Video of Iraqi Insurgent being interogatted

Ironically enough, even Xian fundies.Guess who uses the death of someone to push their political agendas? If Sheehan is pissing on her son's grave, just think of the urinal you guys are making out of the cross. Oh by the way, you guys also used Terri Schiavo and many thousands of dead Americans on 9/11, as well as many more thousands of dead Iraqis.Located within the OP you are using raped and murdered people for your political agenda. And look at your freakin' avatar Tal.As much as I disagree with Sheehan's message (we really do have to stay in Iraq at this point), she is not a media whore nor using her son to simply play politics. I wouldn't call you one either, but you are closer to that than she is.I mean really... look at your avatar.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Unlike when Bush and Co patently milk the death of 1000s of americans to push their agenda, including Bush's re-election, using media hype. Nice hypocrisy.By the way, is that avatar you, God, an eagle, or Bush, pissing on all those people's graves?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Which is why the right refuses to admit to the grievous errors commited by Bush and co, right? Labeling anyone who disagrees with their policies, even those who are proven right and/or conservative, as lying radical leftists, right?By the way did you see the CNN documentary called "Dead Wrong" where administration officials, and other intel analysts admit there were no WMDs and detail how the whole thing was botched... even Bush's handpicked conservative WMD finder?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just to let you know, I agree. Whatever effect she has, that would actually be worse.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I asked if you saw it, I wasn't presenting evidence. I watched it on the TV and am not sure if they have it online. I guess I can check, but then you can as well. Its CNN.com. See you keep missing the point. Were there WMDs in Iraq? Yes (at some point in time there certainly were). Are they there now? No. WERE THEY THERE WHEN THE US ACCUSED THEM OF HAVING THEM? NO!There may be a question of where they went, but the war was not based on where the went but if they had them. They didn't. No, not everyone believed Bush. Not everyone believed what he said. Even the CIA had been trying to get him to drop the Nuke claim (its in the Senate Report), and only the CIA (against other intel services, most notably the State Departments intel) pushed the claims heard in Powell's speech.The concept that everyone agreed on intel is patently bogus, yet appears to grow each time you make it. I wasn't debating Iraq, I was asking you if you saw the rather well produced documentary where even conservatives within the administration admit all the accusations leveled against Iraq turned out to be bogus and detailed how the CIA and the administration got it so wrong.I am just wondering what it will take for you to admit that the game is over on that issue.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Interesting perspective... well written as jar pointed out... but I differ on a couple of issues. Maybe only slightly, but I want to throw them out there. Obviously there can get to be a point where it is untenable to continue trying (we have actually lost), or we become embroiled in something else with greater urgency for our nation and must shift resources. Short of that, I think it is our duty to stay until things get straightened out.Whether we agreed with the war or not, pulling out is not going to make the war not have happened, and actually result in a humanitarian catastrophe. If you care, then we should stay as long as is tenable given our vast resources.This has nothing to do with the war on terror (which a "free Iraq" won't change anyway) but humanitarian assistance. I guess what I'm appealing to is that for anyone that thought we should have done something in Rhwanda, how would this not be different? Without our presence the nation could pull itself apart, or at the very least have insurgent "warlords" vying for power in even bloodier attacks. I agree he should stop trying to sell the war. However trying to sell the progress is also not going to work. What he really needs to do is set out some actual timetables and incentives to achieve future progression. It has been his failure to meet any of his predictions which is why the people have lost interest, not that he hasn't mentioned enough the few things that have happened despite all the other failures.Stay the course is vague and allows him to dodge accusations as he can twist it to mean anything. I guess I am saying he needs to set out a damn course already and show us how destinations will be reached and that we are actually moving toward those destinations (in concrete ways). Agreed in part. There could be more coverage of things that are moving forward. However, unlike vietnam there is almost 0 coverage of the failures of the administration such that they pay any price for their errors. The media allows the administration to skate on many factually errant statements and dodges.People eventually figured out that the Vietnam war was unnecessary and those that had gotten us into it had made a big mistake. We still do not see that realization setting into those that support this administration, and the media is not holding administration officials' feet to the fire.But then again, I think that is because of a change in the media where "objective" journalism is now considered allowing two people to just bicker at each other and throw out whatever points they want to make, with no real factchecking and calling people on their BS. And that is without the problem of inherently propagandist media like FOX. Agreed, but would you be comfortable with a constitutional monarchy of sorts? That is what many nations in Europe have, including Britain and the nation I am living in. That could easily result in another Hussein type character, and indeed hussein might not have fought such a venture (maybe we should have proposed that instead of asking that he leave the country). Thus a figurehead of strength is established, yet the everyday function remains in the hands of the populace.What if it were a constitutional theocracy... the same as a monarchy but with the restriction being religious leaders?In the end, is it not true, that even with a democratic Iraq, we are just as likely to see terrorist threats forming and emerging from that nation?