Decapitation

[Meat Shake]

decapitation (http://www.martialartsmart.com)
disclaimer : extremely explicit video content.

This is the video of the american being beheaded. I dont know exactly why I watched it or why anyone else would want to... but here it is. Remember that this was in retribution for american soldiers raping and sexually assaulting iraqi prisoners of war.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Meat Shake
Remember that this was in retribution for american soldiers raping and sexually assaulting iraqi prisoners of war.

The rape pictures were fakes. Though it's possible this act nonetheless resulted from the fraudulent pictures.

[Kristoffer]

Originally posted by Christopher M


The rape pictures were fakes.

Are you ****ing serious?

[CaptinPickAxe]

I'm not even trying to watch that video. Its taboo like the video in "The Ring".

Thanks but no thanks;)

[Christopher M]

Yeah. They were taken from pornography sites; but if you looked close, you could tell something was up (eg. the 'soldiers' had mismatched camos, none of which were right).

[red5angel]

I'd like to throw in here and say that I wouldn't bother watching the video if I were you. I watched it, but I was prepared I had to watch a couple of videos similar to this when I was in the service. It takes a little something from someone to see this sort of thing for real.

[jun_erh]

I posted the fake rape pics a while ago but I think they were deleted. Some ******* had put them right next to the real ones on some page. I pointed them out and someone here was like " no those are jungle fatiques, they would be wearing desert fatiques" and some other thing I can't remember. They actually had those porn pics in the boston Globe yeserday hahaha.

[Christopher M]

There's an apology in the Globe today, but it's small.

[MasterKiller]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Members of the U.S. Congress saw new images of violence and sexual humiliation from a U.S.-run Iraqi prison on Wednesday in a closed viewing one lawmaker likened to a descent into "the wings of hell."

Lawmakers said images showed inmates apparently being coerced to commit sodomy, wounds possibly from dog bites, a number of dead bodies, and examples of "sadistic torture" and "sexual humiliation."

Some top Republicans urged that the still pictures and video not be released publicly, saying they could endanger U.S. forces overseas.

"What we saw is appalling. It is consistent with the photos that you've seen in the press to date. They go beyond that in many ways in terms of the various activities that are depicted," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.

"There were some awful scenes. It felt like you were descending into one of the wings of hell and sadly it was our own creation," said Sen. Richard Durbin (news, bio, voting record), an Illinois Democrat. "And when you think of the sadism, the violence, the sexual humiliation, after a while you just turn away, you just can't take it any more.

"I still cannot believe that this happened without the knowledge of those at higher levels," Durbin added.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned last week the pictures could worsen a scandal that ignited international outrage and shook U.S. global prestige as the United States seeks to stabilize Iraq (news - web sites).

Senators and members of the House of Representatives had a chance over several hours to look at some 1,600 images in separate secure rooms in a presentation conducted by the Pentagon (news - web sites), which kept custody of the material.

FORCED SODOMY
Many lawmakers said the images were similar to photographs shown around the world of naked prisoners stacked in a pyramid or positioned to simulate sex acts at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, but they said some were even more shocking.

Lawmakers said they did not see examples of outright rape, murder or abuses of children.

Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (news, bio, voting record), an Illinois Republican, said "many of the same people were involved over and over" in the photographs. "I didn't see different characters than the ones who have been in the newspapers," he said.

Durbin described a picture of a man with half his head "blown off," lying on the ground in blood and gore, but said there was no explanation of where that was taken.

An Islamic Web site on Tuesday showed an American civilian, Nick Berg of suburban Philadelphia, being beheaded by an al Qaeda leader in Iraq in revenge for the "Satanic degradation" of Iraqi prisoners.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, whose committee had a closed-door hearing with Stephen Cambone, defense undersecretary for intelligence, said there were "44 CIA (news - web sites) people in and out of" Abu Ghraib prison, "a lot during the evening, over a period of time."

Congress is trying to establish whether the mistreatment was encouraged by intelligence personnel to "soften up" prisoners for interrogations.

Roberts also said two other U.S. prisons in Iraq were mentioned in the latest material, "but the abuses were not as severe."

'GUT WRENCHING'

Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat, said the new pictures showed "cruel and sadistic torture."

She described as "gut wrenching" images of a nearly naked man "handcuffed to a wall, beating his head against the wall, recoiling back and forward, probably trying to knock himself unconscious and avoid having to live through the experience."

