Shias demand sharia law

[edotherocket 0]

IRAQ'S Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and another senior cleric last night set out radical demands that Islam be the sole source of legislation in the country's new constitution.

 

The shock Shiite move came after Iraq's leading Sunni clerics group yesterday demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of US-led forces as a condition for joining talks on a new constitution.

 

After a leading Shiite cleric issued a statement setting out the position on sharia law, Ayatollah Sistani, the spiritual leader of Iraqi Shiites, made it clear he backed demands for the Koran to be the basis of legislation.

 

The national assembly set up after last month's US-backed election is to oversee the drawing up of the new constitution. The role of Islam has been at the centre of a dispute between the rival parties and the US-led occupation authority that administered Iraq until last June.

 

Ayatollah Sistani leads the five most important clerics, known as Marja al-Taqlid, or sources of emulation, who had shown a more moderate face going into the election.

 

The surprise statement was issued by Sheikh Ibrahim Ibrahimi, a representative of Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayad, a member of the marja. "All the ulema (clergy) and marja, and the majority of the Iraqi people, want the national assembly to make Islam the source of legislation in the constitution and to reject any law that is contrary to Islam," the statement said.

 

"We warn against a separation of the state and religion, because this is completely rejected by the ulema and marja and we will accept no compromise on this question."

 

A source close to Ayatollah Sistani said the spiritual leader backed the demand.

 

The role of Islam was a sticking point when the interim constitution was drawn up under the US-led occupation.

 

After acrimonious debate and the threat of a veto by US administrator Paul Bremer, the final version completed last March said Islam should be "a source" of legislation.

 

No law that "contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam" would be accepted, the final draft of the "fundamental law" stated.

 

Following talks with UN special envoy Ashraf Qazi, the Sunni Committee of Muslim Scholars said it would take part in drafting a new constitution only if a date were agreed for US-led troops to leave the country.

 

"We told him (Mr Qazi) we had conditions and that we would discuss them with the parties that boycotted the polls and would put forward a common stance," said committee spokesman Omar Ragheb.

 

"These demands focus on reaching a consensus with all political parties on the withdrawal of foreign forces."

 

The committee, which persuaded the main Sunni religious group, the Islamic Party, to boycott the election, indicated it would press Sunni insurgents to abandon their campaign of resistance if its demands were met.

 

Meanwhile, Italy tried to secure the release of a woman journalist kidnapped in Baghdad after an ultimatum was posted on an Islamist website giving Rome 72 hours to order a pullout of its 3000 troops.

 

AFP, AP, in The Australian

 

Source: NEWS.com.au

 

Interesting. Looks like Iraq could well end up as a hardline Islamic state if these guys have their way.

 

Does anyone know when the results of the Iraqi election are announced?

[Guest sek69]

Everyone who understood the makeup of Iraq's population knew this was coming, but that mattered little in the face of the collective orgasm that conservatives had over the elections in Iraq.

 

The only way Iraq is not going to become an Islamic state is if the US installs a puppet leader, and we know how well that worked in Iran.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

At least both sides are agreeing on one thing...

 

"At least 12,000 American troops and probably more should leave at once, to send a stronger signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation." (Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), January 27, 2005).

 

"America's willful defeatists — led by Senator Ted Kennedy, who chose to declare our cause all but lost just days before this historic vote — look particularly puny in light of the millions who turned out to vote because they believe in the new Iraq." (National Review Online, January 31, 2005.)

 

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says that with the election in Iraq over he believes 15,000 U.S. troops can be withdrawn, reducing the American military force to 135,000." (Associated Press, February 4, 2005).

[SuperJerk 0]

Everyone who understood the makeup of Iraq's population knew this was coming, but that mattered little in the face of the collective orgasm that conservatives had over the elections in Iraq.

 

The only way Iraq is not going to become an Islamic state is if the US installs a puppet leader, and we know how well that worked in Iran.

You are correct, sir.

[Guest MikeSC]

Everyone who understood the makeup of Iraq's population knew this was coming, but that mattered little in the face of the collective orgasm that conservatives had over the elections in Iraq.