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You replied to my earlier post, but I'll reply to it and your latest one (as they are somewhat connected) here.There was no connection between Iraq and "terrorism" anymore or less than any other nation, before our invasion. There is now a lot more ability for terrorist organizations to operate in and from Iraq.A stable gov't in Iraq will help Iraqis. That is all. There is no such thing as it helping stabilize the ME at all. They can just as much end up in territorial disputes or ideological disputes, using terrorism or militarism, as any other democratic nation has. There is no historical record to support the claim that democracies limit terrorism nor militarism... or lend stability. The training camps in Afghanistan were supported and indeed much training came from the US. This occured during the Soviet occupation, where we fanned the flames of the radicals we are now fighting for the same reasons we had them fighting the soviets.It is incorrect to say that most or all terrorists have trained in Afghanistan. McVey certainly did not train there, and that is a rather important counterexample for americans to think about. Neither did abortion clinic bombers, nor militant leftists within the US. It is doubtful IRA members were training there. The list goes on and on...There is no such thing as "the terrorists", who all work together. There are many different groups with different agendas that end up using acts of terror. They train anywhere and everywhere. The US gov't itself has a terrorism school/camp within the US, mainly for terrorists we wish to have act within Central and South America. It is a scandal. That took years to put into operation, and succeeded beyond their hopes. We cannot assume the lack of another major success like that means anything.How many years before the first WTC bombing and the oklahoma city bombing? How about the oklahoma city bombing and 9/11?I think we should stay in Iraq and try to help them achieve a stable gov't. Personally I prefer democratic gov'ts so that is my bent. But I do not share any pipedream that that will end any of our problems with terrorism, nor help solidify the ME.I think solving the Israeli-Palestinian situation would largely help calm the ME. There finally seems to be some hope for that conflict. If that is solved and Iraqis get a stable gov't, then at least the worst may be over for a while.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It has a general vague appeal, I certainly like it, but usually breaks down on the specifics. For example Israel is not a real democracy and intends to never be one, but is called such because it has representation from the masses. In Europe there are many Constitutional Monarchies, that's like dictatorship in a bottle. But these are what the people want.In any case the domino theory was proven incorrect. I remember the theory, don't you remember the historical disproof? I'm sorry but this is wholly mistaken regarding historical fact. Talking was getting everywhere. That is why Israeli terrorists killed their own PM.Then a more conservative PM was brought in. Amazingly talk was again keeping things calm (take a look at the actual record of violence during that time). Yes the talks began to fall apart, and yes Arafat was negligent and missed an opportunity, which he himself admitted later. Ariel Sharon took advantage of the temporary setback in talks to incite anger among Palestinians, and topple the PM politically.That is when Ariel became PM using scare tactics and inciting moves. Once installed as PM he used incitement and and scare tactics to continue his reign, pushing for the ability to kill arafat and other enemies at will and in complete violation of international law.Iraq changed nothing on the ground there. Once Arafat died, that was the end of Sharon's ability to blame everything on Arafat, and perhaps even ended his underlying reason for hating and killing Palestinians. His longstanding foe was gone. It also allowed for the installation of a new representative which thankfully Sharon has agreed to work with. This says much for self-fulfilling prophecy.Since then he has become a tad more moderate and is making moves, perhaps under US pressure, toward some form of conclusion.Syria hasn't changed since the Iraq war. If you are attempting to bring in Lebanon, you are mistaken. That had a history of its own.It really does appear that you are buying into the neocon line that anything that occured or did not occur after the Iraq war, must be because of the Iraq war. Who is to say it was not Afghanistan? Or 9/11? Or events that have nothing to do with the US? That's the problem with Iraq, we just gave terrorists more area to exist in comfortably. That will continue even after a democratic Iraq exists. The only thing we can hope is that the new gov't does work to crack down on miltant terrorist orgs within their border. But that will be hard, especially given the terrain.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not sure how you define "primary". Certainly Iraq did not support most of those entities you listed. So I guess they weren't primary either.What's convenient is that you did not allow for US citizen support for such orgs to count (which is what we do when talking of other nations), nor allowance for the existence of their groups (IRA).And what's more interesting is that you failed to mention the terrorist orgs that we did support that were precursors of such groups (Remember the Mujhadeen and Taliban?), and all the terrorist groups within the Central and South American nations which we supported.There are lots and lots of terrorists out there. Choosing from some our gov't does not directly support does not prove we don't support them.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ignoring the blatant idiocy regarding the virgin issue, all you have done is set up a connection between poverty and the likelihood for a person to want to engage in terrorism.There may be a case made for that, however that does not at all make a case for democracy changing anything. People and nations can be democratic and poor and militant.In the case of Iraq, while the people were poor and oppressed... where then were the huge numbers of terrorists coming from Iraq? Well there really weren't any. It is only since the "freeing" of Iraq that terrorists have multiplied within that nation. If it is to be a free democracy, and not an iron fisted shame democracy, people will still be able to form radical terrorist cells and plot against their enemies.The guy who blew up the OK city building, and all those nut jobs who shot or blew up abortion clinics, could eat just fine, they weren't poor, and yet they were terrorists. Most Israeli terrorists are not poor, yet enact the exact same levels of violence as Palestinians who are dirt poor. And they all live under democratic govts.There appear to be other, more important factors at play. Democracy is a solution for none.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I challenged that claim. Let me repeat that challenge.You have not set a definition of a "primary supporter of terrorism". If it is as you claimed then Iraq was certainly NOT a primary supporter. If we use Iraq or Saudi Arabia as an example, then the US is. We even have a terrorist training camp run by the US govt in the US. Not sure how it gets more clearcut.You must do more than repeat your assertion, you must create a definition whereby we can assess the validity of your claim against the criteria.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What does free enterprise have to do with lack of poverty? There are many places with really free enterprise and really bad poverty.Are you now making an argument that we will create a democracy which will naturally create free enterprise which will naturally create stability and so no terrorism because lees people will be poor? Huh? Who said no terrorism? Your argument was that poverty created more terrorism. I asked where all the massive numbers of terrorists were, given that they were so poor.By the way all you showed is that Iraq attempted an assassination and that someone suggested they helped organize some unspecified terror activities back in 1993. Whoa yeah, there's some ironclad info for you. ??? What's the difference? Oh wait so, poor people want to travel the world to kill people somewhere else, and with democracy they'll simply be content to blow up people in their own nation... is that your argument? Well I await one shred of evidence that it is. Remember, democracy solves terrorism. Show the evidence.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)