Lawmakers said the images were shown fairly rapidly and with minimal explanation. Sen. James Jeffords (news - web sites), a Vermont independent, said the pictures were "horrible. But they go by so fast. Terrible scenes. ... It was click, click, click.

Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, urged that the images not be released before trials related to the abuses of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison.

"I feel very strongly that these photographs should not be made public. I feel that it could possibly endanger the men and the women of the armed forces as they are serving and at great risk," Warner said.

[red5angel]

Some top Republicans urged that the still pictures and video not be released publicly, saying they could endanger U.S. forces overseas.

you mean someone is finally starting to figure this out? Atleast we're seeking to find out who is responsible and punish them.....

[Meat Shake]

Originally posted by red5angel
I'd like to throw in here and say that I wouldn't bother watching the video if I were you. I watched it, but I was prepared I had to watch a couple of videos similar to this when I was in the service. It takes a little something from someone to see this sort of thing for real.

Yeah it does. Its sick ****.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Shake, check your PMs

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
you mean someone is finally starting to figure this out? Atleast we're seeking to find out who is responsible and punish them..... No kidding! Just look at what happened to Saddam for running his prisons like that! :eek:

[Christopher M]

Is the thesis sincerely being entertained by people here that US rule is less desirable than Saddam's rule?

[red5angel]

MK and Kung Lek, maybe a few others are on the anti US bandwagon. To be exact it's mostly an anti Bush thing but either way, the US is in it for good or ill, and I think quite a few Iraqi, regardless of prison pictures and innocent civilians killed in battle, would probably agree. Of course it's easy to accuse the US of doing al the wrong things when you don't have to go to bed every night worrying that you may not wake up because you pushed your lack of freedom of speech rights. It's easy to point fingers when you have the freedom too ;)

[Chang Style Novice]

My thesis, at least, is that there isn't any real US rule. There's barely contained Hobbesian anarchy, which might just be worse than SH's reign of terror, and the US is being blamed for the anarchy, and that it might be fair to do so, if you consider George Bush's foreign policy to = the USA.

[CaptinPickAxe]

My beef is with Jeb. I support our troops compelely and always will as long as they are at war. Its the true patriotic thing to do, not blindly follow an idiot.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Is the thesis sincerely being entertained by people here that US rule is less desirable than Saddam's rule? What I am proposing is that it is hypocritical to torture prisoners when you invade a country, in part, based on their history of torturing prisoners.


Of course it's easy to accuse the US of doing al the wrong things when you don't have to go to bed every night worrying that you may not wake up because you pushed your lack of freedom of speech rights. It's easy to point fingers when you have the freedom too Who can sleep when your govenrment is constantly trying to agitate your fear with Terror Alerts, color charts, and announcements of vague threats of attacks? Keep us afraid and we'll shuffle step in line! That's good policy.

This just in......Someone might blow something up today. Now, get back to shopping!

[red5angel]

MK - don't you think it's a tad different? Barring interrogation, a necessary evil, we're holding the people who did this responsible. In Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, this sort of thing was the norm, not the exception.


Like I said MK, easy to make accusation sin a country that allows you too. When you have spent a few years in a country like Iraq during Saddams reign, then I'll take your opinion on it seriously ;)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
What I am proposing is that it is hypocritical to torture prisoners when you invade a country, in part, based on their history of torturing prisoners.

Regarding the question of humanitarian issues in Iraq, I sincerely don't care about the political advantage or disadvantage America has - I only care about the humanitarian state in Iraq. If Iraq's humanitarian issues are improving - this is what I support. If this makes America good or bad, hypocritical or consistent - I could care less.

I'm really not sure why so people are so worried about how Americans look and what Americans motivations are here. Maybe that's easier for me to say since I'm not an American, but there you have it. "Americans look [whatever] in Iraq" just doesn't matter next to "Iraqis live [however] in Iraq."

Looking at it this way, it's a no-brainer: they're better off now.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by red5angel
Like I said MK, easy to make accusation sin a country that allows you too. When you have spent a few years in a country like Iraq during Saddams reign, then I'll take your opinion on it seriously ;) :rolleyes: Since when does your opinion on anything bear this burden of proof?

