February 01, 2008
How the Mighty Have Fallen
Two suicide attacks on pet markets in Baghdad today have left approximately 100 killed and twice as many wounded. Both attacks used women "with Down's syndrome" according the the Daily Mail and less specifically, they were described as "mentally disabled" according to CNN.
Both bombs appear to have been remote detonated. These women probably did not know they were carrying explosives at all, and it would probably be fair to include them among the victims.
The ever-objective, ever-unbiased New York Times saw fit to exclude the horrific detail of their alleged mental disabilities from their reporting of the day's massacre. It might upset their readers, and cause some confusion over who the real enemy in Iraq is (George Bush).
With tedious predictability, bloggers on the political left jumped with self-satisfaction at the opportunity to write about the attack, "proof" in their eyes, at last, that the "surge" of American forces into Iraq, which they so reviled, was a (blessed) failure.
Kevin Hayden wrote mockingly at the American Street:
How’s your surge, Mr. Oil Crony president?It's not working so hot for Iraqis.
But Exxon seems to think it's peachy. I wonder if they plan to send flowers and a thank you note to the families of the 3943 US troops who died to make Exxon richer than 2/3rds of the planet's countries.
How many troops per gallon does your car get?
His deep and abiding concern for the men, women, and children killed in the attack, and those injured, must have been saved for a later post.
At Newshoggers, Libby was quick to jump to the occasion to declare the war lost:
I've never understood how people were lulled into thinking the surge really succeeded in establishing security in Iraq. It seemed rather apparent, even to my under-schooled eyes, that the surge was a gimmick. It reminded me of those bait and switch promotions that unscrupulous retailers used to engage in. The surge raised the violence to greater levels and then lowered the numbers with artificial manipulatons [sic] to a level that had been judged unacceptable when the surge began. But all that too many Americans seemed to notice was that the levels dropped. For some reson[sic], the relative metrics just didn't register.
The surge, you see (like spell-check) is a gimmick in Libby's eyes, and the very real drop in attacks and casualties around Iraq because of the application of COIN doctrine is just the result of artificial "manipulatons," whatever they may be.
Both, of course, miss the larger picture in their desire, their need to prove their worldview right. But she is right in one regard... she is "under-schooled" in how this war is being fought, and why it is being won.
These attacks today are not the first time al Qaeda in Iraq has stooped to using female suicide bombers. They have been used several times, including twice earlier this month in Diyala.
This tells us several things.
First, it tells us that al Qaeda in Iraq recognizes that attempts to use male suicide bombers and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), their preferred method of suicide attacks for those seeking martyrdom, are no longer effective. These attacks fail because the combination of coalition military forces, Iraqi security forces, and neighborhood militias, known as "concerned local citizens" (CLCs) creating a security system that increasingly works, and makes it very unlikely that these preferred attacks will succeed. There is also some speculation that the influx of would-be foreign suicide bombers into Iraq is drying up.
Today's attacks also tell us that al Qaeda in Iraq is getting very desperate in seeking the high-casualty attacks that they so value. They were forced to scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel, and use not only women (which they'd prefer to subjugate), but mentally disabled women at that, suggesting that finding willing volunteers is becoming ever more difficult.
These attacks today serve to show that al Qaeda in Iraq is not quite finished, but then, that is something we already knew. What is does show us is just how desperate they are to retain relevance in a war that is going very badly for them.
Far from today's attacks being a sign of the "surge" in Iraq failing, the extraordinary lengths al Qaeda was forced to take to carry out these attacks show that the "surge" and the COIN doctrine implemented by General Petraeus are working precisely as we'd hoped.
Update: The NY Times has updated the original article to now include a contribution from Mudhafer al-Husaini. It now includes commentary about the mental disability of the suicide bombers... buried 15 paragraphs into the now much longer story.
IHT still has up an original version of this story as it ran earlier, which I've copied into the comments as well.
War is lost?
Then we probably should get to producing our own oil, domestically.
That is the dems backup plan, right?
Posted by: paul at February 1, 2008 04:11 PMWhat's totally, especially, nastily disgusting about this is that people with Down's synderome are among the most loving and unconditional people that exist - an exact opposite of the terrorist filth.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at February 1, 2008 04:42 PMArabic societies tend to take a protective approach to the mentally ill. If these women were truly mentally disabled it will show how desperate AQ is and provoke a backlash against them. Remember how the Iraqis reacted when AQ bombed the children when they were lined up for a candy hand out by American Troops? This is a big Haram, AQ overplayed their hand big time.
Posted by: John at February 1, 2008 04:53 PMBut Michael Moore told me these people were like the Minutemen! It's like you can't trust anyone anymore . . .
