Friday, September 10, 2004
How Would Terrorists Vote?
[This post is dedicated to those comment posters who prefer verbal abuse to reasoned debate. Here is a controversial post for them. It may be regarded as an experiment in shock therapy to American Saddamists.]
Imagine for a minute that you were a terrorist living in the USA with a right to vote in the coming elections. (The terrorist I have in mind for this post is not a neocon but a member of Al Qaeda!) How would you vote?
Think about it for a minute! You are totally convinced that the US is the greatest evil in the world. You are in a state of war with it. You would do anything to harm the country and its people, including sacrificing your own life. Anything that makes this country weaker must be good. Anything that makes you stronger must be good.
[Disclaimer: The argument below is an attempt to construct a terrorist's thinking on US elections. I may not agree with everything outlined in it. I hope that I have made my own personal positions clear elsewhere in this blog.]
***
Terrorist thinking:
Would we vote for a candidate with no track record for dealing with the likes of us, or for someone with an established method?
First, consider the cons:
This administration has made the war on terror its highest priority; any other consideration takes a far second place. They seem to be truly committed to destroying us no matter what the cost.
This administration gave us some beating in Afghanistan and destroyed a very useful base for our operations. In Afghanistan, we had a whole country and its government at our disposal; these are gone. However, they left the case half-baked and could not destroy our presence there. It will be a long time before Afghanistan is closed to us.
Now, examine the pros:
1. Who gave us the most massive recruitment campaign ever? People from all corners of the globe are eager now to join our side to combat the aggressive forces of evil? Young men seeing the "Ugly American" doing all those horrible things to people are deciding to join our "just" battle.
2. Who tried to dry up our financial resources and ended up giving us, through new compassionate supporters, a much better cash flow?
3. Who made a laughing stock of America and the American army who couldn't even control small bandits of thugs?
4. Who gave our people an excellent training ground… much better than arid, poor, far-away and semi-empty Afghanistan, with complete freedom to come and go as they please and to obtain weapons and explosive with so much ease?
5. Who created that magnificent battleground in the most volatile spot on earth where we are less conspicuous and where neighboring countries may be more than willing to turn a blind eye to our comings and goings, with lucrative potential for the whole region to descend into a state of chaos? The possibilities are almost unlimited. Neocons are already talking about doing the same thing to Iran and Syria. Fantastic!
6. Who went barking at the wrong tree, leaving our bases free to move and plan and squandered about 200 billion dollars of America's money to fight us in a place that we didn't exist in before?
7. Who opened new horizons for us in Iraq, where we had virtually no presence before and where we now have important connections?
8. Who created a large base of people around the world resenting America and America's blatant attempts to dominate the world and demonstrated its willingness to bomb anyone or anything that stood in its way, clearly stating its belief that Might is Right?
9. Who isolated America from many of its traditional allies worldwide and therefore made a mess of the needed globally coordinated effort to combat our international organization? America is now at odds with much of the world and is eyed suspiciously by most. Look at relations between the US and France and Germany!
10. Who made America look so power-hungry and visibly putting its hand on the world's oil main sources?
11. Who polarized the American people themselves? Americans traditionally united around their governments in the face of external dangers. This time, like in the final days of the Viet Nam war, the American people are split. Some are driven by patriotism towards their government, but many cannot accept the atrocities being committed in their name. America has never been more divided internally!
12. Who exposed the fallacy of western liberty and democracy by calling the charade being played in Iraq democracy-building, hence proving us correct in that America does not really care much for democracy?
13. Who demonstrated to the world that the mighty American army is not invincible and that all their weapons and technology cannot be of much use against us and our determination? We have now shown that they can be beaten at this game of violence. Look at the most powerful army in the world looking so helpless. For more than a year now, we have demonstrated our ability to hit hard where and when we wish. How many of us have they caught or killed?
14. Who has demonstrated the poorest of "colonial" skills and abilities at political engineering? First the CPA (Can't Produce Anything) then the IGC, then the Interim Government and finally the Interim National Assembly. Not even children are convinced of their ability or even of their sincerity!
15. Who tolerated, even caused, so much incompetence in government agencies that once were capable of knowing what went behind the iron curtain in great detail? Now, prior to the invasion of Iraq, they looked so foolish, having no idea what went on in that country? Huge security establishments had to resort to relying on a student's dissertation written in the States several years ago to assess Saddam's military capability! The Secretary of State stood in front of the world making statements that later turned out to be untrue. The same Secretary's pains-taking efforts of building committees and task forces to prepare for the post-invasion management of Iraq were simply discarded and the post-war planning was given to Mr. Douglas Feith, a neocon fanatic, who made a good mess of it!
16. Who provided us with an excellent cover as "freedom fighters" for the liberty of Iraq where we can operate inconspicuously amid a population hostile to the American Army?
17. Who weakened the arguments of Iraqi moderates, compromised their positions, marginalized them, never listened to a thing they said and therefore proved them to be wrong? They certainly handicapped moderates and pro-western liberals. Their idea of a moderate liberal was the embezzler Chalabi and then Baathist thug and CIA agent Allawi! Nobody can now argue for anything good coming from American intervention in the world.
18. Who corrupted the system of government-running through relying on loyalty and political connections rather than experience and competence in running things in Iraq - such as putting Michael Ledeen's 29-year old daughter in charge of the financial affairs of almost a quarter of the country? Who tolerated an American company over-charging the American Army for fuel deliveries in a state of war, ordered the company to pay back the over-charge and continued dealing with it!!
We never had it so good! Let's have four more years of this!
# posted by Abu Khaleel @ 6:13 PM 
Comments:
You are suffering from belief in a dogma that people in power can not be humanists. This is not the case. The neocons are anti-subjugation and are not in Iraq to do harm. You also have a dogma that military force increases the threat of terrorism. That may or may not be true. The evidence to date in my opinion is that in the long term, that is not true. I'd rather just see all the anti-Americans killed myself. LOOK AT THE POWER OF THE FREE WORLD.
_____________________________________________________________________
There is a difference between anti-power and anti-subjugation.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hello Abu Khaleel,
The answer to your question, I think, is based on who is winning at the moment. If Bush is winning the war on terror and a change in direction would allow Al-Qaeda to escape then Bush is your man. If you believe that Bush is not winning and that Al-Qaeda is operating satisfactorily, then a change of direction will be required, and Bush is not capable of that. If you are an Iraqi and tired of war, you will favor a change of leadership witha withdrawl of US troops and an all-Iraqi solution. If you are a terrorist, you will want to humiliate America(Bush in particular) regardless. So for a terrorist is is more desirable that Bush is around for his come-up-ance. Similar, for 'good news' Americans. For skeptical Americans and Iraqis he should go.