[jun_erh]

they were getting information that was being used to save peoples lives. who cares if these scum were humiliated. I hate militant islam worse than saddam

[red5angel]

Since when does your opinion on anything bear this burden of proof?

because A - I've been there, and because B - I'm smart enough to not let politics cloud my humanitarian view on the world. Whle you and Kung Lek are railing on about the political side of things, the rest of us are concerned. like Christopher M. said, about the humanitarian side. I'm ok with us being there in Iraq, because in the end, I know the Iraqis get a better place to live in, period.

[CaptinPickAxe]

they were getting information that was being used to save peoples lives. who cares if these scum were humiliated. I hate militant islam worse than saddam

Not all the prisoners where militants. Some where civilians under suspision.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by red5angel
MK - don't you think it's a tad different? Barring interrogation, a necessary evil,

It isn't a "necessary evil". It's a very unreliable method of information gathering, and it's against the Geneva Convention (which the United States signed, as a nation, and bound itself to uphold and follow).

[red5angel]

we disagree Fatherdog. and it's soemtimes far more efficient then you might believe.

[Vash]

FatherDog is correct. The torture is wrong. PERIOD. We shouldn't do it. It's against what we stand for. Or, at least one of the things we stand for.

For better or worse, even the worst actions of our soldiers is a direct reflection on the entirety of our society. Because they have sinned, we are sinners.

There is nothing good coming out of this, not for one hell of a long time, at least.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by red5angel
we disagree Fatherdog. and it's soemtimes far more efficient then you might believe.

So, just so I have this straight, you are perfectly fine with the US violating the Geneva Convention and countless signed international treaties, torturing prisoners, and committing war crimes, as long as it might lead to information about terrorists?

[David Jamieson]

the rest of us are concerned. like Christopher M. said, about the humanitarian side.

that's rich coming from a guy who not so long ago was "railing" for a nuclear strike on Iraq. :rolleyes:

yeesh

politics shmolitics. I don't care for the bush admin to be sure. I think they're a bunch of hawkish greedy failed statesmen. But then, I'm certainly not the only one.

all politics aside, What is happening is pure hypocrisy of teh highest order. If according to the -remarks- posted by Chris M several times already, the US is on teh higher ground ethically and morally here, then what is going on? Why is there this demonstrated lack of ethics and morals being practiced in country?

Why am I seeing attrocities of any kind whatsoever coming from the American and British forces there?

Why is the sh.it rolling downhill on this as well? It is always the commander that is responsible for the actions of each and every single one of his soldiers. And yet, we don't see commanders being charged with this stuff, we see a whole lot of buck passing going on and an extended indefinitely occupation of a country that is only falling further and further into lawlessness and anarchy thanks to the poor management of the post war effort.

If it smells like crap, and it looks like crap, then it's probably crap.

Man, there are so many coats of whitewash on the Bush admins record to date it's hard to tell if there ever was any sembelance of sane politics in that pile at all.

Anyway, once again, just saying. lol. I love how some of you guys keep throwing my name into your responses as if my position is whacko or something. Well dudes, the pictures and evidence of American and British wrong doings just keep piling up.

I wonder how long you can keep justifying this crap by sticking your fingers in yoru ears, singing loudly "lalalalalalalalalala" and ignoring the facts.

Makes you all look like ya got way more egg on your faces than i ever had...just for the record.

regards

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
If..the US is on teh higher ground ethically and morally here, then what is going on?... Why am I seeing attrocities of any kind whatsoever coming from the American and British forces there?

Because the US is on higher ground, not perfect ground.

[Chang Style Novice]

Even if the US forces behaved with perfect decorum and respect in Iraq, they'd still be viewed with great suspicion at best by the Iraqi people. The US invaded and occupied their country. No matter how much of a ******* Hussein was, at least he was their *******. Well, some of their *******, anyway. Kurds and Shiites (or is it Sunnis - I can't find my scorecard) are likely to be less nationalistic.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Because the US is on higher ground, not perfect ground.

Oh, well, as long as we're slightly better than Saddam, all that torture and war crimes stuff is fine, then. Good to know.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by FatherDog
Oh, well, as long as we're slightly better than Saddam, all that torture and war crimes stuff is fine, then.

You think so?

I don't, and I never suggested otherwise.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
No matter how much of a ******* Hussein was, at least he was their *******. Well, some of their *******, anyway. Kurds and Shiites (or is it Sunnis - I can't find my scorecard) are likely to be less nationalistic.