 

The only way Iraq is not going to become an Islamic state is if the US installs a puppet leader, and we know how well that worked in Iran.

Well, significantly better than allowing him to fall has played out.

-=Mike

...Amazing how much the left tends to ignore the consequences of THEIR decisions...

[SuperJerk 0]

Everyone who understood the makeup of Iraq's population knew this was coming, but that mattered little in the face of the collective orgasm that conservatives had over the elections in Iraq.

 

The only way Iraq is not going to become an Islamic state is if the US installs a puppet leader, and we know how well that worked in Iran.

Well, significantly better than allowing him to fall has played out.

I'd respond if I had any idea what you were talking about.

[Guest MikeSC]

Everyone who understood the makeup of Iraq's population knew this was coming, but that mattered little in the face of the collective orgasm that conservatives had over the elections in Iraq.

 

The only way Iraq is not going to become an Islamic state is if the US installs a puppet leader, and we know how well that worked in Iran.

Well, significantly better than allowing him to fall has played out.

I'd respond if I had any idea what you were talking about.

I'm not SURE if you've noticed --- but Iran is a bit of a theocracy. It was in most of the papers.

 

I could also mention the OTHER major abandonment of an ally that we did in Vietnam --- which ALSO tended to cause a tiny bit of a humanitarian atrocity.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Everyone who understood the makeup of Iraq's population knew this was coming, but that mattered little in the face of the collective orgasm that conservatives had over the elections in Iraq.

 

The only way Iraq is not going to become an Islamic state is if the US installs a puppet leader, and we know how well that worked in Iran.

Well, significantly better than allowing him to fall has played out.

I'd respond if I had any idea what you were talking about.

I'm not SURE if you've noticed --- but Iran is a bit of a theocracy. It was in most of the papers.

I'm not SURE if you know what you're talking about, but Iran was a democracy until 1953, when the US overthrew their elected leader in a coup. It was in most of the history books.

[Guest MikeSC]

Everyone who understood the makeup of Iraq's population knew this was coming, but that mattered little in the face of the collective orgasm that conservatives had over the elections in Iraq.

 

The only way Iraq is not going to become an Islamic state is if the US installs a puppet leader, and we know how well that worked in Iran.

Well, significantly better than allowing him to fall has played out.

I'd respond if I had any idea what you were talking about.

I'm not SURE if you've noticed --- but Iran is a bit of a theocracy. It was in most of the papers.

I'm not SURE if you know what you're talking about, but Iran was a democracy until 1953, when the US overthrew their elected leader in a coup. It was in most of the history books.

Yes --- and allowing the Shah to fall made the situation EVEN WORSE. Mossadegh was overthrown because he nationalized (or, in simple terms, stole) British oil interests.

 

Really, not THAT complicated.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Everyone who understood the makeup of Iraq's population knew this was coming, but that mattered little in the face of the collective orgasm that conservatives had over the elections in Iraq.

 

The only way Iraq is not going to become an Islamic state is if the US installs a puppet leader, and we know how well that worked in Iran.

Well, significantly better than allowing him to fall has played out.

I'd respond if I had any idea what you were talking about.

I'm not SURE if you've noticed --- but Iran is a bit of a theocracy. It was in most of the papers.

I'm not SURE if you know what you're talking about, but Iran was a democracy until 1953, when the US overthrew their elected leader in a coup. It was in most of the history books.

Yes --- and allowing the Shah to fall made the situation EVEN WORSE. Mossadegh was overthrown because he nationalized (or, in simple terms, stole) British oil interests.

 

Really, not THAT complicated.

-=Mike

I see.

 

I just didn't realize "allowed to fall", as you put it, was being used as a euphemism for "being overthrown by Islamic extremists who objected to his violent and bloody dictatorship". On the one hand we SAY we want the people of a country to determine their government for themselves, but then when they do we try to rewrite the outcome in our favor (see Vietnam).

 

The original point, which I think you missed, was that the Iraqis may very well use their democracy to elect someone we find objectionable. Iran was the closest example of this already happening, when Iran's elected government began leaning towards socialism.

