetwasher]

125. Yeah, People who are Deluded

might dismiss the notion that the message is from Sadr. Certainty? I never said anything about certainty or that it's a fact that this is from Sadr, though you keep trying to dishonestly put my comment in those terms. I just said it was obvious. Obviously, you claim it's not obvious to you, but that says more about you than anything. You're transparent and busted. Deal with it.

[markses]

127. Bizarre

Now it's just a state of affairs that is "obvious" to you, yet you are not claiming that it is a fact. And I'm "busted"?

When you say that a past event is obvious you are claiming that it is a fact, that it is something that actually happened. Since you've already self-proclaimed some sort of weird victory in our dispute, and since you are not claiming certainty about an actual event, please state the following:

It is possible that Sadr's aide's proclamation was not, IN FACT, a message from Sadr. It is merely obvious to me that it was a message from Sadr, but I'm not claiming it is a fact that it was a message from Sadr.

I'll leave it to others to sort out the bizarre logic of such a statement on your part, though that statement is the only one that would be consistent with your posts in this thread. I would, however, remind people that my initial claim was that it was "possible that Sadr's aide's proclamation was not, IN FACT, a message from Sadr." That's what this whole dispute has been about. I'll stand on my posts. Since you cannot stand on yours, you've resorted to declaring victory and carrying on in an incoherent manner. I'm happy with what I've done here. I can't imagine that - outside your feigned bluster - you could be.

[wtmusic]

128. I hope you've learned something from this enlightening debate

Sometimes logic is just a fucking waste of time.

[markses]

130. Oh, I should have learned that long ago

But I'm intransigent on that question.

I suppose I could jump up and down like a monkey, proclaiming victory, shouting "busted, busted" in all caps (whether I am clearly wrong or not!), and generally carrying on like a clown, but there's more to it than that.

I believe (like Isocrates and Aristotle, among others) that the more you make good and careful arguments, the better you become as a person, and the better you can make the polity. So the cost for abandoning argument is too high, regardless of the time-sink.

[Beetwasher]

131. Your Convolutions and Dishonesty

are quite apparent.

Again, many things are obvious to people that are not facts. Maybe not to you, but that's the way it is.

It's not a hard concept to grasp, for most people that is.

Is it a fact that Sadr is behind this message? No. Never said it was, but it IS obvious.

Is it a fact that Bush isn't running this country? No, but it's still obvious.

Is it a fact that if someone shoots a gun at me they are trying to kill me? No, not necessarily (they could certainly claim that they were only trying to scare or wound me), but it would still be obvious to any with at least half a brain.

Simple concept. It's not a FACT because it can't be proven to that degree of certainty. It's called inference, deduction, etc. Happens all the time, maybe not in Bushworld (or yours), but in most other people's. Understand Sherlock? I await your next convoluted, contorted bit of semantic bullshit.

[markses]

132. So you can't or don't want to argue your case. Fine.

What you made was a statement of fact; you stated that an event actually occurred. This can be argued, and should be.

Example: It is obvious that OJ Simpson killed his wife.

Here, I am making a statement of fact (i.e., that OJ Simpson, at a specific time and place, caused his wife to die). I am saying something actually occurred, and that occurence should be clear. If somebody said it was not obvious, I would - as an honest person - field a series of arguments: Reason #1, Reason #2, Reason #3, and by that accumulation, persuade the person that this event occurred the way I'm claiming it did (there has to be some basis for its obviousness, and honest people reveal that basis).

Now, if I said "It's obvious OJ Simpson killed his wife because he had beaten her in the past," my interlocutor might say (as I've said to you) "That is not a sufficient reason to believe this event happened as you say it did, and is thus not a sufficient reason to see your account as obvious." I have several options here. 1) I can add more reasons that would reveal that my account of events is obvious. 2) I can challenge my interlocutors belief that the the reason I've given is not sufficient. 3) Or I could say it is common sense, call my interlocutor names, and claim that "Just because I said it's obvious that OJ Simpson killed his wife, doesn't mean that I think it is a fact that he killed his wife!" The first two options are honest argument. The last option is dishonest argument and nonsense. You've chosen the last option here, either because you don't want to argue your case, or because you cannot argue your case.