Kurds are 15-20% and Shiites are 60-65% of Iraq. You've already recognized that Saddam wasn't their guy, and hence not the popular Iraq 'guy' - and you may recall that both Kurds and Shiites actively rose up to seize Iraq back from Saddam (at least once under the mistaken belief they had American liberators coming up to relieve them). Even if every Sunni opposed so-called liberation, it would still be a minority opinion - and, of course, this isn't even the case.

[David Jamieson]

Because the US is on higher ground, not perfect ground.

ah, lol. Now I get it.

What a lovely bunch of bananas.

I can't change your minds, nor do I want to. You guys are likely gonna hold to your views that the US is right in it's position regardless of the fact that the rest of the world does not support the incursion and invasion and occupation of iraq.

I guess the rest of the world, i.e the other 5 billion + members oif the planet just are a bunch of dirt eating ignoramuses and we're all next if we don't stop criticizing the actions of the US and Britain.

Again, i would say that even the ancient egyptians coined a word for this mindset. It is "Hubris"

hu·bris ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hybrs) also hy·bris (h-)
n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: “There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris”

This is teh most fitting word for the Current administrations stance and the trappings of it's ill formed foreign policies. INcluding Iraq.

So, anybody got a game plane for Iraq? Or is the occupation and emplacement of yet another puppet regime gonna be enough ya think? Ya think that any government the US or Britain installs there is gonna be taken seriously by the people of Iraq after the last gunman leaves?

Here's what I see, a continued occupation. Continued oppression and continued meddling in the middle east until somehow miraculously the west comes up with a better form of energy than fossil fuel products.

But so long as there continues to be oilmen and former oil men in the houses of power you can bet that ain't gonna happen.

How much you guys paying for gas down there now? Anyone convinced there is actually a shortage of the stuff or who thinks it's just more gouging taking advantage of the current situation.

According to the Saudis, there is enough on the market that these price hikes are not justified. The same is coming from Venezuela. These are two of teh largest suppliers on the planet.

What's the solution in my view? Well, first complete nuclear disarmament worldwide.

second and complete withdrawal from the middle east by all foreign armies.

Third, actually get some diplomatic talks going to stabilize governmenmt relations between the countries.

Fourth, with the normalized relations between countries, let the trade begin between them.

Fifth, a little acceptance of cultural relativity instead of all this god bless nonsense that we are currently having to listen to endlessly.

I've never seen a larger group of godless criminal on both sides who continually use references to the invisible superhero in the sky. Bush included!

Terrorism doesn't exist because of jealousy, it exists as an act of desperation carried out by desperate people in desperate times.

Why are they desperate? Figure it out for yourself, it's quite apparent to anyone with an ounce of reason in their heads.

regards

[Chang Style Novice]

However, we're occupying Shiite and Kurd territory as much as we are Sunni. We're every bit the invading oppressor there. Resentment is inevitably going to fester.

I don't like GWB, but I sure as sh!t would fight any way I could against any foreign army coming in to occupy the US.

[jun_erh]

the kurds love us as do many more normal shia. The less into mullahs and islam they are the more they like us.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
Resentment is inevitably going to fester.

Yup, it's a-festering. Supporting the so-called liberation in general is not the same as supporting everything the Americans are doing.

[CaptinPickAxe]

I've never seen a larger group of godless criminal on both sides who continually use references to the invisible superhero in the sky. Bush included!

The funny thing is...

State and Religion are supposed to be seperate. Thats why thier is a big hubub about gay marrages. It goes against God's word. They can't say that though so its "Its against pro-creation"...as if we didn't have enough fuks on this planet.

[old jong]

On one side ,we have the ones who always want to be considered as the "good guys"...They are overthere to "liberate" and build a "better world". They use torture in their military prisons as all militaries in the world in the same context have done before in all wars but,they don't like when it goes public.They have their good name to protect,after all.

On the other side,we have the ones who absolutely don't care about the world's opinions.They are there to do the most damage possible to the ennemy and will use any means to achieve their goals.They will kill an innocent and mediatise the murder on the internet as a revenge for the others actions but in reality it is a propagande weapon to get at the ennemy nation's moral.
The more actions,the more reactions,going both ways.

The instant the americans leave,a new "Saddam" will rise.There is no way Irak will become a forced democracy.

The only way to win in such a war is to hold shares in the weapon industry....Or oil!...

[CaptinPickAxe]

I agree with Jong. When we leave another dictator will arise. Maybe in good standing with the US seeing how chances are we'll have say in that. However, a dictator nonetheless.