 

What would happen in that case? Would the U.S. really be willing to allow the Iraqi people to run their own affairs, even if it meant they adopted policies that conflicted with our interests? Or would the U.S. government once again intervene and topple their government?

 

Food for thought.

[Guest MikeSC]

I see.

 

I just didn't realize "allowed to fall", as you put it, was being used as a euphemism for "being overthrown by Islamic extremists who objected to his violent and bloody dictatorship". On the one hand we SAY we want the people of a country to determine their government for themselves, but then when they do we try to rewrite the outcome in our favor (see Vietnam).

Ah, missed Carter refusing to aid him when it became apparent he was in trouble, eh? Carter left him out to dry and --- as tends to be the case with anything Carter touched --- it fell to shit.

 

Oh, and the people who overthrew him were not Islamist extremists. The Islamists were just the only group with the organization to take over the power vacuum. It's not like we didn't know what would end up happening.

 

As for Vietnam, you seem to think that the VC were not HEAVILY supported by outside forces. Yes, we had a problem there --- the S. Vietnamese gov't was inept. But, we left untold millions of S. Vietnamese behind to get slaughtered. We allowed S. Vietnamese who worked with us to the very end to get slaughtered by the VC.

 

If you wish to portray that as an honorable act, then I pity you.

The original point, which I think you missed, was that the Iraqis may very well use their democracy to elect someone we find objectionable.

Yup, that's life.

 

We provided them a chance to make their own choices. If they choose poorly, so be it.

What would happen in that case?  Would the U.S. really be willing to allow the Iraqi people to run their own affairs, even if it meant they adopted policies that conflicted with our interests?

We do with Germany.

Or would the U.S. government once again intervene and topple their government?

We haven't with Germany.

 

And we WROTE their Constitution.

[SuperJerk 0]

I see.

 

I just didn't realize "allowed to fall", as you put it, was being used as a euphemism for "being overthrown by Islamic extremists who objected to his violent and bloody dictatorship".  On the one hand we SAY we want the people of a country to determine their government for themselves, but then when they do we try to rewrite the outcome in our favor (see Vietnam).

Ah, missed Carter refusing to aid him when it became apparent he was in trouble, eh?

Good for Carter. The Shah was a tyrant.

 

 

As for Vietnam, you seem to think that the VC were not HEAVILY supported by outside forces. Yes, we had a problem there --- the S. Vietnamese gov't was inept. But, we left untold millions of S. Vietnamese behind to get slaughtered. We allowed S. Vietnamese who worked with us to the very end to get slaughtered by the VC.

 

I seemed to have missed the reports of millions of South Vietnamese being slaughtered after we pulled out.

 

If you wish to portray that as an honorable act, then I pity you.

 

The dishonorable part was getting involved in the first place.

 

 

The original point, which I think you missed, was that the Iraqis may very well use their democracy to elect someone we find objectionable.

Yup, that's life.

 

So how do we know the next group to run the place won't be worse than Saddam Hussein? Bush has already changed the reason for the war once. Reason one was to get the WMDs. When that proved pointless, he changed it to freeing the Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny and provide elections.

 

We provided them a chance to make their own choices. If they choose poorly, so be it.

 

Then what was the point of removing the tyrant Saddam? So another tyrant can take over?

 

 

We haven't with Germany.

 

And we WROTE their Constitution.

 

Bringing up Germany only proves my point for me.

 

Our success rate with installing German governments is only 50%. The first time we tried it, the Nazis took over and World War II happened.

[Guest MikeSC]

I see.

 

I just didn't realize "allowed to fall", as you put it, was being used as a euphemism for "being overthrown by Islamic extremists who objected to his violent and bloody dictatorship".  On the one hand we SAY we want the people of a country to determine their government for themselves, but then when they do we try to rewrite the outcome in our favor (see Vietnam).

Ah, missed Carter refusing to aid him when it became apparent he was in trouble, eh?

Good for Carter. The Shah was a tyrant.