_____________________________________________________________________
Mr.Edwards, the Bush administration certainly aren't 'humanists' - their political base is largely one of Christian fundamentalism and they're (ostensibly at least) 'god-centred' rather than 'human-centred' - understand your terms, Paul. Your own dogma that dropping thousands of 500lb bombs on densely populated urban centres is 'humanist' and will eradicate terrorism is absurd. It is because you would rather just see everyone that doesn't agree with you killed that you're so despised. For an explanation of the scale of anti-americanism across the globe you need to look carefully at the trail of blood and 3,000,000 lost lives that America has been responsible for over the last few decades.
If I were a terrorist, I would vote for Bush.
_____________________________________________________________________
We should not have allowed 19 murderers to change our world
By Robert Fisk - 11 September 2004
http://www.selvesandothers.org/article4754.html
So, three years after the international crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania we were bombing Fallujah. Come again? Hands up those who knew the name of Fallujah on 11 September 2001. Or Samarra. Or Ramadi. Or Anbar province. Or Amarah. Or Tel Afar, the latest target in our "war on terror’’ although most of us would find it hard to locate on a map (look at northern Iraq, find Mosul and go one inch to the left). Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.
Three years ago, it was all about Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida; then, at about the time of the Enron scandal and I have a New York professor to thank for spotting the switching point it was Saddam and weapons of mass destruction and 45 minutes and human rights abuses in Iraq and, well, the rest is history. And now, at last, the Americans admit that vast areas of Iraq are outside government control. We are going to have to "liberate" them, all over again.
Like we reliberated Najaf and Kufa, "to kill or capture Muqtada Sadr’’, according to Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, and like we lay siege to Fallujah back in April when we claimed, or at least the US Marines did, that we were going to eliminate "terrorism’’ in the city. In fact, its local military commander has since had his head chopped off by the insurgents and Fallujah, save for an occasional bloody air raid, remains outside all government control.
These past two weeks, I’ve been learning a lot about the hatred Iraqis feel towards us. Trowelling back through my reporter’s notebooks of the 1990s, I’ve found page after page of my hand-written evidence of Iraqi anger; fury at the sanctions which killed half a million children, indignation by doctors at our use of depleted uranium shells in the 1991 Gulf War (we used them again last year, but let’s take these things one rage at a time) and deep, abiding resentment towards us, the West. One article I wrote for The Independent in 1998 asked why Iraqis do not tear us limb from limb, which is what some Iraqis did to the American mercenaries they killed in Fallujah last April.
But we expected to be loved, welcomed, greeted, fêted, embraced by these people. First, we bombarded Stone Age Afghanistan and proclaimed it "liberated", then we invaded Iraq to "liberate" Iraqis too. Wouldn’t the Shia love us? Didn’t we get rid of Saddam Hussein? Well, history tells a different story. We dumped the Sunni Muslim King Feisal on the Shia Muslims in the 1920s. Then we encouraged them to rise against Saddam in 1991, and left them to die in Saddam’s torture chambers. And now, we reassemble Saddam’s old rascals, their torturers, and put them back in power to "fight terror’’, and we lay siege to Muqtada Sadr in Najaf.
We all have our memories of 11 September 2001. I was on a plane heading for America. And I remember, as the foreign desk at The Independent told me over the aircraft’s satellite phone of each new massacre in the United States, how I told the captain, and how the crew and I prowled the plane to look for possible suicide pilots. I think I found about 13; alas, of course, they were all Arabs and completely innocent. But it told me of the new world in which I was supposed to live. "Them’’ and "Us’’.
In my airline seat, I started to write my story for that night’s paper. Then I stopped and asked the foreign desk in London by this time the aircraft was dumping its fuel off Ireland before returning to Europe to connect me to the newspaper’s copytaker, because only by "talking" my story to her, rather than writing it, could I find the words I needed. And so I "talked" my report, of folly and betrayal and lies in the Middle East, of injustice and cruelty and war, so it had come to this.
And in the days to come I learnt, too, what this meant. Merely to ask why the murderers of 11 September had done their bloody deeds was to befriend "terrorism". Merely to ask what had been in the minds of the killers was to give them support. Any cop, confronted by any crime, looks for a motive. But confronted by an international crime against humanity, we were not to be allowed to seek the motive. America’s relations with the Middle East, especially the nature of its relationship with Israel, was to remain an unspoken and unquestioned subject.
I’ve come to understand, in the three years since, what this means. Don’t ask questions. Even when I was almost killed by a crowd of Afghans in December 2001 furious that their relatives had been killed in B-52 strikes The Wall Street Journal announced in a headline that I had "got my due" because I was a "multiculturalist". I still get letters telling me that my mother, Peggy, was Adolf Eichmann’s daughter.
Peggy was in the RAF in 1940, repairing radios on damaged Spitfires, as I recalled at her funeral in 1998. But I also remember, at the service in the chancel of the little stone Kentish church, that I angrily suggested that if President Bill Clinton had spent as much money on research into Parkinson’s disease as he had just spent in firing cruise missiles into Afghanistan at Osama bin Laden (and it must have been the first time Bin Laden’s name was uttered in the precincts of the Church of England) then my mother would not have been in the wooden box beside me.
She missed 11 September 2001 by three years and a day. But there was one thing she would, I feel sure, have agreed with me: That we should not allow 19 murderers to change our world. George Bush and Tony Blair are doing their best to make sure the murderers DO change our world. And that is why we are in Iraq.
_____________________________________________________________________
I pledge allegiance to use my brain to end subjugation of my species. Do you?
_____________________________________________________________________
No, you brainlessy pledge allegiance to the neocons, and in so doing you're responsible for the subjugation of peoples past and present in Latin America, the Middle East and South East Asia, not to mention your own poor. You've propped up and profited from wicked regimes the world over, you've overthrown democratically elected governments, murdered millions, mutilated millions more and those are only some sins of commission. The sins of ommission stack up incalculably higher - how much progress could have been made on a cure for malaria or the development of clean water resources (name your own project) if they'd received the same attention as dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium on crowded market places?
_____________________________________________________________________
No, you brainlessy pledge allegiance to the neocons, and in so doing you're responsible for the subjugation of peoples past and present in Latin America, the Middle East and South East Asia, not to mention your own poor. You've propped up and profited from wicked regimes the world over, you've overthrown democratically elected governments, murdered millions, mutilated millions more and those are only the sins of commission. The sins of ommission stack up incalculably higher - how much progress could have been made on a cure for malaria or the development of clean water resources (name your own project) if they'd received the same attention as dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium on crowded market places?
_____________________________________________________________________
Is "Christian fundamentalist" bad? The fundamentals of the teachings of Jesus Christ are the most peaceful that anybody has ever tought. Yet your comment seems derogatory.
Anybody who thinks that 'taking the enemy on' is a losing cause (because we create more enemies) is sadly mistaken. These people want us dead because we give women rights, watch TV and don't pray to Allah 5 times a day. If we don't fight they'll attack us, therefore we're only left with one choice - anihilate them. If this makes some more 'join their cause' then so be it, it is unfortunate for them. These people WON'T just go away even if we conceded everything to them - they'd just want us then to live by Sharia law. That isn't going to happen.