[Christopher M]

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

The baathists hold power as a minority, so any semblance of democracy isn't likely to elect them. However, it may be likely to elect a semi-theocracy.

This is the complication - is a semi-theocracy (the inevitable product of democracy) better than baathism?

[ZIM]

Is the issue for your pessimism that Arabic society encourages dictators or that we will be somehow "forcing" a dictator upon them?

Note to R5A: How's about a Southern Sudan base next? ;) Break up that cr@p, watch the Left *try* to twist it into something else...? :D

[CaptinPickAxe]

When we leave its up to Iraq. I almost gaurentee that the people will not have another Iraq. I can foresee a militant faction violently taking the power. Either that or our elected leader will defect with time.

Thats my take on the Dictator issue. Not so much Muslims wanting dictators or us forcing a dictator upon them.

[ZIM]

Right...good reason for the Southern Sudan base. It's "strateejury", don'tcha know?

[rubthebuddha]

lots of good info, and honestly, with the exception of the mutants over at table nine, most of you are right. what is important is fixing iraq. did we break some of it? yup. did saddam break some of it? yup. are iraqis still breaking some of it themselves? yup. but broken stuff doesn't function well if it's not fixed -- basic definition. as chris said, what really matters is fixing iraq, period.

as far as what red says, i agree (fence sitter my ass :D) -- whether or not we were right in anything we did in the past, the worst thing we can do is say, "my bad. guess i was wrong. scuse me while i leave and let iraq clean up this mess itself." regardless of motivations, regardless of whether or not we were right to invade in the first place, if we leave now, i can't see anything good coming of it. if we stay, things can get better. if we stay and we invite the UN, things can get better AND we'll have some flavor of international support (to what degree, who knows ...). if we leave iraq to its own devices, chances are good that it will crumble under its own unsupported weight. leaving now would be comparable to kidnapping a rich man, kick his ass cold, then depositing him un-robbed in a detroit back alley at around 2 a.m.

[ZIM]

One problem: the UN doesn't want the job.

[red5angel]

So, just so I have this straight, you are perfectly fine with the US violating the Geneva Convention and countless signed international treaties, torturing prisoners, and committing war crimes, as long as it might lead to information about terrorists?

That's right, Fatherdog, blow it out of proportion, while we're at it, do your tits hurt? Is it just that time of month. Sorry man, I was never invited to your utopian society. My world involves a lot of things that suck but are necessary for survival. When you get the chance, ask the tiger or the bear if he rather go vegan ;)

[ZIM]

Fresh from Al-Reuters:

Hizballah is shocked, shocked I tell you, by the beheading of Berg


"Hizbollah condemns this horrible act that has done very great harm to Islam and Muslims by this group that claims affiliation to the religion of mercy, compassion and humane principles," the Shi'ite Muslim group said in a statement. But only because it draws attention away from the Seething Arab Street and obscures the connection to the Joooooos....

"The timing of this act that overshadowed the scandal over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in occupation forces prisons is suspect timing that aims to serve the American administration and occupation forces in Iraq and present excuses and pretexts for their inhumane practices against Iraqi detainees."

The Syrian-backed group which the United States deems "terrorist" said the executors' behavior was closer to "the Pentagon school -- the school of killing and occupation and crimes and torture and immoral practices that were exposed by the great scandal in occupation prisons."
It's clipped, but they went on to say that it was "un-Islamic" to do this, so they just- gosh darn it- couldn't have been Moslem. So the FBI did it. link one (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20040512_438.html)

link two (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4FFA61A3-9C33-4597-A8D9-8079E91F2784.htm)

If I can find the full statement again, I'll post it here.

[Chang Style Novice]

Seriously, though; when you've got HEZBOLLAH, fer Pete's sake, looking like moderates you got serious problems.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
When we leave its up to Iraq.

You figure yer leavin', huh? ;)

[CaptinPickAxe]

On the al-jazzerh website, it says that berg may have been killed earlier then beheaded. Those who have seen the video, do you think this is possible? or do you think drugging can be accounted for his calm demeanor?

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by red5angel


That's right, Fatherdog, blow it out of proportion, while we're at it, do your tits hurt?

I'm not blowing anything out of proportion; I'm stating facts. The actions of the US troops in Abu Ghraib were against the Geneva convention and fall under internationally agreed upon (by the United States, among other nations) definitions of torture and war crimes.