 

Yeah, SO much worse than the AYATOLLAH. God knows Iran has been a good place since the Islamofacists took over.

 

Do you actually think before you type?

As for Vietnam, you seem to think that the VC were not HEAVILY supported by outside forces. Yes, we had a problem there --- the S. Vietnamese gov't was inept. But, we left untold millions of S. Vietnamese behind to get slaughtered. We allowed S. Vietnamese who worked with us to the very end to get slaughtered by the VC.

 

I seemed to have missed the reports of millions of South Vietnamese being slaughtered after we pulled out.

Ah, missed the "re-education camps", huh? Only had about 300,000 people tortured in them.

 

Missed all UN and Red Cross personnel being thrown out of the country by 5/8/76, eh?

 

Missed Hanoi's claims (on 6/10/76) that 12 groups will be subjected to severe punishment, including "lackeys" (those souls who worked with us), S. Vietnamese gov't officials, intellectuals (which really makes academia's hard-on for Communism baffling, since intellectuals tend to be targeted by Communist regimes immediately) those who "owed blood debts to the people", right?

 

One million S. Vietnamese were forced to move to the North.

 

There are a number of books on this topic. I'd be more than happy to provide titles, if you'd like.

If you wish to portray that as an honorable act, then I pity you.

The dishonorable part was getting involved in the first place.

Because saving people from annihilation is never a good thing. That IS pure evil.

 

The dishonorable part was allowing all of them to die, when we knew it'd happen. But the left never wants to look at the moral stain it caused.

The original point, which I think you missed, was that the Iraqis may very well use their democracy to elect someone we find objectionable.

Yup, that's life.

So how do we know the next group to run the place won't be worse than Saddam Hussein?

We don't. We didn't know that the leader of W. Germany after we stopped the occupation wouldn't be worse than Hitler. You have to just hope.

Bush has already changed the reason for the war once.  Reason one was to get the WMDs.  When that proved pointless, he changed it to freeing the Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny and provide elections.

Bush gave NUMEROUS reasons long before the war. At no point was WMD the only reason.

We provided them a chance to make their own choices. If they choose poorly, so be it.

Then what was the point of removing the tyrant Saddam? So another tyrant can take over?

Ah, so let evil stay --- because more evil MIGHT follow?

 

Why not give the Iraqis the CHOICE?

We haven't with Germany.

 

And we WROTE their Constitution.

Our success rate with installing German governments is only 50%. The first time we tried it, the Nazis took over and World War II happened.

You REALLY need to read up on history. Britain and France ran the show with the Versailles Treaty. They ignored Wilson and HIS requests.

 

Quite frankly, we should have never gotten involved. Our involvement allowed Britain and France to end up dominating Germany to the point where the horrid Treaty of Versailles was passed.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Yeah, SO much worse than the AYATOLLAH. God knows Iran has been a good place since the Islamofacists took over.

You still don't get it, do you?

 

If we'd never overthrown Mossadegh, the none of that would have happened. Operation: Ajax, and the arrogant assumption we could determine who should be running other countries, set into place a series of events that we're still living with.

 

 

Ah, missed the "re-education camps", huh? Only had about 300,000 people tortured in them.

 

You said "millions slaughtered", not "thousands tortured". Slight difference, smart guy.

 

Because saving people from annihilation is never a good thing.

 

Saving people from annihiliation? I've seen recent pictures of Vietnam. I doesn't looked annihilated to me.

 

Bush gave NUMEROUS reasons long before the war. At no point was WMD the only reason.

I hope your not alluding to the mythic ties to Al Quaeda.

 

You REALLY need to read up on history. Britain and France ran the show with the Versailles Treaty. They ignored Wilson and HIS requests.

 

Quite frankly, we should have never gotten involved. Our involvement allowed Britain and France to end up dominating Germany to the point where the horrid Treaty of Versailles was passed.

 

Oh, stop. We did play a part in the post-war decision making, and you know it.

 

I'll put my Bachelor's Degree in History against your Vo-Tech school certificate in TV/VCR repair any day of the week.

[Guest sek69]

Bush gave NUMEROUS reasons long before the war. At no point was WMD the only reason.