Posted by: Al at February 1, 2008 05:08 PMAnother new low... the unfortunate part is that the families of these poor women were probably happy to have them serve as 'explosive delivery systems' The mentally ill, retarded and otherwise less fortunate (menatlly and physically handicapped) in Islamic/Iraqi society are seen as a burden and a mark of shame. Another wonderful example of the "Religion of Peace and Love" at work... I can't wait to get back there to get back in the mix... (BTW Bob: did you recieve that email I sent a week or so ago?)
Posted by: Big Country at February 1, 2008 05:10 PMDirtCrashr is exactly right. These folks are sweet, loving, straightforward and guileless. To use them this way is beyond depraved. The lefties using this as fodder for their anti-American screeds are also depraved.
Posted by: Peg C. at February 1, 2008 05:11 PMActually, the AQ types mitigate their responsibility by insisting that the mentally ill are especially loved by Allah and that their martyrdom in his name is especially honorable.
the families, on the other hand, may have provided these women to AQ types in "marriage" as they are probably poor, unable to care for them appropriately and not expecting any other dowry except what they may have been happy to receive by the men who bought them.
I recall the use of the down syndrome boy that turned out the parents sent him with the mujihadeen because they were poor and the mujihadeen promised to take care of him.
riiiggghhht
I do want to know how they figured out so fast that the women were "down syndrome" when the kind of explosion that took place was probably big enough to leave little but the head for identification. and that fast, too. My guess is, the family immediately suspected they had alleviated themselves of their children to the worst of the worst.
Posted by: kat-missouri at February 1, 2008 05:22 PMmanipulatons - the subatomic particle believed by progressives to emmanate from penumbras and Dick Cheney, see also unicorns, Kool Aid.
Posted by: anon at February 1, 2008 05:32 PMThese attacks today are not the first time al Qaeda in Iraq has stooped to using female suicide bombers.
It's also not the first time they've resorted to abducting the mentally disabled then using them as suicide bombers.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/02/new-techniques-of-resistance.html
Those AQ types sure are brave!
Posted by: Boss429 at February 1, 2008 05:44 PMBob, why are you surprised that Copperheads hiss?
Posted by: SDN at February 1, 2008 06:08 PMkat: I do want to know how they figured out so fast that the women were "down syndrome"
Maybe someone gave them a hand. Trisomy-21 causes unusual fingerprints.
The NYT said they were mentally impaired about half way through the article.
Posted by: DLS at February 1, 2008 07:16 PMUm, it clearly states what you claim it does not right in the article.
I'm just surprised someone didn't point it out before I (and DLS above) did.
Posted by: The Ghost of Gary Ruppert at February 1, 2008 07:25 PMSplodey dupes.
Posted by: Dan Collins at February 1, 2008 07:26 PMHeh. Dan Collins.
Aren't you the guy who was stalking your ex-girlfriend or something over at Jeff "Klonopin" Godlstein's place?
Posted by: The Ghost of Gary Ruppert at February 1, 2008 07:28 PMOh, yeah. You're from the Googling=stalking fold.
Posted by: Dan Collins at February 1, 2008 07:34 PMHe's right, you know, Bob. That rather salient detail is listed in about paragraph 7, and then to be called into question.
Posted by: Dan Collins at February 1, 2008 07:39 PMDLS, Ghost, etc...
The NY Times updated the story this afternoon to include those details. The original article read:
BAGHDAD: Twin bombs struck two markets in central Baghdad on Friday, killing dozens in the worst attack in the Iraqi capital for many months.One bomb hit the Ghazil pet market, the scene of another deadly bombing in November when 13 people were killed.
The second bomb hit minutes later and barely two miles away at the New Baghdad pet market. Both markets are on the east side of the Tigris River, and both are in mainly Shiite areas. But they are popular with both Shiites and Sunnis.
Early reports put the death toll from both attacks at more than 50. The bombings were carried out by women suicide attackers wearing explosive vests, witnesses said.
American military commanders have noted in recent months that in areas where there are many checkpoints insurgents have begun using suicide vests instead of vehicles to carry out bombings because they are easier to sneak past road blocks and barriers.
Ghazil is closed to most vehicles by head-high concrete blast barriers. The New Baghdad market has guards and barbed wire but no blast walls.
At the New Baghdad market, army units sealed off the area and set up checkpoints following the explosion. Bloodstained feathers mixed with melting sleet. At a popular roadside bird market, stall holders said a woman suicide bomber blew herself up at around 10:30 a.m., just as they were getting news of the Ghazil bombing a few minutes earlier.
"We were just talking about the first bomb when it happened," said Abbas Muhammad Awad, 54, a pigeon seller. "There was not enough time for people to leave because it was only five or 10 minutes between the bombs."
The Associated Press reported that the death toll at Ghazil was at least 46 people, quoting police officials. Witnesses said the Ghazil attack happened at around 10:15 a.m. The second explosion killed at least 18 people and wounded 25, The AP reported.
