First off, you claim I defined something when I didn't. I posted your BS statement in whole, not taken out of context, and not clipped out of something larger. So right off the bat, you are wrong.(Gee, why am I not shocked that you are wrong again?) And now you claim I can magically declare something wrong. LOL, you really are desperate to not have to admit your cluelessness. No wonder you keep changing your insults....first it's redefining, then it's claiming you are wrong, etc, etc.
Second, I and several others pointed out all the things wrong with your comment in the previous thread (in which you acted the same way, sticking your head in the sand and claiming we are all wrong).
Idiot TLC quote:
1. Iraq wasn't Islamic
2. Iraq wasn't fundamentalist
3. Invading Iraq didn't hurt Islamic fundamentalism, but it did weaken Iraq, which lead to strengthening of Iran, which is a Islamic fundamentalist country.
So somehow you claim by invading a non-Islamic non-fundamentalist country, and as a result of this invasion, a real Islamic fundamentalist country is *strengthened*, not weakened, is striking back at Islamic fundamentalism.
So again, three strikes and you are out. Wrong on all accounts in your quote. Others have pointed this out as well, and you continue to ignore us. Trivial google searching will show this, and multiple sources were quoted in the other thread, which of course, you ignored and acted like they weren't posted.
Internet sucks huh? Post something dumb, and the whole world can see your idiotic statement. Not my fault, since again, you wrote it, and then you defended it. No one made you do it.
It's not the internet that sucks, it's certain people who infest the internet and make STUPID assumptions. You read my statement, you instantly determine what you believed it stated, ad then bulled on ahead with those moronic assumptions. Let me straighten you out.
1. Iraq wasn't Islamic
Say what? Iraq is predominantly Islamic and has been for centuries. Did you mean to say Saddam wasn't Islamic?
2. Iraq wasn't fundamentalist
Nothing in my statement claimed that Iraq was a fundamentalist country. You make the mistake of assuming that the only way to fight fundamentalism is to invade the country of those who attacked us on 9/11, i.e. - direct cause and effect. Well it wasn't quite that simple. OBL was no longer in Saudi Arabia. He was hiding in Afghanistan. Not all were Saudi either. A couple of the 9/11 attackers were from the UAE. One was Lebanese and another Eqyptian. There was no single place to invade to take care of the problem. Nor was there any proof that the governments of those countries were directly behind the hijackers either. So why invade countries simply because some of their citizens happened to be involved in 9/11? There's no justification for that, far less even than what could be ginned up for invading Iraq. iow, it's a blatantly ignorant assumption on the face of it.
3. Invading Iraq didn't hurt Islamic fundamentalism, but it did weaken Iraq, which lead to strengthening of Iran, which is a Islamic fundamentalist country.
First of all, you are confusing Islamic fundamentalism and militant Islamic fundamentalism. I don't give two squats about fundies that aren't militant in their cause. They can be dealt with on a diplomatic level. Militant fundamentalists, however, must be confronted directly because there simply is no bargaining with them.
Second, Iran is no more or less stronger than they were before. If anything, they are weaker. A now democratic Iraq that isn't ruled by an iron fist parked right next door is bound to have an effect and arguably already has. Iran had to brutally put down some protests not too long ago. Revolution is stirring in the Republic whilst their whackjob president prays for the 13th imam.
We went into Iraq to fight militant Islamic fundamentalism because Iraq was the only country we could feasibly go into with a figleaf of an excuse for invading in the first place. And understand this. "Fighting" has a number of meanings, both direct and indirect, military and non-military.
Once we invaded Iraq we didn't have to go into a bunch of other ME countries to hunt down the militants. They came to us in Iraq. We could directly confront them. We could fight them directly with military force.
Another reason to invade Iraq was to install a Democratic government and free an oppressed people from tyranny; probably the best tool in the ME to "fight" Islamic fundamentalism. This is the indirect, non-military portion of the equation. Will it work. Time will tell. At least it hasn't failed immediately so there is yet hope.
Now, do you comprehend my statement and do you also comprehend that you are the idiot jumping to conclusions and making incorrect ASSumptions? My statement doesn't and never did go by the assinine conclusion that there must be a direct relationship between the 9/11 attackers and the invasion, which was fucking impossible anyway so it really nothing more than a poorly thought out talking point made by knee-jerking idiots.
Go it?