 

Conservatives really need to stop acting like every adminstration offical wasn't mentioning in every speech they gave and on every TV show they could find saying how we had to invade because Saddam had WMD and was going to kill us all.

 

Yes, there were several things listed in the bill Congress passed, but we only heard about them *after* it became obvious they weren't going to find any WMD. To act like the public was sold this war on anything other than WMD and the immediate threat of doom is simply rewriting history.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, SO much worse than the AYATOLLAH. God knows Iran has been a good place since the Islamofacists took over.

You still don't get it, do you?

 

 

I'll put my Bachelor's Degree in History against your Vo-Tech school certificate in TV/VCR repair any day of the week.

No, you miss it.

 

You support replacing a bad situation with a SHITTY situation.

 

Not exactly wise decision-making.

If we'd never overthrown Mossadegh, the none of that would have happened.

If he didn't nationalize British interests, he would've never been toppled.

 

C'est la vie.

Operation: Ajax, and the arrogant assumption we could determine who should be running other countries, set into place a series of events that we're still living with.

Our choice was infinitely better than what followed it.

 

I'm not even defending removing Mossadegh. I'm saying let the Shah fall and be replaced with Islamofascists was unbelievably fucking stupid.

Ah, missed the "re-education camps", huh? Only had about 300,000 people tortured in them.

 

You said "millions slaughtered", not "thousands tortured". Slight difference, smart guy.

300,000 in the camps ALONE, skippy.

Because saving people from annihilation is never a good thing.

Saving people from annihiliation? I've seen recent pictures of Vietnam. I doesn't looked annihilated to me.

Ask the people who were slaughtered when we left how good things were.

 

Keep in mind, the VC regularly mined REFUGEE ESCAPE ROUTES.

 

They weren't quite nice guys.

Bush gave NUMEROUS reasons long before the war. At no point was WMD the only reason.

I hope your not alluding to the mythic ties to Al Quaeda.

That was one of the many.

 

Again, do a google search on Salman Pak --- you know, Saddam's terrorist training camp.

 

Ask why Zarqawi went to Iraq for treatment.

 

Go ahead.

You REALLY need to read up on history. Britain and France ran the show with the Versailles Treaty. They ignored Wilson and HIS requests.

 

Quite frankly, we should have never gotten involved. Our involvement allowed Britain and France to end up dominating Germany to the point where the horrid Treaty of Versailles was passed.

Oh, stop. We did play a part in the post-war decision making, and you know it.

No, our input was minimal. The British and the French wanted vengeance and they got it.

 

Wilson was quite clear what he supported. And the Germans surrendered on the pretense that they accepted Wilson's terms.

 

Our input on the Treaty of Versailles was --- as it should have been --- minimal. We weren't a major player until the very end. The countries that WERE involved early on controlled the Treaty negotiations.

I'll put my Bachelor's Degree in History against your Vo-Tech school certificate in TV/VCR repair any day of the week.

You got gipped, horribly, on your alleged degree.

 

Not that I'm doubting you.

 

Because I'm TOTALLY not.

 

Really.

Conservatives really need to stop acting like every adminstration offical wasn't mentioning in every speech they gave and on every TV show they could find saying how we had to invade because Saddam had WMD and was going to kill us all.

It's not conservatives' fault that liberals opt to not listen. That is YOUR fault.

Yes, there were several things listed in the bill Congress passed, but we only heard about them *after* it became obvious they weren't going to find any WMD. To act like the public was sold this war on anything other than WMD and the immediate threat of doom is simply rewriting history.

Bush mentioned human rights problems and enforcing UN resolutions as often as he mentioned WMD.

 

To claim otherwise is to attempt to rewrite history.

-=Mike

[Guest sek69]

That's why every Bush speech leading up to the war was "Iraq, WMD, Imminent Threat, Terra, WMD, Saddam".

 

Remember there was a brief debate at the beginning of the unraveling of the WMD argument on what an imminent threat really was? Conservatives were trying to stretch that into "well Iraq could have possibly had WMD at some point in the future so that maded them a threat".

