Democrats: "FAILURE IS THE ONLY OPTION!"

"This seems to be an odd way to describe a country in a civil war between two religious factions. "

Your stupidity actually offends me at times...that's very rare. What does the fact that Iraq is now in a civil war (you admitted it...ha ha!), have to do with what the government WAS before we invaded? You're desperate. As I said, having a secular government does NOT mean that the people who live under that government are not religious, or that the leaders of that government do not personally practice religion.

Understand? Probably not. You understand very little.

But AT LEAST you FINALLY admit that IRAQ IS IN A CIVIL WAR!!!!
 
Yep, Dixie is learning. He finally admits it's a civil war


"DIXIE: "Maybe you could explain it? You tell us what "secular" doesn't mean, but you don't bother explaining what it does mean. According to the dictionary I have, it means, not pertaining to religion. This seems to be an odd way to describe a country in a civil war between two religious factions. "
 
Yep, Dixie is learning. He finally admits it's a civil war

Nope, I didn't do that. I know you hang on my every word, and you want to derive that from my statement, but I was actually articulating your point back to you, in context of 'secularism' as it relates to a 'civil war' between religious factions. For the sake of argument, let's say that I "finally admit" Iraq is in a civil war... well, who is fighting the war? Secular factions? If Iraq were secular, this would seem to be the case, but it's not.

Again, the FACTS... Saddam Hussein was a Sunni dictator, who played favorites with Sunnis, and discriminated against Shiia Muslims. The overwhelmingly predominate religious belief in Iraq, is Muslim. Saddam claimed to have run a "secular regime" but as I have pointed out, routinely discriminated based on religious faction. He was not a theocratic, Iraq wasn't a Muslim theocracy like Iran, but that doesn't make Iraq "secular" by any means, it just makes them a "non-radical", mostly Muslim nation.
 
I would love to see Dixie walk up to any member of the ba'ath party in any arab state and tell them they were not a "secular" organization
 
"For the sake of argument, let's say that I "finally admit" Iraq is in a civil war... well, who is fighting the war? Secular factions? If Iraq were secular, this would seem to be the case, but it's not. "

Nobody talks themselves into a circle better than Dixie.

Okay, I'll play along, and go with your account that you didn't say Iraq was in a civil war, even though you said Iraq was in a civil war.

Again...what does THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE INVADED?

I have to take stupid pills before I get into a debate with you...
 
Bush is a born-again Christian leader, in a secular nation that is populated by fervent Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. Bush and his followers routinely bring religion into their policy decisions, whether it's regarding war, abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, faith-based initiatives or any one of a # of issues. Funding from religious groups has been instrumental in bringing Bush & many Republicans to elected office.

Yet, America is still considered a secular nation.

Does that help at all?
 
Onceler said:
"For the sake of argument, let's say that I "finally admit" Iraq is in a civil war... well, who is fighting the war? Secular factions? If Iraq were secular, this would seem to be the case, but it's not. "

Nobody talks themselves into a circle better than Dixie.

Okay, I'll play along, and go with your account that you didn't say Iraq was in a civil war, even though you said Iraq was in a civil war.

Again...what does THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE INVADED?

I have to take stupid pills before I get into a debate with you...
Click to expand...


Iraq was a DICTATORSHIP... controlled by a SUNNI Muslim! That's what it was before we invaded. The fact that Saddam played favorites with his type of Muslim over the Shiias, is why there is so much turmoil now. To pretend that Saddam was some peaceful secular ruler, is nothing more than believing Saddam's rhetoric and refusing to accept reality. I can't argue with you if you won't accept reality, there is really no point in it. The word "secular" means "not pertaining to religion" and this does not describe the way Saddam played favorites with Sunnis and discriminated against Shiia. It also doesn't describe the warring factions in Iraq at this time.
 