We WILL destroy them, we must - choose your side and fight by it, otherwise get out of our way. This collective pacifism will only get more of US killed. Maybe you don't understand the nature of this war, do you understand just how much MERCY we ARE showing? Would you like us to show NO mercy? Then you'd truly understand what might is - we HAVEN'T used it yet. So stop whining.
Pete
_____________________________________________________________________
AK:
The analysis from the point of view of a Jihadi is much more simple than what you have set forth. Bush will aggressively carry the fight against our group throughout the world. He will not allow us to take over any nation state.
Kerry probably will not carry the fight to any country we target next. As a presumed Jihadi, since my goal is to take over a series of nation states to form the New Caliphate, I would vote for Kerry.
_____________________________________________________________________
Yes Pete, "Christian fundamentalism" is "bad"; it's demonstrably inconsistent with reality and like any fundamentalism it has a kind of fascism at its base. Unfortunately, the US, in stark contrast to Europe, is full of them. As for being peaceful, have you read your Old Testament - the American TV evangelists that can be seen preaching their hate throughout the world from Megachurches in Dallas and Houston certainly have.
"These people" want you dead, do they, Pete? Who, Iraq? An ostensibly secular state with no link to Al Quaeda and no weapons of mass destruction? There's a lot of them who hate you now. No one really knows but some estimates put the Iraqi civilian dead as high as 37,000. For each one dead there'll be three with horrific injuries. I'd guess that'd be enough to make you hate, wouldn't it Pete, though you seem to be doing a fine job all on your own.
_____________________________________________________________________
FYI - Paul Edwards is a blog troll that is present on over 40 blogs vying for coercion and banging the drum for his supreme master Bush when in truth his sole goal is to steer all toward Israel's true goal. Quite pitiful to think of the man-hours he has spent in tring to convince the world the Devil doesn't exist.
Then again he is being paid by the government to do this...
_____________________________________________________________________
"it's demonstrably inconsistent with reality and like any fundamentalism it has a kind of fascism at its base"
You mean like liberal fundamentalists? People that think that "anything should be OK" and that it doesn't affect anybody else.
Funny how you immediately reference the Old Testament, do you REALLY think I don't know what it says? duh. It shows that you didn't listen to what I said. The fundamentals of the teachings of JESUS CHRIST (New Testament to you) are the most peaceful ever tought - prove me wrong I dare you. I bet you want to shut down Christianity, yet you talk about Christian "fascists" - seems like you're being one by not being tolerant to Christian beliefs.
Do you think Iraqi's hadn't been tought to hate us already? You're a moron if you think they only do now because of the war. You're a fool if you think Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, a naive idiot. He paid terrorists, FACT. He had a 747 avaiable for terrorist training, FACT.
It wasn't that Saddam had ANYTHING to do will 9/11. It was that 9/11 had EVERYTHING to do with Saddam. He became "incompatible" with the state of the world post 9/11. I'm glad he's done, how pathetic you are to support him staying in power.
Saddam killed over 37,000/year. So we're now in a 'net gain' of lives saved, and you probably think you're 'compassionate' toward Iraqi's. You couldn't give a rats ass about them, you're a coward - you just want your 'little world' to remain the same. You don't have the guts to recognize it already isn't.
BTW...how do you figure I 'hate'. I never said anything about hating anybody. I read most of the Iraqi bloggers and agree with most of them. I do hate the problems they're facing, I'm just not a pussy who isn't willing to EVER do anything. I LOVE all people, except the demons in Iraq - they DO NOT represent the Iraqi people. I suppose it's because I believe in Jesus Christ, you can't stand that can you?
It is quite obvious where the hate is coming from - YOU.
Pete
_____________________________________________________________________
Christianity has sought to impose limitations upon the mind. Ignorance is elevated to a holy state. Paul declares: "For wisdom of this world is foolishness to God." (I Cor. 3:19).
This is the mentality which gave history the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, book burning, a legacy of dark ignorance which continues to have its impact today.
It is the same mentality which even now motivates 'concerned Christian parents' to burn books containing material far less 'immoral' than the chronicle of rape, murder and pillage contained in their own Bible.
It is Christianity which has soured relations between the sexes with its commandments for the subjugation of women. "Wives must submit yourselves to your husbands"; "But I shall suffer not a woman to teach, not to usurp authority over man", writes the neurotic Paul. How different this is to the attitude of pre-Christian Europe, which regarded women as prophetesses.
------------------
Here are some definitions of liberalism to contrast with your own utterly distorted world view:
- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
- Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
-------------------
What is your evidence that Saddam was linked to terrorism and was killing tens of thousands of people a year when the US invaded? You haven't got any. There isn't any. I guess it's just a matter of faith.
_____________________________________________________________________
What a great example, I couldn't have shown a better LACK of understanding about Christianity.
I suppose ALL Christian's are 'fundamentalists' too eh? Do you have *anything* good to say about the religion? Or are you just completely full of hate? ...aren't you supposed to be the 'open minded one'?
You completely misunderstand the scripture you quote. You obviously think that human wisdom is greater than God's. This is what is wrong with liberals, you claim 'enlightenment' (above God's wisdom) yet you have no consistent philosophy and show consistent hypocracy. Where were you when women were being oppressed in Afghanistan?
"Christianity which has soured relations between the sexes" - lol, and I suppose your mentality has nothing to do with it? Personally, I find all of the man-hating, anti-family, anti-children dogma of people like you sour civil society and relations between the sexes. But what do I know, I'm 'just a man' right?
You make absolutely no sense, you come across as a radical feminist. If you are then I'm done with you, you probably think the U.S. is the great "oppressor of women". Go and tell that to the women in Afghanistan (that you wouldn't have freed).
Definitions of "liberalism":
"- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." - yes, FREE FROM ALL MORALS!! Anything 'anti-family' is just fine while any responsible parent looking to have some sense of civility in our childrens lives should be shut up because it would be 'censorship' - ooooh, the horror of it all!
"- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." - yeah, as long as they agree with you. I call it 'closed-minded' to good principles that continue society.
"- Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor." - yes, I'm 'liberal' with steak sauce but this hardly describes anything good about a political opinion.
"What is your evidence that Saddam was linked to terrorism and was killing tens of thousands of people a year when the US invaded? You haven't got any. There isn't any. I guess it's just a matter of faith."
Are you kidding? Pull your head out of your ass and take a look around. Where did the mass graves come from? I suppose all of the accounts of torture and murder were just 'exagerrations' right? The evidence is creating a mountain.
Wow, you say I've a distorted view of the world. I can tell you, you have far more hate in your heart than I. When MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS make you live by Sharia law then you'll REALLY know what 'submission' means.
You couldn't care less about Iraqi's, you sound EXACTLY like those who were against us going into WWII. You're just a selfish, arrogant, coward that thinks you're smarter than God and hates Christians. Do you even know any Christians? Do you know how much GOOD they do? I sponsor poor children across the world, do you? But I suppose I'm also the cause of their suffering too eh?