[Guest MikeSC]

That's why every Bush speech leading up to the war was "Iraq, WMD, Imminent Threat, Terra, WMD, Saddam".

Funny, because Bush actually said CLEARLY Saddam wasn't an imminent threat. Said it more than once. The whole "We can't afford for him to become an imminent threat" thing.

 

Ah, you missed it.

 

Got it.

Remember there was a brief debate at the beginning of the unraveling of the WMD argument on what an imminent threat really was?

Which is doubly ironic, since the administration said he wasn't an imminent threat yet.

Conservatives were trying to stretch that into "well Iraq could have possibly had WMD at some point in the future so that maded them a threat".

Which makes no sense, since the administration said he wasn't an imminent threat yet.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Yeah, SO much worse than the AYATOLLAH. God knows Iran has been a good place since the Islamofacists took over.

You still don't get it, do you?

 

 

I'll put my Bachelor's Degree in History against your Vo-Tech school certificate in TV/VCR repair any day of the week.

No, you miss it.

 

You support replacing a bad situation with a SHITTY situation.

 

Not exactly wise decision-making.

If we'd never overthrown Mossadegh, the none of that would have happened.

If he didn't nationalize British interests, he would've never been toppled.

 

C'est la vie.

Operation: Ajax, and the arrogant assumption we could determine who should be running other countries, set into place a series of events that we're still living with.

Our choice was infinitely better than what followed it.

 

I'm not even defending removing Mossadegh. I'm saying let the Shah fall and be replaced with Islamofascists was unbelievably fucking stupid.

Ah, missed the "re-education camps", huh? Only had about 300,000 people tortured in them.

 

You said "millions slaughtered", not "thousands tortured". Slight difference, smart guy.

300,000 in the camps ALONE, skippy.

Because saving people from annihilation is never a good thing.

Saving people from annihiliation? I've seen recent pictures of Vietnam. I doesn't looked annihilated to me.

Ask the people who were slaughtered when we left how good things were.

 

Keep in mind, the VC regularly mined REFUGEE ESCAPE ROUTES.

 

They weren't quite nice guys.

Bush gave NUMEROUS reasons long before the war. At no point was WMD the only reason.

I hope your not alluding to the mythic ties to Al Quaeda.

That was one of the many.

 

Again, do a google search on Salman Pak --- you know, Saddam's terrorist training camp.

 

Ask why Zarqawi went to Iraq for treatment.

 

Go ahead.

You REALLY need to read up on history. Britain and France ran the show with the Versailles Treaty. They ignored Wilson and HIS requests.

 

Quite frankly, we should have never gotten involved. Our involvement allowed Britain and France to end up dominating Germany to the point where the horrid Treaty of Versailles was passed.

Oh, stop. We did play a part in the post-war decision making, and you know it.

No, our input was minimal. The British and the French wanted vengeance and they got it.

 

Wilson was quite clear what he supported. And the Germans surrendered on the pretense that they accepted Wilson's terms.

 

Our input on the Treaty of Versailles was --- as it should have been --- minimal. We weren't a major player until the very end. The countries that WERE involved early on controlled the Treaty negotiations.

I'll put my Bachelor's Degree in History against your Vo-Tech school certificate in TV/VCR repair any day of the week.

You got gipped, horribly, on your alleged degree.

 

Not that I'm doubting you.

 

Because I'm TOTALLY not.

 

Really.

Conservatives really need to stop acting like every adminstration offical wasn't mentioning in every speech they gave and on every TV show they could find saying how we had to invade because Saddam had WMD and was going to kill us all.

It's not conservatives' fault that liberals opt to not listen. That is YOUR fault.

Yes, there were several things listed in the bill Congress passed, but we only heard about them *after* it became obvious they weren't going to find any WMD. To act like the public was sold this war on anything other than WMD and the immediate threat of doom is simply rewriting history.

Bush mentioned human rights problems and enforcing UN resolutions as often as he mentioned WMD.

 

To claim otherwise is to attempt to rewrite history.