One could do the same with each of your examples: "It's obvious that Bush isn't running the country." Why is it obvious? Honest people field arguments with reasons. Dishonest or weak people refuse to do so. "It's obvious X was trying to kill me." Now, you're ready to rest on obviousness, even in the face of counterarguments. What if the shooter said it was an accidental discharge? Would I want to see some arguments from the other side before I convict this person? Some motive, some witnesses, some forensic evidence showing it could not have been an accident? Yes. Our whole system of justice depends on such arguments. The fact that the gun fired is not sufficient reason to believe X. Not absolute proof, but some arguments by which we can make a reasonable decision (i.e., sufficient reason to believe X happened this way). I hope to God you never serve on a jury, with your low standard of proof!

That said, you can still either affirm or deny the statement as I put it in my previous post:

It is possible that Sadr's aide's proclamation was not, IN FACT, a message from Sadr. It is merely obvious to me that it was a message from Sadr, but I'm not claiming it is a fact that it was a message from Sadr.

If you affirm the statement, then we agree. It is possible that Sadr's aide's proclamation was not a message from Sadr. If you deny the statement, then you contradict your argument throughout this thread. Once again, I stand on the merits of the case.

[Beetwasher]

133. So Many Words

That say so little.

Lot's of things are possible but not probable.

"It is possible that Sadr's aide's proclamation was not...a message from Sadr."

Sure, that's always possible. But it's not probable. I took out "in fact" because it's not a necessary element to the statement and I know what you're trying to do by inserting in there. You're trying to play your semantic bullshit games w/ me and it won't work. When dealing w/ possibility and probability your dealing w/ things that are something less than facts but can still be quite obvious. Get it Sherlock?

"It is merely obvious to me that it was a message from Sadr, but I'm not claiming it is a fact that it was a message from Sadr."

Uh, yeah, that's what I've been saying all along. Way to go genius! You get it!

I await another long winded, convoluted load of nonsense as to how I'm still wrong.

[markses]

136. If that's what you say

Then we've been talking past each other.

I say it is not obvious that Sadr's aide's proclamation was a message from Sadr. Fact is a necessary element of your statement, as I've shown (and you have not refuted). That's what I've said all along. If it is obvious, then it is clear, easily discernable, and therefore certain. That is my understanding of obviousness. Apparently, you have a different understanding of obviousness, whereby it is obvious, but may not be the case. Or so you say. I'll let others deal with that which is obvious but may not be the case.

In any case, since you DO assent to my thesis (That Sadr's aide MAY NOT have been conveying a message from Sadr), there is no need for further argument. I'd go further and say that you did not (and apparently cannot) provide sufficient reason that it is probable. I still think, however, that rather than launch into ad personam arguments and logical contortions, you could have presented an actual argument by adding more reasons or showing why my claim of insufficient reason is incorrect.

[Beetwasher]

137. Fair Enough

I still say however that obviousness does not imply certainty, especially in trying to discern motive, which is what we're doing. We're trying to discern Sadr's aides motive in making the statement. One can NEVER really know some elses motive in any way that approaches certainty, however, motives CAN be obvious nonetheless.

Sufficient reasons for probability to motive are that this is Sadr's top aide. It's reasonable to assume that a top aide would not say something, especially something like this without his boss's approval. Further, if it was done w/out approval, then one would think something as extraordinarily controversial as this would be immediately denounced by Sadr if he didn't approve. He didn't renounce it in his sermon that followed close on the heels of his aide's and therefore it's not unreasonable to assume he tacitly supports it. That to me is enough to conclude through inference that it's pretty obvious that he at the very least tacitly approves of this statement.

[markses]

138. I'll give it a shot

I don't know what to make of the shift to motive here, other than to say it is a bit easier to argue for probability here, since motive is, as it were, behind a curtain. I would, however, maintain that you are using the term "obvious" incorrectly, and that that incorrect use has been the trouble in this whole dispute.

That said, you've have put forth an argument, which is a positive step for polite discourse, at the very least. So, even though I think the claim has shifted significantly, I'll address your points.

1) Is it reasonable to assume that Sadr's top aide wouldn't say something like this without Sadr's approval. Yes. It is. It is also reasonable to assume that given the loose organization of Sadr's group, Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli has more or less autonomous control over his area, and makes proclamations based on local conditions. Which is the more reasonable assumption? We would need more information to make this determination, which is all I was asking for in post #53, before you started insulting me without warrant.