Dixie, you're having an arugment with yourself. Today you're saying Iraq was not secular, mere weeks ago you said Iraq was secular:


Justplainpolitics, archives:

-DIXIE: “When you also factor in the strategic significance of Iraq, the strategic military significance in combating radical Islamofascists, as well as the ideological strategery of planting democracy in an Arab country with the least difficulty... (think of trying to establish a democracy in Iran or Pakistan, as opposed to a secular Iraq) The war in Iraq becomes a very logical move, and vital to the war on terror.

****************************************************


-Maineman: Dixie...since you agree that AQ's strategic mission is to destroy secular governments that exist in the territory comprising the former Islamic caliphate...can you please give me one good reason why Saddam would give WMD's (even if he had them, which we now know he did not) to an organization whose mission was the destruction of his government?


-DIXIE: We've been through this before. If Saddam had been all gung-ho to sell WMD's to alQaeda, they would have struck us on 9/11 with them! Saddam didn't trust alQaeda, for the very reason you point out, but that doesn't mean Saddam's regime wasn't conspiring with alQaeda, they were. Whether this was done without Saddam's knowledge, I have no way of knowing, but it did happen.

You've made some valid and credible points about the tenuous relationship between alQaeda and Saddam, and I agree with much of what you are saying
 
Onceler said:
Bush is a born-again Christian leader, in a secular nation that is populated by fervent Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, et al. Bush and his followers routinely bring religion into their policy decisions, whether it's regarding war, abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, faith-based initiatives or any one of a # of issues. Funding from religious groups has been instrumental in bringing Bush & many Republicans to elected office.

Yet, America is still considered a secular nation.

Does that help at all?
Click to expand...


You need to let Maine know this, he thinks we are a "Christian Army" and has said so many times. I would also have to argue that a nation based on the premise that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator, certain rights, is not exactly "secular" by definition. One final factor, Bush is an elected representative of the people, and Saddam was a tyrant dictator. Bush is powerless to call America "secular" or "Christian" or anything else, Saddam had the authority to proclaim Iraq whatever he wished.
 
Like I said....I would LOVE to see Dixie tell any member of the Ba'ath Party that their organization was not a SECULAR one.
 
Dixie, you're having an arugment with yourself. Today you're saying Iraq was not secular, mere weeks ago you said Iraq was secular:

And you are misunderstanding context once again. I guess some people just can't grasp 'context' and have to be simple-minded idiots. In the context of the radicalized middle east, Iraq presented the least radicalized, most secular-conducive environment for democracy to flourish.

The point I am now trying to establish, is that the word "secular" is subjective, much like the word "pretty". I can say that someone is "pretty" and it doesn't mean they are the most beautiful person who ever lived, they may be, but that isn't what is meant by stating they are "pretty". I can also say that someone is "pretty" and you could disagree and say they are not. But, if I am comparing their "prettiness" with a bunch of gorillas, they wouldn't have to be all that "pretty" to be considered "prettier" than the apes. And if I were someone who thought apes were "pretty", perhaps they are the most beautiful person to ever live, from my perspective.

Secularism is much the same way, we can define it in any number of ways and they are all largely subjective to our own personal preferences. If we stick to the defined parameters for the word "secular" and assume it means "not pertaining to religion" as the dictionary teaches, then Iraq, with the very real Sunni/Shiia conflict, can't be defined as "secular" and because they weren't a radicalized nut job theocracy, they could be portrayed as somewhat "secular" in nature. It depends on how you chose to look at the glass. It also depends on whether or not you buy Saddams rhetoric, he claimed Iraq was secular.

What I know is, we had a Sunni Muslim dictator in Saddam, who ruled with an iron fist, did many wonderful and glorious things for Sunnis, discriminated against Shiias, gassed and killed Kurdish Christians, and cause so much bitter hatred between the Muslim factions, that we are now having civil conflict within the "secular" nation. I'm sorry, that doesn't fit the definition of a "secular nation."
 
maineman said:
Like I said....I would LOVE to see Dixie tell any member of the Ba'ath Party that their organization was not a SECULAR one.
Click to expand...


So the Ba'ath Party is the final arbiter over whether Iraq is secular or not? Because they claim to be secular, that means it is so? If they tell us they are, we should just disregard all of the discrimination and atrocities against the Shiia, Christians and Jews, and pretend they are telling the truth?