The Ghazil market has been a regular target. It was also struck a year ago in January when 15 people died. Last November's deadly attack, in the crowded bazaar in the shadow of the Mosque of the Caliphs, caused a scene of carnage, and even then was a cruel reminder that the decline in violence in this city is relative and may not last.
At the New Baghdad market on Friday, Yahya Omran, 50, showing multiple scars from one of the previous bombs to hit the market, complained that despite repeated requests the authorities had failed to erect a concrete blast wall to protect the market as had happened at other markets.
"I came back to work here because I have to pay rent and I need to support my family," he said. "I thought everything was starting to get better but then this happened. I think things are going to get worse. It's chaos."
An original version of the Times story was captured for posterity in the International Herald Tribune.
Mudhafer al-Husaini's contribution to Ferrell's article (bring it to its current form) came long after I published this blog entry, but thanks for playing.
You seem to forget that many of the Sunni embraced AQ as vengeance against the Americans who deprived them of their supremacy in their country, only to turn against them when it was clear what kind of people AQ are.
Posted by: Dan Collins at February 1, 2008 08:05 PMNote: I just cleaned out troll/troofer comments and those responses by regulars related to them.
Let's stay on topic, folks.
Thank you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 1, 2008 09:57 PMYou realize, CY, that we could completely destroy Al Qaeda, give Iraq a fully functioning democracy, and bring peace and tolerance to all sections of Iraqi society, and the rabid anti-war lefties would still call it a "failure" for the US.
In their world, everything is a failure for the US, because no successes for the US are permitted, ever.
Posted by: C-C-G at February 1, 2008 11:35 PMAQ is simply trying to help their friends and supporters the democrats win an election. Then they will all join church and be good little boys and girls. AQ has a long way to go to catch up with the murder of babies comitted by doctors using the liberal democrat laws.
Posted by: Scrapiron at February 1, 2008 11:58 PMIs it wrong of me to be absolutely raging with hatred for these despicable, predictable leftists feeling joy over this attack because they think it's a "win" for their "side". I swear to God I hate them as much as AQ. They are literally the enemy within and I think they should start being treated the same. I've had it.
Posted by: Stephen at February 2, 2008 01:03 AMStephen, there is a very special place in hell for those lefties.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 2, 2008 03:46 AMI read that one of the women had a stall in the market.
More evidence of the effectiveness of the surge. AQ used a mentally retarded woman who had a stall in the market to get the bomb through security.
Posted by: slp at February 2, 2008 05:06 AM...i think it's wrong to call these mentally disabled women "suicide" bombers.
because they did not knowingly die for al queda's terrorist cause.
Posted by: john marzan at February 2, 2008 07:52 AMFor once you're right, Donnie Dumbshit, I mean, "Gomer" - Bush is the enemy, and has been for eight years.
Posted by: Winfield Mcmurtrey at February 2, 2008 08:42 AMFrom Newshoggers:
Update: Typos corrected with thanks to my human spell checker. For the record, assuming it's true, I think it's just horrible that whoever was behind this latest disaster used Down's women to perpetrate the bombings but I don't see it as a sign of desperation. I see it as a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that. Perhaps Mr. Owens can educate me on how our troops are supposed to counter this new evil tactic? That would be helpful.
Slime.
There is nothing "brilliant" about strapping explosives to a mentally deficient person and sending them into a crowd of people.
Posted by: TomB at February 2, 2008 10:28 AMYou really need to read several of Libby's posts at Newshoggers to get a feel for how comprehensively vacuous she is as a blogger. The topic is unimportant. Hugo Chavez is one of her favorites - you can't spell Hugo without Hug.
I'm fairly certain she did not get her spot over there due to her brain power. Is she related to any of the others?
Posted by: daleyrocks at February 2, 2008 11:00 AMAnyone care to guess whether waterboarding qualifies as a brilliant adaptation?
What a POS.
Posted by: Pablo at February 2, 2008 12:35 PMPeg C: The lefties using this as fodder for their anti-American screeds are also depraved.
Nothing I wrote attacked America or Americans.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 2, 2008 01:43 PMMy critique was directed at the current administration. I added that an oil company (though I meant all oil companies) has profited from the president's decisions.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 2, 2008 01:45 PMThe last time I looked, criticizing one's government was a longstanding practice of many Americans, left, right and middle.
C-C-G: You realize, CY, that we could completely destroy Al Qaeda, give Iraq a fully functioning democracy, and bring peace and tolerance to all sections of Iraqi society, and the rabid anti-war lefties would still call it a "failure" for the US.
I'd be thrilled if Al Qaeda was destroyed, globally. I believe most of its leadership is scattered through several countries, with very few in Iraq. I also do not believe any country can be gifted with democracy. That's like saying an unwilling patient can be successfully treated by a shrink. Many Iraqis likely would prefer a representative democracy but the majority of the government they got from the first rounds of voting is composed of too many who seem motivated by theology and personal gain than objective representation.