You're such a coward you don't even give your name. Yes, it IS about faith - what a shame it is that you don't believe in anything other THAN YOURSELF. This is the source of your arrogance.
Pete
_____________________________________________________________________
"you come across as a radical feminist"
I am a man. Every one of your assumptions about me and my beliefs is just as wrong. So where is the evidence of mass graves?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/blai-j30.shtml
Apparently there are evidence of only 5,000 so far and the US, I feel sure you'll agree, backed Saddam for years and shares direct responsibility for these crimes.
_____________________________________________________________________
I don't believe you - you're a woman it's obvious, you still don't give your name - how chicken. I've known a hundred people with your 'liberal' opinions - they're all selfish and cowardly just like you. They never have a consistent philosophy and wander all over the 'moral map' with different opinions - such wisdom!
I'm wrong about my 'assumptions' eh? - are you saying you don't hate Christians? Let's see you justify your 'enlightened' liberal opinions? ...give me some CONSISTENT philosophy. Who do you care about, Iraqi's? U.S. soldiers? Afghani's? Please don't tell me you hate seeing children killed in Iraq while you justify the killing of, especially late-term, unborn children here in the U.S. What do you think of the new freedoms of women in Afghanistan? What do you think of the children killed in Russia? I bet you think they deserved it too.
If you want to open your eyes to the atrocities go to (just one example)
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-11/08/article10.shtml
- that's ISLAMONLINE !!! Very much anti-U.S. - or have you never been there? I could give you a hundred other reports. So you think all the families in Iraq are in some mass dilusion? They never *really* had family members taken away right? Don't you remember the CROWDS in Baghdad looking for underground prisons hoping loved ones that were still alive - only to be dissappointed. Do you think they were doing this 'just for fun'. If you just google these topics you'll find loads of information - maybe you choose to just keep you head in the sand and keep believing we're a 'great evil' in the world and everything is a lie.
Are you trying to say that because not every grave has been found/identified that means they don't exist? That would be rather stupid, how easy do you think it is to find graves in a massive desert? It's quite pathetic to assert that they don't exist.
Stop listening (only) to left-wing liberal drivel. Not everything is 'the great conspiracy' you want it to be .
You just don't understand how 9/11 made the world incompatible with Saddam's regime. Hopefully one day you will.
PETE <- that's called 'a name'
_____________________________________________________________________
You just don't understand how 9/11 made the world incompatible with Saddam's regime.
But...
Who made the "call-the-cops-number" stuff?
Aquele abraço!
Alvaro Frota
_____________________________________________________________________
Pete,
The islamonline link you provide just reports a CPA claim made in november 2003. It goes on to say that "teams of foreign forensic experts were expected to start working on mass grave sites in Iraq in early January". You need to look at the evidence found by those foreign forensic experts. They have found nothing to justify the claims you're making. You're using rumours of Sadam's past attrocities to justify the current industrial slaughter of Iraqi civilians by the US military and a situation of near civil war. You'd better have your facts straight. Where are they?
I said "Christian fundamentalism is demonstrably inconsistent with reality". You heard "I HATE ALL CHRISTIANS". I have good friends and family members who would describe themselves as "Christian". There were a lot of people a few hundred years ago who thought the world was flat. Even today, some people can't integrate a Riemann surface over the complex plane. I don't hate them.
Any new freedoms for women in Afghanistan can only be a good thing. Do you agree that the US was right to back Islamic fundamentalists against the Soviets in Afghanistan and in so doing help to create the Taliban?
You want a consistent philosophy? How about "act on the basis of evidence" or "first do no harm".
You can call me Henry.
Henry
_____________________________________________________________________
Oh Henry! So "I can call you that eh?" - I still don't believe you're a guy.
Regardless of 'reports' you don't comment about all of the tens of thousands looking for loved ones. I think you're seriously naive if you believe Saddam wasn't as bad as he is. I bet you don't think the Kurds were ever gassed.
"Christian fundamentalism is demonstrably inconsistent with reality" - I'll actually agree with you here. Yes, because of people like you that think you're smarter than God we have "human wisdom" as our reality. Now take a good look at the world. Christian philosophies try to preach a "good path" that is respectful of all. Remember "those without sin may cast the first stone". You're misquotes show a lack of understanding and your ranting made your dislike (to say the least) of Christians quite obvious.
Your proof of "not hating" because you have "Christian friends" isn't very convincing. So what if people used to think the world was flat, that has nothing to do with the credibility of the WISDOM behind Christianity. In fact we are WARNED in the Bible about these times, when the world knows better than God. You're a great example, you think we're wiser and more knowledgable so we don't need God. In fact it is quite the opposite.
"act on the basis of evidence" or "first do no harm". - we did. Do you forget about decades of non violent attempts to deal with Saddam. Also, if you were President and ALL the information coming to you said the same thing (Saddam was a growing threat that you don't want to wait on until it's too late) YOU would have been held INCOMPETANT if you did nothing and we were then attacked.
My point about the graves is that it takes time, it is also hampered by individuals just finding and burying their loved ones (finally with dignity) before anything can be documented - this is well documented.
So you REALLY think that Saddam didn't really do that many bad things? I guess millions of Jews didn't die in WWII either eh? You need to recognize evil when you see it, this is another problem that liberals have becuase as 'anything goes' you fail to see the difference between right and wrong.
The Taliban (as a specific group) were supported only AFTER the Soviets were defeated and ONLY because EVERYBODY wanted some stability there and they appeared to be the emerging group. You can't always blame people in hindsight. You do what you think is best AT THE TIME, none of us can see the future and AS WE'RE ONLY HUMAN (not Gods) there are unforeseen future consequences. Things are not as sinister and simple as you like to believe.
You're also not reading about the vast amount of GOOD being done in Iraq - you focus ONLY on the bad, which is not the majority of the country. Go and read iraqthemodel.blogspot.com (and many other blogs that talk about atrocities by poeple THAT LIVED THROUGH IT) - if you won't take it from me.
Pete
_____________________________________________________________________
According to the US state department, most of the graves discovered to date correspond to five major atrocities committed by the Saddam Hussein regime: the 1983 attack against Kurds of the Barzani tribe; the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, for which estimates of the numbers killed vary from 50,000 to 180,000; chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988; the 1991 massacre of Shia Muslims during their uprising at the end of the Gulf war; and the 1991 massacre of Kurds who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war. And of course you can implicate US foreign policy in much of that.
Saddam was nasty but his atrocities pale in comparison to those committed by the US.
The United States Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force murdered three million people in Vietnam. Most of the victims were women and children.
Madeleine Albright acknowledged on television that the toll of children was 500,000 dead due to the US imposed sanctions regime.
I could just go on and on. US Aggression has been constant since World War II with troop invasions and/or air attacks on the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cambodia, Lebanon, Granada, Panama, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.