You appear to be saying that you are okay with this as long as it might get us information. Is this, in fact, your position?

[GeneChing]

Had to delete that link. It was too much for the bosses (not to mention the explicit porn ads surrounding the video). We appreciate your desire to discuss this subject, but let's keep it clean, can we? If you need to see the decapition video itself, I'm sure you can find it on the net (or just PM Meat Shake for the link).

[rogue]

Hey Gene, It still seems to be linked to some weird porn site!

I think the video is good for the "world is all kittens and candy canes" crowd to watch over and over until they finally get that evil exists.


After the statement, the assailant directly behind Berg takes a large knife from under his clothing while another pulls Berg onto his side. The tape shows assailants thrusting the knife through his neck. A scream sounds before the men cut Berg's head off, repeatedly shouting "Allahu Akbar!" - or "God is great." I've seen the video, but it's the sounds of his murder that are sticking with me. Those two legged piles of subhuman **** yelling God is great while butchering a guy trussed up like a ****in turkey. Bergs screams. Watching it does take a part of your civilized self and replaces it with something else. The something else being different in each person.


Terrorism doesn't exist because of jealousy, it exists as an act of desperation carried out by desperate people in desperate times. Sorry KL, I'm one dumb son of a *****, but you've got me beat. You really don't know what you're talking about. Maybe I just don't get it because I have two ounces of reason in my old thick skull. :(

[David Jamieson]

Sorry KL, I'm one dumb son of a *****, but you've got me beat. You really don't know what you're talking about. Maybe I just don't get it because I have two ounces of reason in my old thick skull.

My point is rogue, that most everything is cause and effect.

Do you think that people just do these thinmgs for the hell of it? Or do you think it is endless acts of retaliation for actions real or perceived?

Also. where and when did it start and who took the first action?

I don't recall arabs coming to the west and meddling with the affairs, governments or societies here. That's what I'm saying.

So, if in your eyes, or anyone else's that makes me "dumb" then I can live with that. Hell I guess I have to live with all the lies and deception anyway. It's not like it hasn't been going on all my life anyway.

I fear the day I become loathing of humanity. It sickens me to think of all the people in the world frothing at the mouth with vengeance, spewing scripture and not practicing their religion and instead using it as a stone on which to whet their barbnarian swords. THis applies as much to any western lip service christian as it does to the jew of the same game or the muslim, or the hindu or anyone else who warps and misrepresents what are otherwise good teachings on how to live ones life.

might is not right, and to use the powers that one has in an irresponsible manner to force change in someone who they regard as doing the same is in and of itself wrong and I would even venture to say outright evil.

the good in teh world is slipping away and it makes me sad. It's not about us and them, it's just about us, all of us as human beings. We are doing and allowing to be done what is wrong. While I understand hate, I do abhor it and I do not think that cultuarlly relative logic games belong in the mix.

the end

regards

[rogue]

I don't recall arabs coming to the west and meddling with the affairs, governments or societies here. That's what I'm saying.:eek: KL, really that is the silliest thing you've ever said. Let's see there was WTC 93 and 2001, the Pentagon, the gun battles in France. Possibly the assasination of that anti-muslim Dutch politician. If we include Islam in general we also have Islam invades Spain in 711 driven out in 1492, 732 Battle of Tours, that's in France. Not to mention capturing the Holy Land which wasn't muslim at the time. Toss in Constantinople for luck. It's all a power play to these guys to make the world in their image.

[David Jamieson]

rogue-

these things you have listed are acts as retaliation.

go back further. take a look at what our western leaders have been doing in the middle east many years and many incidences before these actions.

no one has responded as to "why" these attacks were made and "how" they were connected to foreign policy in the middle east.

it is not correct to surmise that things such as teh wtc were first strikes. THey weren't. There weren't right and they are not justified but they are not to be so easliy explained away and I don't think america and teh west in general are such a large group of innocents as you would portray them to be.

our socioties have commited as many if not more attrocities in the arab world than they can ever hope to commit here.

death toll vs death toll of innocents, the west beats the arabs hands down. we have consistently taken more of tehir lives than they could ever hope to take of ours in any act of vengeance for our affairs and business actions in their lands near their holy places were we to this day keep a standing foreign army.

all you have to think about is what if there was an arab army standing guard over the orange trees of florida were they worth as much as oil.