It's a rhetorical device to call my opinions 'rabid' simply because you disagree. Flame wars are so 1990s...
Stephen: Is it wrong of me to be absolutely raging with hatred for these despicable, predictable leftists feeling joy over this attack because they think it's a "win" for their "side". I swear to God I hate them as much as AQ. They are literally the enemy within and I think they should start being treated the same. I've had it.
It's wrong if your hatred is driven by mischaracterization of critics of the war. In no way have I, for example, expressed joy at any attack, nor do I engage in smug 'told-ya-so' BS because I fully recognize that war is unpredictable and fraught with numerous tragedies. I don't comprehend why this makes me an enemy of anyone, beyond being politically an opponent of this administration. You're welcome to hate me but I'll be damned if I know why you would.
Among my friends, left and right, I know of none that fit the sterotypes you propose, either.
Sorry for the multiple comments. It was all one, but your spam filter kept blocking it till I broke it into three.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden at February 2, 2008 01:47 PMKevin, you're hated because of your vicious anti-American and anti-military views. It's really quite simple. Calling terrorists "brilliant" for strapping on bombs to retarded women tends to make most normal people react in a negative manner to such seething rage against ones country.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 2, 2008 04:58 PMumm. did you read the nytimes article to the. . . uh . . . middle of the page?
"Iraqi security officials said the women were mentally disabled, but offered no conclusive evidence."
how's your grill btw? our thoughts are with you!
Posted by: jcroot at February 2, 2008 07:20 PMit was in the print version of the nytimes (not a subscriber but live next to some of those liberal chicken f*ckers) this morning as well. they're really going out of their way to bury it on the left column of the front page.
Posted by: jcroot at February 2, 2008 07:29 PMI'd, scroll up, Bob answered that. The Times changed the article, he has the original I
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 2, 2008 07:29 PMso they tried to bury this fact yesterday but decided that they should just come out with the truth today? I mean really, what could this possibly serve? how does the intellectual level of the bombers serve either a liberal or conservative, pro or anti-war, agenda? seems like, as the print and online version said today, it's still not clear if they were mentally challenged or not because no conclusive evidence is as of yet available. really not trying to troll here but I guess I just don't get the conspiracy angle.
Posted by: jcroot at February 2, 2008 07:36 PMKevin, I really doubt that your name appeared in my comment, since I hadn't heard of your existence before about 30 seconds ago.
Therefore, you are merely assuming that I meant you, personally, when I wrote about rabid anti-war types. In point of fact, if you would not react as I surmised, then I probably wasn't referring to you at all.
Guilty conscience, mayhap? Or just trying to bend things so that it looks like I am attacking you?
Posted by: C-C-G at February 2, 2008 07:51 PMKevin In CY comments section: It's wrong if your hatred is driven by mischaracterization of critics of the war. In no way have I, for example, expressed joy at any attack, nor do I engage in smug 'told-ya-so' BS because I fully recognize that war is unpredictable and fraught with numerous tragedies.
Kevin on his blog:
How’s your surge, Mr. Oil Crony president?
But Kevin, I thought you said you didn't participate in smug I told you so BS? I thought you said you didn't take joy in any attack? Could have fooled me...
Jim C
Just so I've got this straight, warbloggers are allowed to look at the levels of violence in Iraq and comment on the effectiveness of the surge, but the 2/3 of America who disagree with you are not.
Sure, that makes sense.
BTW, you know how many suicide bombings there were in Iraq in the year before Bush launched his REALLY GREAT IDEA THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY GO WRONG? Why, that would be zero.
Ideas have consequences.
Posted by: joe at February 3, 2008 12:51 PMThe last time I looked, criticizing one's government was a longstanding practice of many Americans, left, right and middle.
Come see the repression inherent in the system!
Posted by: Jim Treacher at February 3, 2008 02:02 PMJoe, there were no suicide bombers pre-war because the former government of Iraq was the kind that the Islamofascists want to recreate there... a brutal thug of a dictator who shoots anyone who doesn't vote for him, jails elementary school kids for the perceived "disloyalty" of their parents, and fills mass graves all over the countryside.
I bet that's the kind of government you'd like to see back in Iraq, hmmm?
Posted by: C-C-G at February 3, 2008 03:41 PM"It's wrong if your hatred is driven by mischaracterization of critics of the war."
It is also wrong if your hatred is driven by a mis-characterization of the war.
See what I did there?
Posted by: Conservative CBU at February 3, 2008 04:41 PMSuperb post. I have linked to it.
Posted by: Bob Agard at February 3, 2008 05:48 PMHmmm... the left side of the aisle has been getting quieter and quieter...