-=Mike

I love the way you're trying to play both sides on the whole Iran thing.

 

On the one hand you're saying its okay for us to remove Mossadegh to make way for a tyrant, while it wasn't okay for us to allow the Shah to be overthrown to make way for another tyrant.

 

You say the North Vietnamese slaughtered millions after the war, but provide no shred of evidence, instead citing that they weren't nice people and tortured thousands.

 

Let me explain how this works in the college-educated world, Mike. If you're going to cite things, and the person calls you on factual accuracy, you need to be able to back up your original claim without bringing in new claims to distract the focus away from the claims you never proved in the first place. When that fails, you resort to "witty" ad hominems.

 

Your logic is piss-pour. Your evidence is shoddy. Your being shot to hell by multiple posters who are picking your posts apart with great enthusiasm. You might as well give up now, since whatever reputation you once had is now completely gone.

 

You, Mike, are very bad at this. It is time for you to retire from posting on the internet and take up your true calling in the only profession where someone with your limited abilities might excel: conservative talk radio.

[Guest MikeSC]

I love the way you're trying to play both sides on the whole Iran thing.

No. It's called realizing that changing a bad situation and replace it with a shitty situation is really poor decision-making.

On the one hand you're saying its okay for us to remove Mossadegh to make way for a tyrant, while it wasn't okay for us to allow the Shah to be overthrown to make way for another tyrant.

I didn't say it was a good thing.

 

But since time travel is still only theoretical, there wasn't a hell of a lot that could have been done about it in 1979.

You say the North Vietnamese slaughtered millions after the war, but provide no shred of evidence, instead citing that they weren't nice people and tortured thousands.

After Saigon Fell: Everyday Life Under the Vietnamese Communists by Nguyen Long (1981)

A Viet Cong Memoir: An Inside Account of the Vietnam War and its Aftermath by Truong Nhu Tang (1985)

The Vietnamese Gulag by Doan Von Toai and David Chanoff (1986)

The Will of Heaven:A Story of One Vietnamese and the End of His World by Nguyen Ngoc Nhan (1982)

Lost Years: My 1,632 Days in Vietnamese Reeducation Camps by Tran Tri Vu (1988)

Human Rights in Vietnam: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations June and July 1977.

 

Did a long research paper on this back in school, so I have MORE sources, if you'd like more.

Let me explain how this works in the college-educated world, Mike.  If you're going to cite things, and the person calls you on factual accuracy, you need to be able to back up your original claim without bringing in new claims to distract the focus away from the claims you never proved in the first place.  When that fails, you resort to "witty" ad hominems.

See above, twatrock.

Your logic is piss-pour.  Your evidence is shoddy.  Your being shot to hell by multiple posters who are picking your posts apart with great enthusiasm.  You might as well give up now, since whatever reputation you once had is now completely gone.

Yet, unlike you, I ACTUALLY have facts on my side, skippy. I know, you like appealing to posters of limited intellectual capacity.

 

I choose to actually go with evidence.

 

But, hey, whatever works for you.

You, Mike, are very bad at this.  It is time for you to retire from posting on the internet and take up your true calling in the only profession where someone with your limited abilities might excel: conservative talk radio.

Hey, you don't see me going to the bathroom and telling you how to mop the floor more effectively, do you?

-=Mike

...Owning chumps like you for years now...

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, and to throw this out --- the story is false.

This afternoon I saw on the news (Al-Arabiyah) that:

"Al-Marji'yah, represented by Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistain demanded Islam to be the only source for legislation in Iraq and that the coming government must not try to separate religion from the State."

 

Anyway, back to the main subject and the alleged statement; I chose to wait until the next news hour and of course until I chill out a little bit after the disturbing news and then I heard this update on the story "Haider Al-Khaffaf, a senior Sistani's aide says that no such statement was released".

And going back to Friday's news, another senior aide of Sistani said from Kuwait that "the future constitution of the country is an issue that is left for the National Assembly to deal with".

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/(2/6/05)

 

Continue going nuts, though.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Except I was talking about 1953.

 

Did a long research paper on this back in school, so I have MORE sources, if you'd like more.

