Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Good news, assuming it pans out.
If true, the best news is that it was the Iraqis who got him. That demonstrates more capability in Iraqi Security Forces and of course they get to "talk" to him.
Good!Can we go home now?
The next 3,500 to go just got their marching orders.
It's all about you, isn't it Eli?
The cynic in me wants to ask what number we are up to on the list of "things that wouldn't have happened if the Democrats had got their way on Iraq," but I'm sure someone will jump in and say it's not worth it and that we really are losing after all.
"Conservatives rationalize the inequalities of war as totally fair and justified based on hard work and good performance.These ideological rationalizations help them frame victory in a positive (or at least neutral) light. This endorsement of meritocratic beliefs among right wing victors exerts a strong palliative effect on well being.Liberal beliefs don't justify gaps in relative battle status, and as a result are left frustrated and disheartened. Egalitarian persons are more troubled by serial losses, resulting in lower happiness overall."fromWhy Are Conservative Wars Happier Than Liberal Wars?by Susannah Manuela Veronique Izard-Cohen-DehaenePsychological ScienceVolume 19, Number 6 ·June 2008
Can we go home now?We're here, we don't fear, get used to it.Cheers,Victoria
Good! Can we go home now?You're in Iraq?
May he rot in cell!
Let's leave the issue of whether "we" can come home to those who are serving there, how about that, Eli?
Eli- No you and Abu cannot go home.Sorry.
Eli, its not yet your turn. There are all those still stuck in Germany, Japan, Korea, the Balkins, and the Sinai. They get to leave first.
Let's leave the issue of whether "we" can come home to those who are serving there, how about that, Eli?I don't think that's possible. They can't make those types of deep thought out decisions because all of those guys over there are illiterate simpletons who didn't learn to read which is why they joined the military in the first place and ended up in Iraq.Or at least that what's Stephen King says.
From the NYT: Suspected Al Qaeda Leader In Iraq ArrestedNo, NY Times. Not arrested. Captured.Arrest is what you do to criminals.Capture is what you do to the enemy.Can you morons never learn?
I hope for the sake of western sensibilities the details of this criminals capture and subsequent "interrogation' are not made public. Me? I'd rather not be Abu Ayyab al-Masri. The larger picture seems to me that he was captured in Mosul..The influence of al queda in Iraq seems to shrinking dramatically. Not that the dipshits of chattering classes will notice.
Arrest is what you do to criminals. Capture is what you do to the enemy.According to the article, he was captured by the Iraqis. It could have been an arrest; after all, he's breaking an awful lot of Iraqi laws.The fact that he was handed over to us does suggest that this was more of a "capture", though..
Shucks. I know Obama was looking forward to sitting down with Masri and working all of this out.
"Never mind"-Emily Litella
Eli: Good! Can we go home now?Not just yet dear, we need to swing by Macy's and Godiva on the way out. Behave and we'll buy you a new toy.Rev: It could have been an arrest; after all, he's breaking an awful lot of Iraqi laws.Yah, but I think the point Paul was making is that the NYTs and its readers are still hung up on fighting terrorism with lawyers instead of Marines. They wanted the FBI to arrest al-Masri and read him his Miranda.
"Can we go home now?"Not until we pump all of their oil out of the ground.
looks like it wasnt the guy in question that was captured. Alas.
I hope for the sake of western sensibilities the details of this criminals capture and subsequent "interrogation' are not made public.That's right. See no evil, hear no evil.The influence of al queda in Iraq seems to shrinking dramatically.Of course the thing you always seem to forget is that al qaeda in Iraq had zero influence, in fact didn't even exist, before we invaded.
I hope for the sake of western sensibilities the details of this criminals capture and subsequent "interrogation' are not made public.So apparently the only problem you had with Saddam's torture, rape rooms and genocide is that we knew about them.
Freder: I have been on record on this blog as being against torture--I regret that it takes place at all anywhere, but the sad reality is that it does. Thats a statement of reality, not a statement of approval. Surely even you can discern that difference.
In other news, more lies from the Cheney-Bush regime are quietly revealed: ....A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin.When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.Damned liars. Tip o' the hat to The Washington Monthly.
Of course the thing you always seem to forget is that al qaeda in Iraq had zero influence, in fact didn't even exist, before we invaded.Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that that's true. Well -- so what? We DID invade. Al Qaeda DOES exist there. And that's what your sort "always seems to forget": that we're not living in 2002. We're living in 2008. You're recommending that we retreat from the fight with Al Qaeda in Iraq, despite the fact that they are weakening and we are not. You're recommending that we give Iraq over to Al Qaeda. You can't justify that by saying "but it is Bush's fault we're in this mess". That's kindergarten reasoning. This is about what's best for America, not about who gets the blame.So apparently the only problem you had with Saddam's torture, rape rooms and genocide is that we knew about them.The more obvious problem with them is that Hussein's victims were, for the most part, innocent of any wrongdoing. If he'd restricted himself to torturing Muslim terrorists I wouldn't have wasted much time worrying about it.
Slimely liberal weasels. They define torture loosely [waterboarding] then attack narrowly, drawing equivalence to Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers. And the most pathetic aspsect of their righteous indignation is that they didn't give a damn about Saddam's torture. They only pretend to care now so they can score cheap rhetorical fallacies. What swine.
Post a Comment