What sort of goofball are you?
 
Dixie said:
Dixie, you're having an arugment with yourself. Today you're saying Iraq was not secular, mere weeks ago you said Iraq was secular:

And you are misunderstanding context once again. I guess some people just can't grasp 'context' and have to be simple-minded idiots. In the context of the radicalized middle east, Iraq presented the least radicalized, most secular-conducive environment for democracy to flourish.

The point I am now trying to establish, is that the word "secular" is subjective, much like the word "pretty". I can say that someone is "pretty" and it doesn't mean they are the most beautiful person who ever lived, they may be, but that isn't what is meant by stating they are "pretty". I can also say that someone is "pretty" and you could disagree and say they are not. But, if I am comparing their "prettiness" with a bunch of gorillas, they wouldn't have to be all that "pretty" to be considered "prettier" than the apes. And if I were someone who thought apes were "pretty", perhaps they are the most beautiful person to ever live, from my perspective.

Secularism is much the same way, we can define it in any number of ways and they are all largely subjective to our own personal preferences. If we stick to the defined parameters for the word "secular" and assume it means "not pertaining to religion" as the dictionary teaches, then Iraq, with the very real Sunni/Shiia conflict, can't be defined as "secular" and because they weren't a radicalized nut job theocracy, they could be portrayed as somewhat "secular" in nature. It depends on how you chose to look at the glass. It also depends on whether or not you buy Saddams rhetoric, he claimed Iraq was secular.

What I know is, we had a Sunni Muslim dictator in Saddam, who ruled with an iron fist, did many wonderful and glorious things for Sunnis, discriminated against Shiias, gassed and killed Kurdish Christians, and cause so much bitter hatred between the Muslim factions, that we are now having civil conflict within the "secular" nation. I'm sorry, that doesn't fit the definition of a "secular nation."
Click to expand...


Dixie: "What I know is, we had a Sunni Muslim dictator in Saddam, who ruled with an iron fist, did many wonderful and glorious things for Sunnis, discriminated against Shiias, gassed and killed Kurdish Christians, and cause so much bitter hatred between the Muslim factions....

You just yesterday posted some 2003 pictures from the kurdish provinces, in an attempt to show that smiling, happy iraqis were getting along with each other.

We told you before you invaded, that Iraq was a land that was a tinderbox of sectarian and tribal conflict. You should have listened.

Dixie: ....that we are now having civil conflict within the "secular" nation.

Yes, it is a civil war, of your and Bush's making.
 
I get it...it was Saddam's "Sunni Muslim-ness" & the fact that he "ruled with an iron fist" that kept Iraq from being secular.

Dixie, I just want to make sure we get you on record, here: under your definition of "secular nation," the government HAS to be a representative democracy, and the leader CANNOT have any personal religious beliefs at all?

Do I have that right?
 
Dixie said:
So the Ba'ath Party is the final arbiter over whether Iraq is secular or not? Because they claim to be secular, that means it is so? If they tell us they are, we should just disregard all of the discrimination and atrocities against the Shiia, Christians and Jews, and pretend they are telling the truth?

What sort of goofball are you?
Click to expand...

the Ba'ath Party, which was founded in 1944 as a definitively secular organization, and which was the ruling party of Iraq at the time of our ill-advised invasion, conquest and subsequent occupation, is most definitely a more appropriate arbiter as to the secular nature of pre-invasion Iraq than a redneck neocon from Alabama. Yeah.
 
and what about discrimination against Jews or Christians would make Iraq something other than a secular nation? Wasn't Nazi Germany a "secular nation"?

Was America - during the glory days of your buddies in the KKK when blacks were hanging like strange fruit from the trees all over the south - NOT a "secular nation"?

Under apartheid, was South Africa NOT a "secular nation"?

It would seem that you feel that "secular" is synonymous with fair and just. Or are you just finding it difficult to stay on message when standing in the tiny little spot in the corner that you've painted yourself into?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top