Did your mommy help you write it?

 

When that fails, you resort to "witty" ad hominems.

See above, twatrock.

 

"Twatrock" would also be an example of an ad hominem. Thank you for proving my point for me.

 

I choose to actually go with evidence.

 

Evidence doesn't mean telling people to find quote themselves or calling people "twatrock".

 

Hey, you don't see me going to the bathroom and telling you how to mop the floor more effectively, do you?

 

Actually, I mopped quite few floors when I was in the Navy. But that was before I went to college and became a history teacher. What is it you do again?

 

...Owning chumps like you for years now...

 

Your idea of "owning" someone leaves something to be desired, Mikey. So far all you've managed to do is embarrass yourself.

 

Like I said, I wish I could meet you in real life and laugh at you to your face.

[Guest MikeSC]

Except I was talking about 1953.

I stated that allowing the Shah to fall was fucking idiotic.

 

You bring up overthrowing Mossadegh.

 

You're the one with a hard time sticking to a topic.

Did a long research paper on this back in school, so I have MORE sources, if you'd like more.

Did your mommy help you write it?

No, but having your mom blowing me while writing it was distracting. Especially when both of her teeth dug in occasionally.

 

Seriously, mom jokes?

 

Sad.

"Twatrock" would also be an example of an ad hominem. Thank you for proving my point for me.

Actually, I provided the EVIDENCE then insulted you, you fucking idiot.

I choose to actually go with evidence.

Evidence doesn't mean telling people to find quote themselves or calling people "twatrock".

It's not my fault you choose to cover up your illiteracy behind a veneer of even MORE idiocy.

Hey, you don't see me going to the bathroom and telling you how to mop the floor more effectively, do you?

Actually, I mopped quite few floors when I was in the Navy. But that was before I went to college and became a history teacher. What is it you do again?

And, again, I TOTALLY believe you. Really.

...Owning chumps like you for years now...

 

Your idea of "owning" someone leaves something to be desired, Mikey. So far all you've managed to do is embarrass yourself.

 

Like I said, I wish I could meet you in real life and laugh at you to your face.

And I do honestly wish you would.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

And, again, I TOTALLY believe you. Really.

You should, since it is true.

 

Seriously, mom jokes?

 

Actually, brainiac, it was a joke about your education level. I was implying you wrote it while you were a little kid, since you obviously had little education beyond that. I see you're too dumb realize that.

 

Like I said, I wish I could meet you in real life and laugh at you to your face.

And I do honestly wish you would.

-=Mike

 

No you don't. It might require you to leave your parents' basement. Loser.

[Guest MikeSC]

And, again, I TOTALLY believe you. Really.

You should, since it is true.

 

 

I'm sure it is.

 

Really.

Like I said, I wish I could meet you in real life and laugh at you to your face.

And I do honestly wish you would.

-=Mike

No you don't. It might require you to leave your parents' basement. Loser.

Ah, when you call me names, it hurts.

 

Really.

 

You're the one anxious for a face-to-face confrontation with somebody on a messageboard, you fucking child.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

You're the one anxious for a face-to-face confrontation with somebody on a messageboard, you fucking child.

 

Anything to shut you, you ridicules blow-hard.

 

You started this shit, bitch. I'm finishing it. Want to continue?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Somebody close this thread. In the name of all things holy, I beg.

[BUTT 0]

Uh-oh. Some shit is goin' down!

[BUTT 0]

Somebody close this thread. In the name of all things holy, I beg.

Heavens no. This could get good.

[Guest MikeSC]

You're the one anxious for a face-to-face confrontation with somebody on a messageboard, you fucking child.

 

Anything to shut you, you ridicules blow-hard.

 

You started this shit, bitch. I'm finishing it. Want to continue?

You're "finishing it"?

 

How?

 

Please, I'd LOVE to hear it. Give me some details, please.

 

Really.

 

Don't worry --- puberty will EVENTUALLY end for you. Yes, you'll still be an idiot, but you might be less emotional and, well, an embarrassment to the human race.

-=Mike