2) You build on this with a stronger argument: Wouldn't Sadr have denounced Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli's statements if they were made without approval? Perhaps. We don't know

a)Whether these statements are as controversial in Iraq as they are made out to be here, although this has been noted as the first time a bounty has been offered for coalition members;

b)Whether Sadr was even aware of these statements at the time of his sermon in Kufa, which was only shortly after al-Bahadli's sermon in Basra and prior to the news reports;

c)MOST IMPORTANTLY: We don't have enough information about the political situation within Sadr's organization to say that denouncing a deputy's sermon is even something that is done or can be done at this time. We shouldn't project our own kinds of organizations in relative peacetime to the rhetorical skills needed for Sadr's kind of organization in a state of war. Would denouncing al-Bahadli's sermon appear a concession to the CPA just when Sadr needs to shore up his forces nationally? Would it split his organization? Again, we don't have enough information to say. So, while it may be reasonable to think that Sadr would have denounced these comments if he hadn't approved of them, it lack sufficient grounding for us to make a determination.

I did not think that the relation alone was sufficient reason for us to say that Sadr was sending a message through his deputy. We now have two reasons: 1) The relation of deputy and 2) The fact that Sadr hasn't denounced his deputy's statement. While it is, as you correctly point out, reasonable to believe that this statement was tacitly approved of by Sadr, we simply do not have enough information to make a determination. The two reasons you've given, then, still do not constitute sufficient reason to make a determination - even of high probability, much less certainty. We can say at best that it is possible, and that it is maddeningly difficult to gauge the situation on the ground without more information from our press. UPSHOT: For all we know, Sadr may be fuming over Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli's statements, but may be totally hamstrung to condemn the statements, since organizational coherence trumps the possibility of in-fighting at this time. This possibility is just as likely as your possibility given our general lack of information.

I hope we can put the nastiness behind us and engage in polite discourse as adults. I am at the same point that I was at in Post #53, with the exception that I am more familiar with your position as it stands now after your modifications.

[Beetwasher]

140. Obviousness is a Subjective Term

And again, I go back to what I said at the beginning; what's obvious to me, is not obvious to you.

Even if we get more information about organizational structure how can we ever be certain it's correct information and not propoganda? What level of certainty do YOU need before something is obvious to you?

It's not a shift to discuss motivation at all as that is essentially what we've been discussing whether it was named as such or not. What motivated Bahadli to make the statments? Was it his own idea or done w/ Sadr's approval? You may feel you lack the information to make the determination. I don't. It's subjective. That's been my point all along. Furthermore, it's been my point that it's not even a far fetched conclusion as you suggest by claiming it's "as far from obvious as can be". It's not far from obvious at all, though it certainly isn't a fact. It's actually something that's quite reasonable to infer considering what we do know, or IOW obvious.

I'm all for civil discourse, but I also appreciate honesty in discourse. I never put words in your mouth nor ascribe to you things you didn't say. Your attempt to make it seem as if I claimed something as factual when I was actually and quite obviously (pun intended) paraphrasing something you said was, IMO, not intellectually honest. I'm sure you'll disagree, but that's how I see it and I don't appreciate that sort of distortion or semantic gymnastics and when I see it, I call people on it. Personally, I'm quite willing to admit when I'm wrong, as I've done in this thread when I mis-attributed the original quote and said as much. It's nice to see that sort of behavior in others. If my jibes offend you, oh well, welcome to the internet. :shrug:

[markses]

141. We have nothing left to say to each other

If it is just subjective, and you don't feel the need to persuade people of a real state of affairs, then I don't know why you bother.

As for your jibes, they do not particularly bother me, I just find them childish and unproductive as a mode of public argument. I understand the internet is often little more than these stupid supposed one-ups-manship gambits mostly made up of insults, but I thought we could do better with honest argument, and not sink to the lowest form of barnyard sophistry.

I have not been dishonest here, and once again, I stand on my posts here in public, and feel that my honesty throughout this dispute is on display. I will continue to insist that your supposed paraphrase says just what I claimed. I took you at your word as it appeared, and thought that you meant to say what you actually wrote. I didn't need any gymnastics, just standard English word order. If you can't control your own meaning, that's not my problem, nor should I be required to divine the true meaning of your bad writing.