Posted by: C-C-G at February 3, 2008 07:09 PM"Kevin, you're hated because of your vicious anti-American and anti-military views. It's really quite simple. Calling terrorists "brilliant" for strapping on bombs to retarded women tends to make most normal people react in a negative manner to such seething rage against ones country."
Cap..how can you make such a callous and venomous statement? Kevin I remind you IS a part of your country.
"Hmmm... the left side of the aisle has been getting quieter and quieter...
"
Your spam filter blocks alot of comments.
The Iraqi people are caught between the past brutalities of Sadaam, the "wolf in sheep's clothing" altruism of US Oil geopolitics and Al Qaeda's Islamo-Fascist militaris,. Greek Tragedy.
Posted by: chris lee at February 4, 2008 03:13 PMWhat part of the country is called "IS?"
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at February 4, 2008 04:28 PMCI:
Mr. Lee has a difficult time utilizing punctuation. If I may suggest a rewrite of his post's last sentence:
"Kevin, I remind you, IS a part of your country."
Amazing how two simple commas, in my opinion, bring his meaning forward. I take issue with this meaning, however, as Kevin does not appear to WANT to be part of these United States as they are, but of something completely different.
Posted by: Mark at February 4, 2008 06:06 PMYeah..maybe I should learn to take these cyber-cawfee tawks mo seriously. But the general mean spiritedness and desperation to avoid confronting your contempt for the diversity of opinion in YOUR country's body politic is manifest in the dodge of your phony pedanticism.
Posted by: chris lee at February 4, 2008 07:33 PMChris, if we were truly anti-diversity of opinion, would you still be permitted here?
But try posting something conservative on DailyKOS and see how long it lasts.
Take the blinders off, before you run into a tree, like George of the Jungle.
(Now watch, he'll make a comment about that George and the one in the White House.)
Posted by: C-C-G at February 4, 2008 08:57 PM'...desperation to avoid confronting your contempt for the diversity of public opinion...'
Does anyone have a Gobbldeygook to Engish dictionary?
Posted by: Pablo at February 5, 2008 09:04 AM"Does anyone have a Gobbldeygook to Engish dictionary"
It's just tedious us vs them. That's the general tone. Mean, dismissive, petty STOPS to dialogue. And I will BET yer all church goin' Christians, too.
We are fighting an insurgency more than anything else. The US gov't strategy is one of attrition and long term occupation..the establishment of a protectorate at US taxpayer and Natl Guardsmen expense. It's extremely unlikely that you will be able to graft on a democracy to an area that believes in Sharia, patriarchy and theocratic rule. We are clearly not as gung ho on liberal reform in countries like UAE, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This is a "self-serving" altruist intervention.
Posted by: chris lee at February 5, 2008 10:46 AM"attrition and long term occupation...the establishment of a protectorate at US taxpayer and Natl Guardsmen expense."
Like, say, Germany and Korea? Will we make them little Americans? No. But we might be able to get a stable, partially free, partially democratic country, like France or Belgium.
We aren't reforming everybody else because we can't take on the entire Arab world at one time. Now, if we wanted oil, I suspect that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would have made a better target, don't you think?
"It's just tedious us vs them. That's the general tone. Mean, dismissive, petty STOPS to dialogue. And I will BET yer all church goin' Christians, too."
As a general rule, pots ought not to critique the pulchritude of the kettle...
Posted by: Grey Fox at February 5, 2008 11:39 AMGrey ..I will demonstrate debating THE ISSUES. You will notice my avoidance of name calling. Now..The diff between the occupation of Germany and Korea is that those occupations were/are NOT war zones. As far as your point about SA and Kuwait..IF OUR CRUSADE IS FOR FREEDOM ALONE..don't you think it would INCLUDE pressure on those countries , supposedly our allies, as well? I argue that we don't because our MAIN objective is a more or less stable trade environment which we have in Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. The object is not cheap oil, the object is the control of supply. "We" don't want it to be cheap we want prices high and under "Our" control. The main argument I am making is that the behind the scenes players, The Saudies, International Energy Companies, Dubai based Halliburton are all hiding behind mouthpieces using words like "freedom, sacrifice, patriotism and democracy" because that sells better than "geo-political advantage and control of commodity supply lines."
Posted by: chris lee at February 5, 2008 11:55 AMJust hit em with the dusk-orb chirs. Even though you smokescreen for this, I'm not buying it. I still don't think that using the mentally handicapped to massacre people is noble. Argue harder.
Posted by: brando at February 5, 2008 01:07 PM"Just hit em with the dusk-orb chirs. Even though you smokescreen for this, I'm not buying it. I still don't think that using the mentally handicapped to massacre people is noble. Argue harder."
eg: the curveball distraction.
1. what's a dusk-orb and what does it have to do with this discussion?