'Christian philosophies try to preach a "good path" that is respectful of all'
Somebody should tell Bush and the party of fanatical Christian militants he leads, and you should start talking like you understand what it means rather than like a pre-pubescent cult victim.
_____________________________________________________________________
Democracy is a long arduous process, and if I were a terrorist this would not influence me. My main goal would be to win in this battle. So If I were a terrorist then I wouold most definately vote for Kerry. He has shown his lack of rtespect for military issues. He has again and again voted for major cuts in the military and this fact would diminish the attitude of the common soldier, and for the officers this would even be worse of a situation where they now would have a much harder job. Many would get out of the military because of this. I will stop for now because I do not want to post too much information, because of a trust issue with the owner of this site. I am an american and I can be called "Q"
_____________________________________________________________________
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
by David Rovics
I can't stand the news
It's always the same old song
Another corporate scandal
Another story of bad gone wrong
Another corporate bailout
Another piece of the pie
It's the best democracy money can buy
They rigged the elections
And only millionaires can play
And you've got to be cynical
You got to look into the camera and say
"I'm serving the public"
When you know it's a corporate lie
But it's the best democracy money can buy
Yeah there they go
Fighting for oil
'Cause there the profits lie
Beneath that foreign soil
And they don't know what they'll do
When the wells run dry
But it's the best democracy money can buy
They're filling the prisons
Their latest industry
Which lines their pockets
And helps us all be free
'Cause you gotta do something with the unemployed
If they won't move to Shanghai
And it's the best democracy money can buy
They're patenting life
Selling our genes
They would patent oxygen
If they had the means
They'll patent their drugs
And some will get you high
And it's the best democracy money can buy
But we've got two parties
Maybe someday we'll have three
Maybe Tweedledumber
Tweedledum and Tweedledee
But one thing's fairly certain
It won't be you or I
'Cause it's the best democracy money can buy
And when it's finished
And they've finally achieved
The most corporate dollar-ocracy
That could ever be believed
The Martians will come to visit our graves
And when they go back to the sky
They'll say it's the best democracy money can buy
---
[http://www.soundclick.com/pro/default.cfm?BandID=111310&content=lyrics&SongID=756606|The Best Democracy Money Can Buy]
Created July, 2003
Copyright David Rovics 2003, all rights reserved
About this songThe U$A. I wrote this after seeing the title of Greg Palast's book, then I read the book, which is really great.
_____________________________________________________________________
Post a Comment
<< Home
You are suffering from belief in a dogma that people in power can not be humanists. This is not the case. The neocons are anti-subjugation and are not in Iraq to do harm. You also have a dogma that military force increases the threat of terrorism. That may or may not be true. The evidence to date in my opinion is that in the long term, that is not true. I'd rather just see all the anti-Americans killed myself. LOOK AT THE POWER OF THE FREE WORLD.
There is a difference between anti-power and anti-subjugation.
Hello Abu Khaleel,
The answer to your question, I think, is based on who is winning at the moment. If Bush is winning the war on terror and a change in direction would allow Al-Qaeda to escape then Bush is your man. If you believe that Bush is not winning and that Al-Qaeda is operating satisfactorily, then a change of direction will be required, and Bush is not capable of that. If you are an Iraqi and tired of war, you will favor a change of leadership witha withdrawl of US troops and an all-Iraqi solution. If you are a terrorist, you will want to humiliate America(Bush in particular) regardless. So for a terrorist is is more desirable that Bush is around for his come-up-ance. Similar, for 'good news' Americans. For skeptical Americans and Iraqis he should go.
# posted by 
: 11/9/04 8:31 PM
: 11/9/04 8:31 PM Mr.Edwards, the Bush administration certainly aren't 'humanists' - their political base is largely one of Christian fundamentalism and they're (ostensibly at least) 'god-centred' rather than 'human-centred' - understand your terms, Paul. Your own dogma that dropping thousands of 500lb bombs on densely populated urban centres is 'humanist' and will eradicate terrorism is absurd. It is because you would rather just see everyone that doesn't agree with you killed that you're so despised. For an explanation of the scale of anti-americanism across the globe you need to look carefully at the trail of blood and 3,000,000 lost lives that America has been responsible for over the last few decades.
If I were a terrorist, I would vote for Bush.
# posted by : 11/9/04 8:43 PM
: 11/9/04 8:43 PM We should not have allowed 19 murderers to change our world
By Robert Fisk - 11 September 2004
http://www.selvesandothers.org/article4754.html
So, three years after the international crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania we were bombing Fallujah. Come again? Hands up those who knew the name of Fallujah on 11 September 2001. Or Samarra. Or Ramadi. Or Anbar province. Or Amarah. Or Tel Afar, the latest target in our "war on terror’’ although most of us would find it hard to locate on a map (look at northern Iraq, find Mosul and go one inch to the left). Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.
Three years ago, it was all about Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida; then, at about the time of the Enron scandal and I have a New York professor to thank for spotting the switching point it was Saddam and weapons of mass destruction and 45 minutes and human rights abuses in Iraq and, well, the rest is history. And now, at last, the Americans admit that vast areas of Iraq are outside government control. We are going to have to "liberate" them, all over again.
Like we reliberated Najaf and Kufa, "to kill or capture Muqtada Sadr’’, according to Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, and like we lay siege to Fallujah back in April when we claimed, or at least the US Marines did, that we were going to eliminate "terrorism’’ in the city. In fact, its local military commander has since had his head chopped off by the insurgents and Fallujah, save for an occasional bloody air raid, remains outside all government control.
These past two weeks, I’ve been learning a lot about the hatred Iraqis feel towards us. Trowelling back through my reporter’s notebooks of the 1990s, I’ve found page after page of my hand-written evidence of Iraqi anger; fury at the sanctions which killed half a million children, indignation by doctors at our use of depleted uranium shells in the 1991 Gulf War (we used them again last year, but let’s take these things one rage at a time) and deep, abiding resentment towards us, the West. One article I wrote for The Independent in 1998 asked why Iraqis do not tear us limb from limb, which is what some Iraqis did to the American mercenaries they killed in Fallujah last April.
But we expected to be loved, welcomed, greeted, fêted, embraced by these people. First, we bombarded Stone Age Afghanistan and proclaimed it "liberated", then we invaded Iraq to "liberate" Iraqis too. Wouldn’t the Shia love us? Didn’t we get rid of Saddam Hussein? Well, history tells a different story. We dumped the Sunni Muslim King Feisal on the Shia Muslims in the 1920s. Then we encouraged them to rise against Saddam in 1991, and left them to die in Saddam’s torture chambers. And now, we reassemble Saddam’s old rascals, their torturers, and put them back in power to "fight terror’’, and we lay siege to Muqtada Sadr in Najaf.
We all have our memories of 11 September 2001. I was on a plane heading for America. And I remember, as the foreign desk at The Independent told me over the aircraft’s satellite phone of each new massacre in the United States, how I told the captain, and how the crew and I prowled the plane to look for possible suicide pilots. I think I found about 13; alas, of course, they were all Arabs and completely innocent. But it told me of the new world in which I was supposed to live. "Them’’ and "Us’’.