[Beetwasher]

142. Yeah, Your "Honesty" Is on Display Alright

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone of anything nor do I feel the need. Why should I? I just don't let dishonest bullshit stand nor do I let people distort what I've said, as you tried to do.

It matters not a whit to me that you prefer to remain either disingenuous, ignorant or naive. Good luck w/ that!

[markses]

143. You made a claim

I disputed it. At the end, you're not convinced, I'm not persuaded, and - though I truly hesitate to speak for you - I think we've both expended too much time and goodwill on a fruitless effort. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.

Feel free to get the last post in if it makes you feel better.

[theboss]

76. It doesn't really matter if it was Sadr or his deputies

You don't give W that out when Condi Rice says something stupid.

[mn9driver]

21. Not Sadr-not that it makes much difference.

Here is the CBS Quote:

...One of al-Sadr's senior aides told worshippers in Basra that anyone capturing a female British soldier can keep her as a slave. Waving an assault rifle, Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli also said anyone capturing a British soldier will receive about $350 and anyone killing one will receive $150..."

This was in Basra, which is held by the British. I'm sure the folks in Najaf (where Sadr is) will do ugly things to any Americans they capture, but that is likely to happen only in a combat situation as things are going seriously to hell there right now. Basra, by comparison, is not currently getting the shit kicked out of it.

-Driver www.roachblog.blogspot.com

[Zorra]

26. The war is now officially lost.

Which may be just what the RW wanted.

The creation of eternal enemies throughout the Arab world, and the subsequent corporate profits from long term war.

[xultar]

36. O-OOOO-OOOOOO PLEASE TAKE LYNNDIE !!!!!! n/t

[kaitykaity]

47. Every female soldier, sailor, airman, or marine

needs to come home right now.

Women are especially vulnerable to sexual violence, and
now the Iraqi men will target them for sexual violence.
I want all the boys and girls home, but the girls have to
come out NOW.

[Skittles]

51. I'd especially like to know where in the Koran THAT is endorsed

:O

[kaitykaity]

57. Me too.

Just makes it more complicated.

[Skittles]

58. and the "Christians" on a killing ramage in Nigeria

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[kaitykaity]

62. I heard that.

It's going around and around in my head, too.

God Damn Them All To Hell

[theboss]

84. Are you generally against women in combat?

Or just in this instance?

I'm honestly curious.

[kaitykaity]

89. I think it's situational.

This situation, I think the women should come out
of even the combat support and combat service support
areas on the ground. If this report is accurate, there
will be rape rooms for American female servicemembers up
and running, and I think it would be smart to get the
targets out.

Technically women are still barred from combat. I don't
think women are allowed in the combat MOSs, like 11B.
(Yes, I'm former military--was in the Army.)

[philosophie_en_rose]

94. Men will be raped too.

If women will be tortured, so will the men. It's not enough to drag the women home. The men deserve to be home as well.

[kaitykaity]

98. I think I said that.

:hurts:

Men get raped usually when there aren't any women
around to rape. Most men are heterosexual, and most
heterosexual men would rather rape a woman.

So if anyone needs to come out now, it's the women.

[oldcoot]

144. They can not come home now

One of the big problems is that we do not have enough troops in Iraq. If we remove all the female troops, who is going to take their place? Will we have to bring back the draft? Should we replace qualified and experienced women with less qualified men?

Second, women have been fighting for equal rights in the military and in society for a long time. Pulling women out now will ultimately hurt the cause of women's rights in the military. Male soldiers will resent women because they feel that women are getting special treatment if the women are allowed to leave early. Female soldiers may resent being singled out because they may feel that they are competent professionals and not little girls who need protection.

Unfortunately, rape (like any form of torture) is always a possibility in any war. This is just one reason why our government should think twice before sending our troops (male and female) off to war.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. Since Bush has made sure

that there are no rules in Iraq, he has pretty much ensured that anything goes. We cannot expect that Iraqis will adhere to generally accepted codes of conduct when we have been violating them so systematically.

Bush has basically given the green light to Iraqis to do absolutely anything that they want to any captured foreigners.