2. WHERE AND WHEN did I EVER say anything about mentally handicapped suicide bombers?
Mr. Lee:
Please note my attempt at correction was to clarify your comment. If my attempt was incorrect, please fix it yourself. You will also note, I do not name call in general unless severely provoked. Furthermore, that name calling is generally rather abstract as opposed to 'personally vicious'. Yes, you should take these "cyber-cawfee tawks mo seriously" if you truly want to win converts to your side of the discussion. Since you don't, your posts usually get flamed and your arguments get summarily dismissed...and you are left wondering and angered as to "why".
The general problem I have with your comments in this thread (and others) is they stray from the point of CY's post. That point is rather simple: the MSM is biased followed by his evidence. Mentally handicapped women were used by AQ in a suicide attack. The NYT originally reported this fact though attempted to bury it below the fold. Then the NYT omitted the fact in subsequent reporting. Your comments have ranged from basically "Bush's fault" to "simple economics makes no sense in the ME" to "everything in Iraq (and the world for that matter) is controlled by a cabal that wants it this way". None of which have been supported sufficiently and almost all of which are more or less "off-point".
If you wish actual debate – then posit your position, lay out your logic, and give supporting evidence. When the counter comments come along, then you should address the issues raised, explain your logic more specifically if needed, and provide even more evidence supporting your position. Failure to do so means you invalidate some, if not all, of your original position. On the other hand, successfully defending that position will garner you respect and, possibly, adherents.
...and, Mr. Lee, your last comment under #2 is precisely my point.
Posted by: Mark at February 5, 2008 02:47 PMI accept some of your points. This is however an informal on-line debate club. People respond in silly, irreverent and even insulting ways, people respond in well thought out threads. People modify the direction of an original post and so on. My comments are not that far off topic and people are expected to be free to respond or reply as they wish.
Posted by: chris lee at February 5, 2008 02:59 PMI agree with you that people are free to respond and also that this is an 'informal debate club'. However, that agreement is conditioned upon stating your points clearly...that means "without ambiguity". When your posts lack proper punctionation, your written words can be twisted rather easily. I believe this was the topic of another post by CY about the recent 'study'...and we had basically the exact same exchange.
Now, as to people who 'respond in silly...", I suggest you mention those with a "XYZ - that was a silly response and I deem it not worthy of further discourse" (or some such) OR simply ignore them and watch them explode.
Informal debate club or not...that is no excuse for sloppy debating.
Now, since this post by CY was originally about why the NYT decided to try to hide the fact the bombings were done by two mentally handicapped women, how about a statement on that instead of the many near non-sequitors you utilized.
How about answering this simple yes/no question:
Do you or do you not agree the NYT was faulty in their reportage in this instance?
Posted by: Mark at February 5, 2008 10:19 PMNo.
Posted by: chris lee at February 6, 2008 09:11 AMMark..your "Elements of Style" lecture has merit. However I still maintain it's a dodge. Alot of the "dustups" I have had on this board, have been over the inability of constructive discourse and debate to progress because of what I argue is a "spiritual" malaise in the American Body Politic. The inability of people on either side of the aisle to work thru opposing viewpoints without tired rehashes of cliched labels like "moonbats, Republicons, Bushbots and the like". Often my replies are rushed off at work, or done on a friends faulty computer. In the end this is sort of recreational rhetorical exercise. I am not going to fact check and footnote everything I say and truth be told if Cap Inf wants to keep up his rants against "lefty idiot traitors" I'm really not going to lose any sleep over it.
Posted by: chris lee at February 6, 2008 09:26 AMChris, speaking of dodges, I notice that in maintaining your "We armed Saddam" position vis a vis multi-use industrial chemical sales ("plausible deniability!" you say), you repeatedly refused to answer this very simple question: Should we or should we not sell chlorine to countries with nasty governments?
If you're going to toss "inability of constructive discourse and debate to progress" stones around, it would be more effective if you weren't standing in your glass house. We have a teachable moment upon us.
Posted by: Pablo at February 6, 2008 10:41 AMNo. Knowing that they are making Chlorine Gas. We should not. Arguably we shouldn't sell ANYTHING to really nasty gov'ts. I believe the context of my statements in THAT discussion was that the pretext of their harbouring and use of chem weapons was a sham. Our policy was to invade whether they had them or not. My issue with you is that you want to parse statements like that and avoid the substance of my argument.
Posted by: chris lee at February 6, 2008 11:31 AMChris (dropped the "Mr. Lee" since we seem to be getting somewhere now):
Yes, it was a lecture and thank you for paying attention to it. Dodge or not, I felt it couldn't hurt and might actually raise the level of debate.
Thank you also for your answer to the question I posed. For what it is worth, my answer to that question is "Yes". It is an opinion question for which the answer can be explained by general examples instead of specific evidence.