In my airline seat, I started to write my story for that night’s paper. Then I stopped and asked the foreign desk in London by this time the aircraft was dumping its fuel off Ireland before returning to Europe to connect me to the newspaper’s copytaker, because only by "talking" my story to her, rather than writing it, could I find the words I needed. And so I "talked" my report, of folly and betrayal and lies in the Middle East, of injustice and cruelty and war, so it had come to this.
And in the days to come I learnt, too, what this meant. Merely to ask why the murderers of 11 September had done their bloody deeds was to befriend "terrorism". Merely to ask what had been in the minds of the killers was to give them support. Any cop, confronted by any crime, looks for a motive. But confronted by an international crime against humanity, we were not to be allowed to seek the motive. America’s relations with the Middle East, especially the nature of its relationship with Israel, was to remain an unspoken and unquestioned subject.
I’ve come to understand, in the three years since, what this means. Don’t ask questions. Even when I was almost killed by a crowd of Afghans in December 2001 furious that their relatives had been killed in B-52 strikes The Wall Street Journal announced in a headline that I had "got my due" because I was a "multiculturalist". I still get letters telling me that my mother, Peggy, was Adolf Eichmann’s daughter.
Peggy was in the RAF in 1940, repairing radios on damaged Spitfires, as I recalled at her funeral in 1998. But I also remember, at the service in the chancel of the little stone Kentish church, that I angrily suggested that if President Bill Clinton had spent as much money on research into Parkinson’s disease as he had just spent in firing cruise missiles into Afghanistan at Osama bin Laden (and it must have been the first time Bin Laden’s name was uttered in the precincts of the Church of England) then my mother would not have been in the wooden box beside me.
She missed 11 September 2001 by three years and a day. But there was one thing she would, I feel sure, have agreed with me: That we should not allow 19 murderers to change our world. George Bush and Tony Blair are doing their best to make sure the murderers DO change our world. And that is why we are in Iraq.
# posted by : 11/9/04 9:30 PM
: 11/9/04 9:30 PM I pledge allegiance to use my brain to end subjugation of my species. Do you?
No, you brainlessy pledge allegiance to the neocons, and in so doing you're responsible for the subjugation of peoples past and present in Latin America, the Middle East and South East Asia, not to mention your own poor. You've propped up and profited from wicked regimes the world over, you've overthrown democratically elected governments, murdered millions, mutilated millions more and those are only some sins of commission. The sins of ommission stack up incalculably higher - how much progress could have been made on a cure for malaria or the development of clean water resources (name your own project) if they'd received the same attention as dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium on crowded market places?
# posted by : 12/9/04 4:41 PM
: 12/9/04 4:41 PM No, you brainlessy pledge allegiance to the neocons, and in so doing you're responsible for the subjugation of peoples past and present in Latin America, the Middle East and South East Asia, not to mention your own poor. You've propped up and profited from wicked regimes the world over, you've overthrown democratically elected governments, murdered millions, mutilated millions more and those are only the sins of commission. The sins of ommission stack up incalculably higher - how much progress could have been made on a cure for malaria or the development of clean water resources (name your own project) if they'd received the same attention as dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium on crowded market places?
# posted by : 12/9/04 4:41 PM
: 12/9/04 4:41 PM Is "Christian fundamentalist" bad? The fundamentals of the teachings of Jesus Christ are the most peaceful that anybody has ever tought. Yet your comment seems derogatory.
Anybody who thinks that 'taking the enemy on' is a losing cause (because we create more enemies) is sadly mistaken. These people want us dead because we give women rights, watch TV and don't pray to Allah 5 times a day. If we don't fight they'll attack us, therefore we're only left with one choice - anihilate them. If this makes some more 'join their cause' then so be it, it is unfortunate for them. These people WON'T just go away even if we conceded everything to them - they'd just want us then to live by Sharia law. That isn't going to happen.
We WILL destroy them, we must - choose your side and fight by it, otherwise get out of our way. This collective pacifism will only get more of US killed. Maybe you don't understand the nature of this war, do you understand just how much MERCY we ARE showing? Would you like us to show NO mercy? Then you'd truly understand what might is - we HAVEN'T used it yet. So stop whining.
Pete
# posted by : 13/9/04 4:57 AM
: 13/9/04 4:57 AM AK:
The analysis from the point of view of a Jihadi is much more simple than what you have set forth. Bush will aggressively carry the fight against our group throughout the world. He will not allow us to take over any nation state.
Kerry probably will not carry the fight to any country we target next. As a presumed Jihadi, since my goal is to take over a series of nation states to form the New Caliphate, I would vote for Kerry.
# posted by : 13/9/04 6:10 AM
: 13/9/04 6:10 AM Yes Pete, "Christian fundamentalism" is "bad"; it's demonstrably inconsistent with reality and like any fundamentalism it has a kind of fascism at its base. Unfortunately, the US, in stark contrast to Europe, is full of them. As for being peaceful, have you read your Old Testament - the American TV evangelists that can be seen preaching their hate throughout the world from Megachurches in Dallas and Houston certainly have.
"These people" want you dead, do they, Pete? Who, Iraq? An ostensibly secular state with no link to Al Quaeda and no weapons of mass destruction? There's a lot of them who hate you now. No one really knows but some estimates put the Iraqi civilian dead as high as 37,000. For each one dead there'll be three with horrific injuries. I'd guess that'd be enough to make you hate, wouldn't it Pete, though you seem to be doing a fine job all on your own.
# posted by : 13/9/04 1:52 PM
: 13/9/04 1:52 PM FYI - Paul Edwards is a blog troll that is present on over 40 blogs vying for coercion and banging the drum for his supreme master Bush when in truth his sole goal is to steer all toward Israel's true goal. Quite pitiful to think of the man-hours he has spent in tring to convince the world the Devil doesn't exist.
Then again he is being paid by the government to do this...
# posted by : 13/9/04 10:30 PM
: 13/9/04 10:30 PM "it's demonstrably inconsistent with reality and like any fundamentalism it has a kind of fascism at its base"
You mean like liberal fundamentalists? People that think that "anything should be OK" and that it doesn't affect anybody else.
Funny how you immediately reference the Old Testament, do you REALLY think I don't know what it says? duh. It shows that you didn't listen to what I said. The fundamentals of the teachings of JESUS CHRIST (New Testament to you) are the most peaceful ever tought - prove me wrong I dare you. I bet you want to shut down Christianity, yet you talk about Christian "fascists" - seems like you're being one by not being tolerant to Christian beliefs.
Do you think Iraqi's hadn't been tought to hate us already? You're a moron if you think they only do now because of the war. You're a fool if you think Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, a naive idiot. He paid terrorists, FACT. He had a 747 avaiable for terrorist training, FACT.
