Irony

[Harry Tuttle]

"strawman"

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
"strawman"

Absolutely. Nowhere did I say the tactics of Saddam and Uday and Qusay were worthy of a respectful death.

I said Qusay, yet he deliberately tried to peg me into defending all 3.

Strawman.

[Elok]

I don't know much about the two brothers in detail, but IIRC Qusay was the more emotionally stable one, and therefore the one Saddam gave most responsibility to while his brother was off being a sadist. He was in charge of several security forces and had more power than any of the factions working in Iraq today. Is this correct?

Because if he was in a position of power and he didn't use it to try and fix/counteract what his psycho relatives were doing, I don't think that's a whole lot better than being a psycho himself. I'm not saying he needed to stage a revolt or anything (that would be heroic, as opposed to merely not despicable), but he could have refused power, or walked away, or even tried to temper the situation with some trace of mercy, on some small scale. There's no innocence in being a plain accessory to atrocity, whether you take direct part or not. Either he was a monster like the rest of the family or he was a man who could have known better but enabled the monsters anyway.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Absolutely. Nowhere did I say the tactics of Saddam and Uday and Qusay were worthy of a respectful death.

I said Qusay, yet he deliberately tried to peg me into defending all 3.

Strawman.

I was referring to the use of the word "strawman". Why do so many people see a reason to use this word? Was it something that was learned in debate class? It's so freakin' lame.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


I was referring to the use of the word "strawman". Why do so many people see a reason to use this word? Was it something that was learned in debate class? It's so freakin' lame.

because it is a lot quicker than saying "trying to peg me into a position I wasn't arguing"

And pointing out logical fallacies is a good way to make a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by NeOmega
I am seriously asserting this. The crimes levelled against Qusay to me are not that agregious. Even diverting water flow from the marshes is not enough of a crime to be cheering somebody's death liek alot of people have.

Then perhaps you could expound upon due process and just compensation procedures and determinations under Iraqi law during the Hussein regime?

Guilt by Association. Qusay was not Uday, and Qusay was not Saddam....

He was a sweet, misunderstood boy....

...and honestly, I think you knew that it was guilt by association when you wrote "Hussein and sons", but you tried to see if you could get away with it any way.

Actually, it was more like "let God sort 'em out."

Because you knew full well I was not defending "Hussein and Sons" but instead, Qusay Hussein. I have not made any arguments about Uday or Saddam not deserving cheering for their death, yet you deliberately tried to peg me as saying as much, and then call me a troll.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. My reference to "the process in the US" was clearly in response to your whining that: "Removing people from their homes is legal, right here in the United States, if it is for the good of the state, country city or county." I.e. the eminent domain process in the US, which goes right to the Constitution, vs. the analogous activity in Iraq under Hussein and sons, as they both had ministerial positions under daddy's so-called presidency.

No, you were just asserting that poow widdle Qusay wasn't a bad guy, he just hung out with bad guys, and nobody's going to the trouble (Gee, after all, there isn't a single more pressing issue in Iraq), of proving every specific thing his dead ass was involved in.

You would think in a nation with 300,000 people murdered by Saddam Hussein, especially in the Shiite areas, where actual retribution would have to be levied by sunnis, that there would be more witnesses.

Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of witnesses. Given the rates of assassinations and disappearings of apparently random people, as well as everyone from police recruits to provincial governors, why would anyone go out of their way to put themselves on anyone's radar by whining about crimes committed by a dead guy? What are they going to do, dig up Qusay and put his dead, mouldering ass on trial?

I don't like that Qusay is lumped in with Uday.

Take it up with Allah.

And I don't think it is right now to cheer Qusay's death.

that is all I am saying.

I don't give a flying **** about Qusay one way or another, or Saddam's grandkid, for that matter - but as long as there was a male heir of some kind, that would provide a rallying point for Saddam's Tikriti clansmen, and one more (of about a million) potential sources of future instability.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Elok
. He was in charge of several security forces and had more power than any of the factions working in Iraq today. Is this correct?

No, but he was assuming more power as he was getting older. And aided in repressing the Shiite uprising.

BTW, I don't think crushing the Shiite uprising was any kind of crime. If a foreign nation tries to incite a revolution, especially one backed by religious fundamentalists, you should have the right to crush that revolution.

Because if he was in a position of power and he didn't use it to try and fix/counteract what his psycho relatives were doing, I don't think that's a whole lot better than being a psycho himself.

Whos ays he didn't. By the time he was taking charge, Saddam himself had cooled down quite a bit in the way he governed the country.

Either he was a monster like the rest of the family or he was a man who could have known better but enabled the monsters anyway.

By this logic, all Americans who do not rise in revolution are enablers of the war in Iraq. All Russians were enablers to the invasions of Afghanistan, and the crushing of the Chechnyans.

Furthurmore, How do you know Qusay didn't temper his father's orders with mercy?

Alot of cheering for Qusay's death was done, with most people only hearing horrific, (and I am positive, many were overblown) stories of his brother and father.



But I'll just drop Qusay. What about when inurgents are killed? There is a lot of cheering then, when two 500 lb bombs kill 24 insurgents. People cheer all over the place, and all they are doing is fighting off occupiers.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
He was a sweet, misunderstood boy....

Useless sarcasm. Stunning argument.

Actually, it was more like "let God sort 'em out."

Who is trolling?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

No, I don't think so.