I agree with you about the malaise. Most of the electorate is willfully ignorant of "the issues" of the day and just as willfully intolerant of perceived contrary positions. To wit, any media bias whether through filtering information or flooding the information stream with "one-sided" opinion only re-enforces that malaise. The press is extremely powerful - note the coverage of the Abu Ghraib shenanigans and the lack of coverage of Jihadist torture...or the Mohammed cartoon fiasco compared to the various attacks on Christian(s)[ity]. Therefore, I find your answer to my question (your opinion) to be wrong. (notice the use of 'general evidence' and the lack of specific links)
Your admitted "recreational rhetorical exercise" is noted as you stated...an excuse, not a reason. All I ask is for you to put a bit more effort into your comments, if only for clarity. I also ask all other commenters to please refrain from "name-calling" and address the merits of comments. This will have a very good effect on "constructive discourse".
Now Pablo has brought up a re-hash of a previous "dustup" and it is quite appropriate in this current context. If I remember correctly, you stated something along the lines of "your understanding was...". Where you failed on your end of the constructive discourse was in admitting that your 'understanding' was incorrect...though I believe you did edge toward exactly that later on if memory serves.
I freely admit that I sympathize with CapInf's opinions (and many other regulars here), but then I am a jingoist and my positions are colored by the belief that Country comes first.
Posted by: Mark at February 6, 2008 11:57 AMExcellent clarification of your position, Chris.
I'll let Pablo inform you of the reasons your contention on "our policy" is incorrect. (Unfortunately, I also generally post from work and have spent too much time already today doing so.)
Posted by: Mark at February 6, 2008 12:03 PMMark..I don't follow your argument about the NY Times article. Like the Lefty Blogger you are using to article to fit YOUR agenda. I think it's a leap to say the NY Times is sympathetic to Al Qaeda because they omitted the comment about the bomber's mental disability. I think a correct presumption would be ANYONE who straps on a bomb and kills innocent civilians is deranged, remember- this is a paper that plays to a large Jewish NYC pop who hears stories of Palestinians doing the same thing.
Posted by: chris lee at February 6, 2008 12:24 PMYeah Chris, I'm sort of weird like this, but integrity matters to me. After you tried to use the premise that daylight, sunlight, and dusklight, might not all come from the sun; you pretty much threw away the right to be taken seriously. For the rest of your life. That's how the dusk-orb is relevant.
Who's knows? Maybe it was your friend's faulty computer that made you lie.
Posted by: brando at February 6, 2008 02:07 PMNo. Knowing that they are making Chlorine Gas.So, you'd deny clean water to the citizens of a country because their government is distasteful?
Arguably we shouldn't sell ANYTHING to really nasty gov'ts.So, we shouldn't sell any food or medical equipment to Burma? Would you say that no country should sell them anything? Would you have us pursue such a blockade in the UN?
I believe the context of my statements in THAT discussion was that the pretext of their harbouring and use of chem weapons was a sham.Thing is, Chris, that we did indeed ban sales of chlorine to Iraq. And this is the result of that action. Do you find that to be a tolerable situation, and do you see why it became clear that Saddam needed to go? Notice the date of that piece. 1998, the same year this piece of legislation was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
My issue with you is that you want to parse statements like that and avoid the substance of my argument.The substance of your argument was that we armed Saddam, and in effect created him and kept him in power. Allow me to quote you:
My understandding is that with Saddam we SOLD him weapons INCLUDING bio-weapons..he was basically an agent and client. Then JUST LIKE NORIEGA. ..He suddenly became public enemy number one and american boys and girls had to clean up the mess that the weapons dealers and foreing policy experts started.Your premise is false and the substance of your argument is incorrect, as has been amply demonstrated. Now, if we're going to forward the debate in an honest fashion, we're going to have to agree to acknowledge facts. If we're not going to do that, derision should be expected. Your call. Posted by: Pablo at February 6, 2008 02:11 PM
1."No. Knowing that they are making Chlorine Gas.
So, you'd deny clean water to the citizens of a country because their government is distasteful?" Reaching...
2.
"Arguably we shouldn't sell ANYTHING to really nasty gov'ts.
So, we shouldn't sell any food or medical equipment to Burma? Would you say that no country should sell them anything? Would you have us pursue such a blockade in the UN? "
Didn't we push economic sanctions against Saddam for years..?
3. "The substance of your argument was that we armed Saddam, and in effect created him and kept him in power. Allow me to quote you:
My understandding is that with Saddam we SOLD him weapons INCLUDING bio-weapons..he was basically an agent and client. Then JUST LIKE NORIEGA. ..He suddenly became public enemy number one and american boys and girls had to clean up the mess that the weapons dealers and foreing policy experts started.