It wasn't that Saddam had ANYTHING to do will 9/11. It was that 9/11 had EVERYTHING to do with Saddam. He became "incompatible" with the state of the world post 9/11. I'm glad he's done, how pathetic you are to support him staying in power.
Saddam killed over 37,000/year. So we're now in a 'net gain' of lives saved, and you probably think you're 'compassionate' toward Iraqi's. You couldn't give a rats ass about them, you're a coward - you just want your 'little world' to remain the same. You don't have the guts to recognize it already isn't.
BTW...how do you figure I 'hate'. I never said anything about hating anybody. I read most of the Iraqi bloggers and agree with most of them. I do hate the problems they're facing, I'm just not a pussy who isn't willing to EVER do anything. I LOVE all people, except the demons in Iraq - they DO NOT represent the Iraqi people. I suppose it's because I believe in Jesus Christ, you can't stand that can you?
It is quite obvious where the hate is coming from - YOU.
Pete
# posted by : 14/9/04 5:13 AM
: 14/9/04 5:13 AM Christianity has sought to impose limitations upon the mind. Ignorance is elevated to a holy state. Paul declares: "For wisdom of this world is foolishness to God." (I Cor. 3:19).
This is the mentality which gave history the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, book burning, a legacy of dark ignorance which continues to have its impact today.
It is the same mentality which even now motivates 'concerned Christian parents' to burn books containing material far less 'immoral' than the chronicle of rape, murder and pillage contained in their own Bible.
It is Christianity which has soured relations between the sexes with its commandments for the subjugation of women. "Wives must submit yourselves to your husbands"; "But I shall suffer not a woman to teach, not to usurp authority over man", writes the neurotic Paul. How different this is to the attitude of pre-Christian Europe, which regarded women as prophetesses.
------------------
Here are some definitions of liberalism to contrast with your own utterly distorted world view:
- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
- Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
-------------------
What is your evidence that Saddam was linked to terrorism and was killing tens of thousands of people a year when the US invaded? You haven't got any. There isn't any. I guess it's just a matter of faith.
# posted by : 14/9/04 4:31 PM
: 14/9/04 4:31 PM What a great example, I couldn't have shown a better LACK of understanding about Christianity.
I suppose ALL Christian's are 'fundamentalists' too eh? Do you have *anything* good to say about the religion? Or are you just completely full of hate? ...aren't you supposed to be the 'open minded one'?
You completely misunderstand the scripture you quote. You obviously think that human wisdom is greater than God's. This is what is wrong with liberals, you claim 'enlightenment' (above God's wisdom) yet you have no consistent philosophy and show consistent hypocracy. Where were you when women were being oppressed in Afghanistan?
"Christianity which has soured relations between the sexes" - lol, and I suppose your mentality has nothing to do with it? Personally, I find all of the man-hating, anti-family, anti-children dogma of people like you sour civil society and relations between the sexes. But what do I know, I'm 'just a man' right?
You make absolutely no sense, you come across as a radical feminist. If you are then I'm done with you, you probably think the U.S. is the great "oppressor of women". Go and tell that to the women in Afghanistan (that you wouldn't have freed).
Definitions of "liberalism":
"- Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." - yes, FREE FROM ALL MORALS!! Anything 'anti-family' is just fine while any responsible parent looking to have some sense of civility in our childrens lives should be shut up because it would be 'censorship' - ooooh, the horror of it all!
"- Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded." - yeah, as long as they agree with you. I call it 'closed-minded' to good principles that continue society.
"- Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor." - yes, I'm 'liberal' with steak sauce but this hardly describes anything good about a political opinion.
"What is your evidence that Saddam was linked to terrorism and was killing tens of thousands of people a year when the US invaded? You haven't got any. There isn't any. I guess it's just a matter of faith."
Are you kidding? Pull your head out of your ass and take a look around. Where did the mass graves come from? I suppose all of the accounts of torture and murder were just 'exagerrations' right? The evidence is creating a mountain.
Wow, you say I've a distorted view of the world. I can tell you, you have far more hate in your heart than I. When MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS make you live by Sharia law then you'll REALLY know what 'submission' means.
You couldn't care less about Iraqi's, you sound EXACTLY like those who were against us going into WWII. You're just a selfish, arrogant, coward that thinks you're smarter than God and hates Christians. Do you even know any Christians? Do you know how much GOOD they do? I sponsor poor children across the world, do you? But I suppose I'm also the cause of their suffering too eh?
You're such a coward you don't even give your name. Yes, it IS about faith - what a shame it is that you don't believe in anything other THAN YOURSELF. This is the source of your arrogance.
Pete
# posted by : 14/9/04 10:13 PM
: 14/9/04 10:13 PM "you come across as a radical feminist"
I am a man. Every one of your assumptions about me and my beliefs is just as wrong. So where is the evidence of mass graves?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/blai-j30.shtml
Apparently there are evidence of only 5,000 so far and the US, I feel sure you'll agree, backed Saddam for years and shares direct responsibility for these crimes.
# posted by : 15/9/04 2:58 AM
: 15/9/04 2:58 AM I don't believe you - you're a woman it's obvious, you still don't give your name - how chicken. I've known a hundred people with your 'liberal' opinions - they're all selfish and cowardly just like you. They never have a consistent philosophy and wander all over the 'moral map' with different opinions - such wisdom!
I'm wrong about my 'assumptions' eh? - are you saying you don't hate Christians? Let's see you justify your 'enlightened' liberal opinions? ...give me some CONSISTENT philosophy. Who do you care about, Iraqi's? U.S. soldiers? Afghani's? Please don't tell me you hate seeing children killed in Iraq while you justify the killing of, especially late-term, unborn children here in the U.S. What do you think of the new freedoms of women in Afghanistan? What do you think of the children killed in Russia? I bet you think they deserved it too.
If you want to open your eyes to the atrocities go to (just one example)
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-11/08/article10.shtml
- that's ISLAMONLINE !!! Very much anti-U.S. - or have you never been there? I could give you a hundred other reports. So you think all the families in Iraq are in some mass dilusion? They never *really* had family members taken away right? Don't you remember the CROWDS in Baghdad looking for underground prisons hoping loved ones that were still alive - only to be dissappointed. Do you think they were doing this 'just for fun'. If you just google these topics you'll find loads of information - maybe you choose to just keep you head in the sand and keep believing we're a 'great evil' in the world and everything is a lie.
Are you trying to say that because not every grave has been found/identified that means they don't exist? That would be rather stupid, how easy do you think it is to find graves in a massive desert? It's quite pathetic to assert that they don't exist.
Stop listening (only) to left-wing liberal drivel. Not everything is 'the great conspiracy' you want it to be .
You just don't understand how 9/11 made the world incompatible with Saddam's regime. Hopefully one day you will.
PETE <- that's called 'a name'
# posted by : 15/9/04 5:43 AM
: 15/9/04 5:43 AM You just don't understand how 9/11 made the world incompatible with Saddam's regime.
But...
Who made the "call-the-cops-number" stuff?