Removing people from their homes is legal, right here in the United States, if it is for the good of the state, country city or county." I.e. the eminent domain process in the US, which goes right to the Constitution, vs. the analogous activity in Iraq under Hussein and sons, as they both had ministerial positions under daddy's so-called presidency.

I was directly addressing the Marsh Arabs point. Pot, meet kettle.

And alot of people were very angy when the Boston freeways took their homes, and when the NYC forced all the businesses out for buildiong the WTC. Is it the same thing as diverting water to the MArshes? No, but then again, the Bostonians and New Yorkers did not support a foreign backed uprising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeway_and_expressway_revolts

No, you were just asserting that poow widdle Qusay wasn't a bad guy, he just hung out with bad guys, and nobody's going to the trouble (Gee, after all, there isn't a single more pressing issue in Iraq), of proving every specific thing his dead ass was involved in.

Then stay out of the debate if you don't want to waste time with evidence.

Take it up with Allah.

Flaming garbage.

I don't give a flying **** about Qusay one way or another,

Apparently you did enough to call me a troll for talking about Qusay in particular.

but as long as there was a male heir of some kind, that would provide a rallying point for Saddam's Tikriti clansmen, and one more (of about a million) potential sources of future instability.

future instability.. Like Iraq ever had stability in it's future.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's because we play for the occupiers.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Useless sarcasm. Stunning argument.

Just reflecting the quality of the original post.

Who is trolling?

Not a troll. Eliminating Saddam's possible blood heirs is strategically useful. I'm not going to shed tears over it.

I was directly addressing the Marsh Arabs point. Pot, meet kettle.

And alot of people were very angy when the Boston Pikeway took their homes, and when the NYC forced all the businesses out for buildiong the WTC. Is it the same thing as diverting water to the MArshes? No, but then again, the Bostonians and New Yorkers did not support a foreign backed uprising.

Yes, those pesky Shiites would have never risen up against the Hussein regime (which never had international legitimacy, as it rose on a bed of assassination and coups) without foreign influence. And of course, that some people didn't like the Hussein regime was complete justification for every action taken. If the Bostonians and New Yorkers had supported a foreign backed uprising, they could have been individually charged and tried, but that would be completely independent of, and irrelevant to, eminent domain proceedings. Your whole argument is puerile.

Then stay out of the debate if you don't want to waste time with evidence.

Eat me, honey. You don't tell me what to do.

Apparently you did enough to call me a troll for talking about Qusay in particular.

Good golly, good gosh, I called you a twoll. That clearly takes soooooooo much emotional involvement in the reputation of Qusay ****in' Hussein.

future instability.. Like Iraq ever had stability in it's future.

Hussein and his Ba'ath party had been around for quite some time, and didn't appear to be going anywhere any time soon. 8 years of Iran, a might ass-thumping in the gulf war and 10 years of UN sanctions hadn't removed it, so that's pretty damned stable by global standards. If we hadn't invaded, Hussein would still be in power now, and in all likelihood, for the rest of his life.

[NeOmega]

Are you trying to piss me off?

Because if you are, you are failing miserably.

even with all the laughing smilies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Trying to piss you off would presume that you have the slightest significance in my life.

I'm trying to kill time, waiting for a specific appointment and I don't have the time or inclination to do something really useful in that interval. Your posts just looked like some random cat-toy lying on the ground, waiting to be batted at for some short term idle amusement.

Well, I'm off to do something useful, so toodles!

[Darius871]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Trying to piss you off would presume that you have the slightest significance in my life.

I'm trying to kill time, waiting for a specific appointment and I don't have the time or inclination to do something really useful in that interval. Your posts just looked like some random cat-toy lying on the ground, waiting to be batted at for some short term idle amusement.

Well, I'm off to do something useful, so toodles!

IMtG.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Trying to piss you off would presume that you have the slightest significance in my life.

I'm trying to kill time, waiting for a specific appointment and I don't have the time or inclination to do something really useful in that interval. Your posts just looked like some random cat-toy lying on the ground, waiting to be batted at for some short term idle amusement.

Well, I'm off to do something useful, so toodles!

Ahh, then that would explain the lame brain attempts at logic.

[Elok]

Cheering the death of insurgents is not really what I would call a good thing; there's no knowing what's motivating an individual soldier like that. For all we know, they're being misinformed, blackmailed/extorted, can't earn their livelihood any other way...et cetera. People cheer anyway, because the insurgents represent the general idea of foreign threats, being the part U.S. soldiers fight every day. Cheering the deaths of major players is kind of morbid, but not as bad IMO, seeing as they're sitting on their butts talking jihad while the assorted schmoes they recruited are out there with rusty Kalashnikovs.

I don't know that Qusay didn't try to play nice with his power any more than I know he didn't do all the nasty things he's rumored to have done. But there are no rumors that he was a nice guy or defender of the people (were there?), and certainly he didn't live a bad life in the belly of the beast while all those people were suffering.

And Americans don't have to rise up in rebellion or anything, I specifically said he didn't have to do that to be a decent man. Most Americans don't have anywhere near the kind of power he did anyway. A more fitting analogy would be if an influential Senator under a corrupt administration received numerous kickbacks and campaign contributions as part of his affiliation with the ruling party, verbally supported administration policies, but didn't actually, say, personally introduce hidden riders to bills giving money to state-backed death squads in foreign countries. Passive inhumanity, you might call it.