Alot of Americans don't seem to understand that rules are meaningless unless everbody agrees to follow them. The Iraqis aren't going to accept one set of rules for them and another for us.

[riverwalker]

61. can Gen. Karpinski belly dance?

I can just see her in a harem.

[Cleita]

82. Oh what an image you gave me.

LOL

[No2W2004]

64. was an aide to Sadr in a sermon....link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211854,00.html

A senior aide of the radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today told worshippers that anyone who captured a female British soldier could keep her as a slave.
The statement, made in a sermon at the al-Hawi mosque in Basra, was accompanied by the promise of a 250,000 dinar (£200) bounty for each British soldier captured, and a 100,000 dinar (£85) bounty for each one killed.

With an assault rifle by his side, the aide, Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli, told an estimated 3,000 worshippers that British forces in Basra had failed to honour agreements not to patrol inside the city, and to stop harassing Mr al-Sadr's supporters.

He also held what he said were photographs showing three Iraqi women being raped at British-run prisons in Iraq.

[bicentennial_baby]

65. Erm no...

A senior aide of the radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr today told worshippers that anyone who captured a female British soldier could keep her as a slave.

The statement, made in a sermon at the al-Hawi mosque in Basra, was accompanied by the promise of a 250,000 dinar (£200) bounty for each British soldier captured, and a 100,000 dinar (£85) bounty for each one killed.

With an assault rifle by his side, the aide, Sheik Abdul-Sattar al-Bahadli, told an estimated 3,000 worshippers that British forces in Basra had failed to honour agreements not to patrol inside the city, and to stop harassing Mr al-Sadr's supporters.

He also held what he said were photographs showing three Iraqi women being raped at British-run prisons in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211854,00.html

[ConcernedCanuk]

77. Whatever gave him the idea of making US female soldiers slaves?

.
.
.

dunno

:shrug:



just dunno



just no idea





LYNNDIE'S LEGACY

[Cleita]

81. Would keeping a female slave who is a trained

killer and who could blow your balls off a very wise move?

[neverborn]

85. Well...

That's disgusting and wrong.... but...

WHO THE HELL DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING?

BRING THE TROOPS HOME, NOW.

[ima_sinnic]

90. ...but those Iraqis would just be "blowing off steam" and

having a little "fraternity party fun"

RIGHT?? :eyes:

[Yupster]

93. Checked a favorite site

www.askimam.com

It's a place where people can ask rquestions about Islam, and some Islamic religious guys give them advice sort of like a Dear Abby column. Lots of the questions come from Islamic people who have moved to the west and need to know what they are allowed to do and not do living in a western society. The answers are interesting, and there's kind of a soap opera quality to much of it. For instance, lots of questions about being married in Pakistan and now love a woman in the US. Can I marry the woman in the US without telling my wife in Pakistan. That kind of thing.

Anyway, I put in the keyword of slavery and got this question and response direct from the fatwa department. Kind of brought my thoughts to the Sudan.

*******************************************************************

What is the ruling of Slavery in Islam? How can a person be a slave to someone other than Allah SWT.

Please explain the concept of slavery in Islam. Is it alowed in this day and age? If there was an Islamic government then would slavery be allowed. Please explain the issue in detail as we are not knowledge in the islamic rulings.

Answer 1928 2001-01-19



Allah is our creator and ultimate Master. We, as his creations and slaves are obliged to express our servitude to Him Alone. If one does not submit his slavery to Allah, which of course is far more heinous and unjust to Allah in comparison to the 'injustices' of slavery and sexual relationship, etc. by a human master.

Since the human being did not willingly submit to the ultimate Master, Allah, He condemns them to the unwilling slavery of his sincere slaves. And by understanding the powers of a man master, they may understand the Powers of the True Master, Allah. In fact, the concept of slavery should be regarded as a concept of mercy, as the heinous crime of rejecting Allah as our Master demands immediate terminating of life. Allah, our kind Master, has granted an opportunity to his very negators to enjoy a second chance of
life and redirect it to the right avenue by submitting to Him as the
ultimate Master.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.

[haele]

99. Well...once female soldiers started acting in a dishonorable fashion...

they became fair game under traditional Islamic culture. Female military members have been told to control their "party attitudes" when in public in Muslim nations for decades because of this cultural tradition. Women "without honor" either by family or activity have few legal protections, they are basically prostitutes - and in that religious tradition, that means that they are for sale to the highest bidder if they are deemed valuable enough to live. Just as in the good ol' biblical times.

