Fighters from the terror group ISIL, which is so atrocious it was kicked out of the Al-Qaida network due to its brutality, just captured Tikrit after recently capturing Mosul. Iraq seems poised to be split into three parts, a Kurdish state in the north, an Iranian puppet in the east, and a salafist terror state in the west - in fact, you could very well argue that is already the case.
In 2007 there were less than 30 terror groups like Al-Qaida, now that number has risen to around 50. In 2007 there were 18-42.000 terror incidents, last year it was 44-105.000. Deaths from terror attacks has risen from around 7.500 in 2007 to almost 18.000 in 2013, and this doesn't even count the Syrians which has been killed by the terrorist actors, ISIL among them, in the civil war there.
Safe to say, the mission hasn't been accomplished and the war on terror has been going badly lately, if not outright lost.
So, any good ideas..?
A legend in your own mind.
Well, Rumsfeld's statement that the weapons of mass destruction were east, west south, and north somewhat, certainly pinpoints the locations. He left nothing out.
The problem is that unless someone recognizes GM as an authority on the subject such that your analysis is not to be missed, you dismiss them, as though their education on the subject isn't complete until your views have been dealt with. However, you're just another voice, GM, and someday maybe you'll realize that the size of your bloated posts just means that hardly anyone reads them.
And all of those links. If one adds them into the content of your bedsheet posts, well, you are just that much more irrelevant.
U, I read GM's posts, despite his having dismissed some of mine -- probably a result of his commitment to BB cosmology.
He supports his claims; you merely assert many of yours.
(GM, I will one of these days check your extensive list of fallacies.)
Show me where I've ever asserted myself as a subject matter authority...
I didn't use the descriptors "subject matter." You seem to want to strive for being an authority in a more general sense as the local expert.
I dismiss fallacy and dishonesty using reason, evidence and exhibits, not by asserting myself as an authority.
You probably won't recognize the pompous bombast in that statement, so I'll just leave it lay for others to appreciate.
Your education on the subject-- namely the argument I am presenting and supporting-- isn't complete until you read it.
So, you've read it and your education is complete now. There's a sense in which education can't be complete until one has read everything. We all read what we choose to read and follow our own noses to whatever conclusions we reach. But here we're back to your tendency to think that something is important because you think it's important.
So, there's something wrong with the rest of us who don't follow and read all of the many links you're so fond of providing. This is your classic tactic: provide more research opportunities than anyone owes to you, and then you can sit back, fart, and pretend that we're ignorami because we didn't pursue your reading assignments.
I did follow those links to discover two things: 1) those were very very short posts by your general standards and 2) those posts got only one response each, which effectively supports my contention that your bedsheet posts garner very little general attention. Most people here scroll right past them.
I know I don't read them. I tried for a bit, and found that in general they wandered a lot and spoke mostly to the argument he was having in his own head, not the one that was being posted.
I've tried to follow the links, too, but they turned out to be mostly smokescreen. Low-quality sources, out-of-context references, or self-referential silliness.
So for example in the reply to Arcus:
Yes, Arcus. We have established that willful ignorance is the basis of your intellectual dishonesty....
His claim was that NSA spying was a [successful] deception that had been going on for 50 years or longer.
However, the only reference that supports 50 years was the Church Commission, and the Church Commission was in response to the CIA, not the NSA, and those CIA abuses were to a large degree outed.
So despite all of the links, the claim isn't at all supported. We've wasted quite a lot of time for nothing, and this was just a fraction of the entire post.
There's the rub. It takes a long post like this one just to expose all of the dreck he put into just a pair of sentences. Sorting through one of his longer broadsides would take a book chapter.
I listed the three as examples of expressed appreciation, not as the number of replies I get.
Fun side note about the above video: Can't be viewed in Australia... in consolation, the Daily Show says:
"But hey, at least you have kangaroos and boomerangs."
spot on erock
Well, the world is certainly better off with a removed Saddam Hussein.
I don't understand. Doesn't your opening post to this discussion prove otherwise? Iraq's screwed now, and has transformed into terrorist havens.
Iraq would be screwed in any event, see Syria.