Is it really that hard to put the shoe on the other foot for one minute and think about the fit?

Don't be short sighted or forgetful in your accounting of events. Look at teh root of the problem, not the symptoms.

regards

[red5angel]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1906


this link will probably give Kung Lek a heart attack but another forum member sent it to me and I think it's an awesome plan.



our socioties have commited as many if not more attrocities in the arab world than they can ever hope to commit here.

Kung Lek, did someone drop you on your head, alot, and constantly? You really are just freakin dumb as a rock.

[David Jamieson]

well red5, i find it funny that you accuse me of posting conspiracy links and such, and then you do the same thing yourself.

:rolleyes:

whatever fellas, I'm for peace, I think the solution is for the west to get out of teh middle east and to normalize diplomatic and trade relations with those countries once they have established their own systems and infrastructures.

by all appearances, you seem to be backing a modern crusade.

and rogue, I'm surprised you would bring up an invasion from more than a thousand years ago. By your opwn logic, the US is guilty off genocide in it's own borders with the systematic destruction of the native peoples over more than one hundred years, not to mention the slavery and oppression of the blacks that still continues in some shapes and forms today by allowing aryan nations and kkk to function as legitimate organizations in your country.

anyway, I obviously am not going to be able to help you guys understand rudimentary right from wrong, and I am not supporting the arab peoples who lash out and attack either.

My stance is that it is all wrong and if western civilization is on higher ground morally and ethically, it sure hasn't done much in its efforts to prove that.

there is no difference between one barbarian or another. how is this fight gonna get broken up if the west continues the antagonization of the middle east as it has been doing and is doing for so long?

regards

p.s, I would add that by your postulations that calling me dumb is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[red5angel]

well red5, i find it funny that you accuse me of posting conspiracy links and such, and then you do the same thing yourself.

Why are you so obtuse Kung Lek? If you'll look at that page again, you'll see it's an opinion page, not a freakin conspiracy page.


I'm curious here Kung Lek, since you've never really answered this question, too busy railing against bush to say anything intelligent I suppose, but what would you have the world do?

[wdl]

Hello, why on earth I picked this as my first post I have no idea. I've lurked around here for a few months.

Alot of good views on the subject here, most right a few wrong. I think the biggest thing missing is a lack of historical context in relation to the USA and the Muslims. This is going to get lengthy.. but I'm going to post a few pages from David McCullough's biography of John Adams(The time frame is end of 1785 beginning of 1786. John Adams was ambassador to London and Thomas Jefferson was ambassador to Paris, they wrote letters to each other regularly):



Increasingly their time and correspondence was taken up over American shipping in the Mediterranean and demands for tribute made by the Barbary Staes of North Africa-Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco. To insure their Mediterranean trade against attacks by the "Barbary Pirates" the nations of Europe customarily made huge cash payments. It was extortion and an accepted part of the cost of commerce in that part of the world. France paid $200,000 annually a year to Algiers alone; Britain paid even more, as much as $280,000 annually. In past years, before the revolution, when American trade in the Mediterranean flourished, American ships had come under the protection paid for by the British. Nor would France now foot the cost of guaranteeing respect for the American flag off the shores of North Africa. Tribute(bribes) would have to be paid and it would cost the United States dearly, Vergennes had advised Adams earlier; otherwise, there would be no peace with the Barbary States.

Just weeks after Adams arrived in London, in July 1785, two American ships were siezed by Algerian pirates. Twenty-one American sailors were taken captive and forced into slave labor. News spread that Benjamin Franklin, en-route from France to Philadelphia, had been captured, and though untrue, the story caused a sensation.

From Philadelphia, John Jay sent instructions to negotiate with the Barbary States. Funds were made available by Congress up to $80,000. But Adams and Jefferson had no money on hand. When Jefferson inquired whether Adams might borrow again from the Dutch, and reported that French officers in Paris were angry over not having been paid what they were due for services in the Revolution, Adams was helpless to do anything. It was not all certain, he answered, that there would be funds sufficient even to cover "your subsistence and mine."

On a chill evening in February came what Adams took to be an opening. At the end of a round of ambassadorial "visits," he stopped to pay his respects to a new member of the diplomatic corps in London, His Excellency Abdrahaman, envoy of the Sultan of Tripoli. It was apparently a spur-of-the-moment decision on Adam's part and resulted in amazing smoked-filled exchange that Adams, delighted by the humor of the scene, happily recounted for Jefferson.