We - the American and Coalition forces were given the "benefit of doubt" previously because it was assumed in the Iraqi mindset that the American female soldier was there because she felt she was protecting her country and culture, or on a humanitarian mission, as thousands of Iraqi daughters and sisters had done over the past twenty five years. Even in "Gulf War I", the two known female POW's were treated much more gently than Muslim culture allowed they could have been.
Think of it - if Shoshanna Johnson or Jessica Lynch had been seen in any way other than as honorably doing their jobs to the best of their abilities or acting in any way that could be considered protecting their lives, we wouldn't have seen their faces ever again.

In that culture, dishonoring or degrading another human being indicates a degenerate soul. In a man, it's "acceptable" only so far as that man's personal power can protect him - a brutal, degrading man that's poor finds himself very dead very quickly. In a woman, it isn't acceptable at all.

The American military structure knew that culture going in. It says a lot about what our priorities actually are when we allow those who are there representing us to have acted the way they did. The photos with the female prison guards and stories of rape are so unforgivable to the average Iraqi Muslim - or Christian, for that matter - in so many ways, I'm surprised that Sadr or his lieutenant - whoever made the statement concerning slavery - just didn't say that all Coalition female soldiers should be killed if caught. (On edit, since he was talking about British female soldiers, who knows what the thoughts on American female soldiers really are...)
As a side, I suspect that the male soldiers may also now be facing a choice of either death or slavery if captured - but of course, that's not as dramatic as "some poor little wounded blond soldier girl being sold in some basement in Najef to some leering Iraqi who will do terrible things to her..."
The actions of a few have ruined the hopes of decent treatment to those who will be unlucky enough to be captured after this. This is a breakdown from the top down, and as usual, the average grunt is going to pay dearly for it.

Thanks a lot "Guards of Abu Ghraib" - and all you other sadistic bastards in positions of power who can't think beyond what gives you your next "kick". Thanks to y'all and your mercenary cohorts, we have to pray that heaven helps our daughters and sons who are over there mistakenly thinking they're trying to do some good and bring some stability in the area.

Haele

[Cleita]

109. I think the Pentagon should really consider bringing the women

home. Retaliation could be horrible.

[Tinoire]

114. A bunch of women of child-bearing age around all that Depleted Uranium

scary thought.

[TankLV]

117. Yeah, but it's OK for the boys, right?

I'm for bringing them ALL home NOW!

[Cleita]

118. I have to agree.

No young person should have been involved in this autocratic grab for the resources of that nation.

[Tinoire]

126. So am I

it's been my stance from day one of this madness.

And no it's not ok for boys either but I was responding to a post about women and to put it bluntly, one good vial of sperm and you can impregnate a lot of women if a generation is decimated and a country needs to be repopulated.

The reverse is not yet possible.

Don't shoot me, I didn't design the biology.

[9215]

100. Lyndie England probably would look

forward to it.

Sadr (Satyr), hee, hee.

[paulie5]

129. women as slaves ??

They'll be sorry if they captured American women and tried to make slaves out of them. Usually it's the other way around and they'll find that out if they capture one. If fact they might even wind up paying us to take them back. What a weird way to win a war. Sorry to all you good girls out there but once they get hold of one of Donald Trump's ex-wives they'll give up on taking any American women as prisoners

[VelmaD]

134. You're new so I'm gonna cut you more slack...

than I normally would. But you might want to rethink using expressions like "good girls" if you don't want people around here to think you're a misogynistic idiot. I'm just saying...

[in_cog_ni_to]

135. This has opened the door

for military war crimes against OUR soldiers...all over the world. We DO have to get the hell out of there. Just like this preemptive, unprovoked war has opened the door for other rogue nations to do the same, these war crimes against prisoners has opened another Pandoras Box. This administration is going DOWN! What a fucking mess! Say goodbye to the Geneva Convention. It's nothing but a piece of paper now. :(

[Deja Q]

139. I'm not surprised

What's left to say? We were far from ethical in our "war" (invasion and occupation) and now the cat is out of the bag. What would everybody do, praise the whistleblowers?