CALDONIA

Just look at the pathetic and desperate measures the Administration is taking in peddling the scalps of the "Hussein boys" in the media. They pretend to hope to convince a pan-Arab public of their deaths, a public disposed to disbelieve ANYTHING they say, based on paranoia and past experience.

But all this crap is meant for domestic (U.S.) comsumption. After three weeks of being battered and ridiculed (belatedly, alas) for peddling lies, exaggerations, and half-truths to lead us to war, the Bush boys must regain momentum and show "results" to counter criticism of the occupation quagmire (they HATE that word!). A regime that prizes P.R., spin control, and photo ops finds dead sons of Hussein more useful that live ones.

And don't tell me for the 5,000th time how "evil" these boys were. That fact is a given.

Zephyrus

donaldkilroy, you're really making this way too easy for us.

This is blatantly untrue.

from
Iraqi women pay the price of war

(incidentally, now Iraqi women are losing ground against the Muslim fundamentalists-- see Iraqi women 'forced to veil'

Your basic lack of understanding of the situation somewhat suggests you might not really be qualified to make absolutist statements about every single thing that happens in Iraq.

donaldkilroy

Who's "us"?

It was a statement of generalization not of absolutism. Obviously some things were allowed while many others were not. And it's the not that I am referring to (in generalization). Which is all it takes to prove my point.

Now that was an asinine statement...

Somewhat? Meaning you're not even sure yet figure it was just enough (via your own cognitive dissonance) to make a jab or two in response. If you're not entirely confident of your response it's best that you don't even give it. Less you want me or perhaps even someone else to "correct" you on it.

You see, therein lies the ignorance of your response. Not once have I made a statement(s) about "every single thing that happens in Iraq."

Zephyrus

Wow, the amazing power of the eye roll. I'm in awe of your brilliance.

Sure, I just brought up a single point. But the fact is you've yet to produce a single shred of evidence of your general claim that Saddam and his sons were fundamentalist Muslims. Name one religious principle that they enforced upon their people, or one evidence of fundamentalism--hell, even a simple anecdote will do--from their person lives.

HeatherD

Just for completeness sake, most people aren't aware that the U.S. Air Force has special forces personnel. There are a few different units under that classification but the best known is probably the Combat Controllers. I was training in electronics at Kessler AF Base in Miss. in 1982 and I remember these guys training on base.

I did a quick Google search and found this article from Popular Mechanics Air Force Special Ops that details the different units.

donaldkilroy

Just making use of those wonderful little icons. After all, that is what they are there for.



Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.

Please quote me saying/alleging that they were "fundamentalist Muslims" and I'll give you whatever evidence you seek.

PS. Chew on this for a while...

pariah

First off, I have only read the O/P.

With that said, I really think that whoever took them out (seals/berets/even rangers) tried to take them alive. Look, 4 guys in a building? A squad of seals could have taken them out no problem in under an hour, probably less...yet it was a 4 hour firefight. That tells me that they DID try to take them alive.

As for tear gas...you dont think that they might have tried that? The US military doesnt hold a monopoly on gas masks...plus these guys were armed to the teef, they are the sons of saddam hussein. More than likely they had gas masks.

And even if we could have taken them alive (which we could not have), uday shot himself in the head, and whos to say if qusay wasnt killed that he wouldnt have commited suicide as well??

Did it ever occur to you that there might not have been a way to take them alive? If it would have been so easy, why don't you tell us how YOU would have done it? Obviously you know better than the military commanders when it comes to taking armed prisoners in a fortress. What are you, a general, a colonel, what?

BDS

Donald, donald, donald.

Arguing with you is a bit like getting in a fight with a small child: it's easy to win the fight, but not much of a challenge, or much fun.

You're the one who said Uday and Qasay had a "(deep) hatred for the West". While it's possible that they could have had a love/hate relationship with Westernism, you povide no evidence to support your statement, while I provided some that it was incorrect. Here's a profile on Uday, documenting his infatuation with things Western.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s907921.htm

Here's an article about how Uday once considered converting from one form of Islam to another as a political move. That doesn't sound like a "religious fanatic" to me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/mi...st/1468758.stm

And, yes, I'd love to see evidence of Uday and Qusay's "resolve against American interests". The evidence I've seen has been of Uday's rapcious villainy against Iraqis, not against the West. No doubt during the two wars the brothers opposed American interests (how could they do otherwise), but it doesn't seem to me that was a driving motive for either of them.

Finally, donald says, "talk about an unsubstantiated argumentum ad hominem. You don't know me one bit so you have no basis in fact to state what I do or do not have a penchant for."

Two points, don ol' chap. It is a bit unfair to insult others, and then complain when they insult you back. Your penchant for doing so is clear in this one thread; I need no futher evidence, and neither does anyone who has read the thread.

Also, you appear to have no idea what an "argumentum ad hominem" is. If I were to say, "donald is wrong because he is a naive fool" that is an ad hominem argument, which is to say that it is fallacious reasning (even if donald IS a naive fool, he may still be right, by pure, dumb luck). If, on the other hand, I say, "donald is an idiot, period!" that is not an ad hominem argument, because it is not an argument at all. It is a mere statement. Of course, I would never say such a thing, because I am far too polite, and because I would never be silly enough to spell out one punctuation mark, and then use another, unless, of course, I was lampooning someone else's style.

Zephyrus

ok, here:

Now, I equate religious fanaticism with fundamentalism. If you really want to deny that it does, then fine. My question then becomes, what evidence do you have for their having religious fanaticism?

donaldkilroy

Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Spite...

You already concede it's possible so there's no point in arguing it much less in proving it any further (than what is already common knowledge).

Where?

What part of what I previously said did you fail to comprhend? You can have a love of the material goods while hating who made them! That's why it's called the "psycho-politics of hatred"

*sigh* you're just not getting it... You really need to learn to read between the lines and not take what others say so literally. Remember, words have more than one meaning.

If you're going to insult me the least you could do is do it the right way.

Cherry!

LOL!!!!!! ROFL!!!!!!

It's pretty lame to get "into it" with someone you don't even know Cherry! But hey, if you want me to educate you on the finer points of logical fallacies I'd be happy to. Just let me know, k