Aquele abraço!
Alvaro Frota
Pete,
The islamonline link you provide just reports a CPA claim made in november 2003. It goes on to say that "teams of foreign forensic experts were expected to start working on mass grave sites in Iraq in early January". You need to look at the evidence found by those foreign forensic experts. They have found nothing to justify the claims you're making. You're using rumours of Sadam's past attrocities to justify the current industrial slaughter of Iraqi civilians by the US military and a situation of near civil war. You'd better have your facts straight. Where are they?
I said "Christian fundamentalism is demonstrably inconsistent with reality". You heard "I HATE ALL CHRISTIANS". I have good friends and family members who would describe themselves as "Christian". There were a lot of people a few hundred years ago who thought the world was flat. Even today, some people can't integrate a Riemann surface over the complex plane. I don't hate them.
Any new freedoms for women in Afghanistan can only be a good thing. Do you agree that the US was right to back Islamic fundamentalists against the Soviets in Afghanistan and in so doing help to create the Taliban?
You want a consistent philosophy? How about "act on the basis of evidence" or "first do no harm".
You can call me Henry.
Henry
# posted by : 15/9/04 12:27 PM
: 15/9/04 12:27 PM Oh Henry! So "I can call you that eh?" - I still don't believe you're a guy.
Regardless of 'reports' you don't comment about all of the tens of thousands looking for loved ones. I think you're seriously naive if you believe Saddam wasn't as bad as he is. I bet you don't think the Kurds were ever gassed.
"Christian fundamentalism is demonstrably inconsistent with reality" - I'll actually agree with you here. Yes, because of people like you that think you're smarter than God we have "human wisdom" as our reality. Now take a good look at the world. Christian philosophies try to preach a "good path" that is respectful of all. Remember "those without sin may cast the first stone". You're misquotes show a lack of understanding and your ranting made your dislike (to say the least) of Christians quite obvious.
Your proof of "not hating" because you have "Christian friends" isn't very convincing. So what if people used to think the world was flat, that has nothing to do with the credibility of the WISDOM behind Christianity. In fact we are WARNED in the Bible about these times, when the world knows better than God. You're a great example, you think we're wiser and more knowledgable so we don't need God. In fact it is quite the opposite.
"act on the basis of evidence" or "first do no harm". - we did. Do you forget about decades of non violent attempts to deal with Saddam. Also, if you were President and ALL the information coming to you said the same thing (Saddam was a growing threat that you don't want to wait on until it's too late) YOU would have been held INCOMPETANT if you did nothing and we were then attacked.
My point about the graves is that it takes time, it is also hampered by individuals just finding and burying their loved ones (finally with dignity) before anything can be documented - this is well documented.
So you REALLY think that Saddam didn't really do that many bad things? I guess millions of Jews didn't die in WWII either eh? You need to recognize evil when you see it, this is another problem that liberals have becuase as 'anything goes' you fail to see the difference between right and wrong.
The Taliban (as a specific group) were supported only AFTER the Soviets were defeated and ONLY because EVERYBODY wanted some stability there and they appeared to be the emerging group. You can't always blame people in hindsight. You do what you think is best AT THE TIME, none of us can see the future and AS WE'RE ONLY HUMAN (not Gods) there are unforeseen future consequences. Things are not as sinister and simple as you like to believe.
You're also not reading about the vast amount of GOOD being done in Iraq - you focus ONLY on the bad, which is not the majority of the country. Go and read iraqthemodel.blogspot.com (and many other blogs that talk about atrocities by poeple THAT LIVED THROUGH IT) - if you won't take it from me.
Pete
# posted by : 15/9/04 6:49 PM
: 15/9/04 6:49 PM According to the US state department, most of the graves discovered to date correspond to five major atrocities committed by the Saddam Hussein regime: the 1983 attack against Kurds of the Barzani tribe; the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, for which estimates of the numbers killed vary from 50,000 to 180,000; chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988; the 1991 massacre of Shia Muslims during their uprising at the end of the Gulf war; and the 1991 massacre of Kurds who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war. And of course you can implicate US foreign policy in much of that.
Saddam was nasty but his atrocities pale in comparison to those committed by the US.
The United States Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force murdered three million people in Vietnam. Most of the victims were women and children.
Madeleine Albright acknowledged on television that the toll of children was 500,000 dead due to the US imposed sanctions regime.
I could just go on and on. US Aggression has been constant since World War II with troop invasions and/or air attacks on the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cambodia, Lebanon, Granada, Panama, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.
'Christian philosophies try to preach a "good path" that is respectful of all'
Somebody should tell Bush and the party of fanatical Christian militants he leads, and you should start talking like you understand what it means rather than like a pre-pubescent cult victim.
# posted by : 15/9/04 11:13 PM
: 15/9/04 11:13 PM Democracy is a long arduous process, and if I were a terrorist this would not influence me. My main goal would be to win in this battle. So If I were a terrorist then I wouold most definately vote for Kerry. He has shown his lack of rtespect for military issues. He has again and again voted for major cuts in the military and this fact would diminish the attitude of the common soldier, and for the officers this would even be worse of a situation where they now would have a much harder job. Many would get out of the military because of this. I will stop for now because I do not want to post too much information, because of a trust issue with the owner of this site. I am an american and I can be called "Q"
# posted by : 16/9/04 6:43 AM
: 16/9/04 6:43 AM The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
by David Rovics
I can't stand the news
It's always the same old song
Another corporate scandal
Another story of bad gone wrong
Another corporate bailout
Another piece of the pie
It's the best democracy money can buy
They rigged the elections
And only millionaires can play
And you've got to be cynical
You got to look into the camera and say
"I'm serving the public"
When you know it's a corporate lie
But it's the best democracy money can buy
Yeah there they go
Fighting for oil
'Cause there the profits lie
Beneath that foreign soil
And they don't know what they'll do
When the wells run dry
But it's the best democracy money can buy
They're filling the prisons
Their latest industry
Which lines their pockets
And helps us all be free
'Cause you gotta do something with the unemployed
If they won't move to Shanghai
And it's the best democracy money can buy
They're patenting life
Selling our genes
They would patent oxygen
If they had the means
They'll patent their drugs
And some will get you high
And it's the best democracy money can buy
But we've got two parties
Maybe someday we'll have three
Maybe Tweedledumber
Tweedledum and Tweedledee
But one thing's fairly certain
It won't be you or I
'Cause it's the best democracy money can buy
And when it's finished
And they've finally achieved
The most corporate dollar-ocracy
That could ever be believed
The Martians will come to visit our graves
And when they go back to the sky
They'll say it's the best democracy money can buy
---
[http://www.soundclick.com/pro/default.cfm?BandID=111310&content=lyrics&SongID=756606|The Best Democracy Money Can Buy]
Created July, 2003
Copyright David Rovics 2003, all rights reserved
About this songThe U$A. I wrote this after seeing the title of Greg Palast's book, then I read the book, which is really great.
<< Home