Your premise is false and the substance of your argument is incorrect, as has been amply demonstrated. Now, if we're going to forward the debate in an honest fashion, we're going to have to agree to acknowledge facts. If we're not going to do that, derision should be expected. Your call. Posted by Pablo at February "
The substance of my argument is THIS> We are not driven by merely humanitarian concerns in our policy toward Iraq. Whether he had chem weapons or not was secondary to the fact that he was sitting on huge oil reserves and had the power to destabilize markets, he was also a nuisance to our trade partners in the region. He was CALLED a client, whether for helicoptors, "water" or whatever we sold him then he was CALLED an enemy. It's all about who get's to describe the situation.
"Yeah Chris, I'm sort of weird like this, but integrity matters to me. After you tried to use the premise that daylight, sunlight, and dusklight, might not all come from the sun; you pretty much threw away the right to be taken seriously. For the rest of your life. That's how the dusk-orb is relevant.
"
I still don't know what you are talking about. I slept thru "Metaphor Class" at school.
Reaching...Not at all. In fact, we did just that in a time that you claim we didn't care at all about chemical weapons in Iraq. Do you approve of that sanction and its result? That's the question is on the table. You dodged it.
Didn't we push economic sanctions against Saddam for years..?Yes, but not a complete trade embargo which is what you're suggesting. Burma is also under sanctions. Do you feel that we should not sell food and medical supplies to Burma? That is the question on the table. You dodged it.
The substance of my argument is THIS> We are not driven by merely humanitarian concerns in our policy toward Iraq.Approximately 3 hours ago, the substance of your argument was "...that the pretext of their harbouring and use of chem weapons was a sham. Our policy was to invade whether they had them or not." Humanitarian concerns haven't been a part of this discussion until I just brought them up. Do you even know what your argument is, chris, or does it only matter that you be arguing? That's not going to advance the debate or improve anyone's understanding.
He was CALLED a client, whether for helicoptors, "water" or whatever we sold him then he was CALLED an enemy.Not in the geopolitical/military sense. Iraq was a Soviet client state, and a major arms customer of the French and the Germans. Are you saying that because we sell food and medical supplies to Burma that it is our client state? Is China our client state? Posted by: Pablo at February 6, 2008 03:46 PM
Pablo: Thank you for digging up those salient points and showing Chris the holes in his arguments.
Chris: With respect to my point on the NYT. What is the purpose of a free press according to the Constitution? Why was that right included in the 1st Amendment? If you take a good look at the text and some of the case law found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/08.html#1 , you'll have a better understanding as to the reason I find the NYT to be reprehensible in this (and many other) case(s).
Now, I'll give a somewhat concise reason as to why I believe the NYT is wrong in their reportage in this case: By attempting to bury (aka – NOT report) on the mental capabilities of the bombers, the NYT failed to give a full and accurate account. By failing in this duty, they abrogated their responsibility to every single reader. This failure, intentional or not, removes credibility from the rest of their reporting. If a ‘friend’ lies or tells half-truths to you constantly over an extended period of time, what level of credence will you give the next thing they tell you? None? Half? Full? I submit, you (and I for that matter) would kick that ‘friend’ to the curb and do your best to never speak to them again.
Such is my level of respect for the NYT (and most of the MSM) anymore. I still read and listen to them, but I rarely believe anything they write or say anymore. There have been too many examples of lies and half-truths for me to invest any credibility in them. And yes, that includes FSN (though to a lesser extent since I’ve found they do a better job than most others).
Posted by: Mark at February 7, 2008 12:00 AMPablo: Thank you for digging up those salient points and showing Chris the holes in his arguments.
Chris: With respect to my point on the NYT. What is the purpose of a free press according to the Constitution? Why was that right included in the 1st Amendment? If you take a good look at the text and some of the case law found here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/08.html#1 , you'll have a better understanding as to the reason I find the NYT to be reprehensible in this (and many other) case(s).
Now, I'll give a somewhat concise reason as to why I believe the NYT is wrong in their reportage in this case: By attempting to bury (aka – NOT report) on the mental capabilities of the bombers, the NYT failed to give a full and accurate account. By failing in this duty, they abrogated their responsibility to every single reader. This failure, intentional or not, removes credibility from the rest of their reporting. If a ‘friend’ lies or tells half-truths to you constantly over an extended period of time, what level of credence will you give the next thing they tell you? None? Half? Full? I submit, you (and I for that matter) would kick that ‘friend’ to the curb and do your best to never speak to them again.
Such is my level of respect for the NYT (and most of the MSM) anymore. I still read and listen to them, but I rarely believe anything they write or say anymore. There have been too many examples of lies and half-truths for me to invest any credibility in them. And yes, that includes FSN (though to a lesser extent since I’ve found they do a better job than most others).
Sorry about the double...waited 10 mins before trying it again. Should have waited 11 :(
Posted by: Mark at February 7, 2008 12:18 AM