Adams and his host settled into two large chairs before a great fire, while a pair of factotums stood by at attention. As His Excellency Abdrahaman spoke no English, they got by on scraps of Italian and French. His Excllency wished to know about American tobacco. That grown in Tripoli was far too strong, the American much better, he said, as two immensely long pipe were brought in, ceremoniously filled, and lighted.

The conversation turned to business. Amercian was a great nation, declared His Excellency, but unfortunately a state of war existed between America and Tripoli. Adams questioned how that could be, given there had been on injury, insult, or provocation on either side. The Barbary States were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean all the same, he was told, and without a treaty of peace there could be no peace between Tropoli and America. His Excellency was prepared to arrange such a treaty.

Two days later, at the stroke of noon, His Excellency appeared at Grosvenor Square, flanked by servants in orange robes and turbans. Time was critical, Adams was informed. The sooner peace was made between America and the Barbary States the better. Were a treaty delayed, it would be more difficult to make. A war Christian and Christian was mild, prisoners were treated with humanity; but, warned His Excllency, a war between Muslim and Christian could be horrible.

The man was either a consummate politician or truly benevolent and wise-Adams could not tell which-andthough apprehensive that the sums demanded would be exorbitant, he felt there was no time to loose. He dispatched Colonel Smith to Paris with a letter urging Jefferson to come as quickly as possible. His visit, Adams suggested, could be attributated to his desire to see England and pay his respects at Court.

Jefferson arrived on March 11, 1786, to find London brightened by a light dusting of snow. At a meeting with His Excellency, Adams and Jefferson were told that peace with Tripoli would cost 30,000 guineas for his employers, as His Excellency put it, plus 3,000 pounds sterling for himself. Payments were to be in cash on delivery of the treaty signed by his sovereign. The two Americans protested that the figure was too high. His Excellency assured them it was his lowest price and allowed that peace from all Barbary States might cost from 200,000 to 300,000 guineas. They could only refer the matter to Congress, Adams and Jefferson replied, and the meeting ended.


Adams and Jefferson both started urging the Congress to fund the construction of a Navy. Something that would take an amount of time, nearly until Jefferson himself was president and the US Marines procured the phrase "To the shores of Tripoli" under his tenure. However, until a navy was built, tribute was paid out to various Barbary states to "buy" time, literally. Between kidnapping of US soldiers, citizens and our tax dollars war was unavoidable by the early 1800s and Thomas Jefferson's term in office.

Later in 1786 in a letter to Jefferson, Adams said: "We ought not fight them at all, unless we determine to fight them forever." Jefferson agreed with him. The young country could not afford to pay bribes for safe passage of our shipping in and out of the Mediterranean, we defeated them soundly and no longer subjected our merchants to pirate attacks and our tax payers to extortion. However Adam's words are frightfully true, he understood his enemy, will we have to fight them forever?



-Will

[red5angel]

will we have to fight them forever?

as time moves on, our world view changes and things begin to change, most often for the better. As we are exposed to new cultures, our view and opinions on these cultures change in general. As more and more cultures become part of the whole in one way or another, people become slightly more tolerant, and that's a start.
In countries where religion still dominates as the guiding force behind tyrannical rule, it's people are kept dumb, a standard strategy for one who fears his or her evil will be realised and they will be overthrown. That fear, enforced ignorance, with the backing of religion, will not allow people in some areas of the world to move past a barbaric and antiquated state of mind. Until such time as those people are free to explore the world in their own way, we will have to fight them.

[David Jamieson]

red5-

i guess you aren't reading my posts or something, because i have answered your question regarding "what would i have the world do"

forst of all, the world was doing what needed to be done.

the US and Britain acted unilaterally against the rules of the UN and it's member nations.

The UN has a purpose and to minimize it and alientae the members as the political moves of the Bush administration has done is shameful.

Now, the US is in a firestorm and will need to work very hard indeed to get back any credibility with the rest of teh member nations.

Just go back and read my post from the first page of this thread red 5 and you'll see that I have presented part of what i think is a viable solution to the situation in the middle east.

as for radical terrorist factions, yes they exist but that doesn't mean" attack iraq and they will be solved! That is a ridiculous assumption that has been shown to be riddled with deception and falsehoods on teh parts of bopth Bush and B;air and their administrations.

Iraq is not the source. They are everywhere and it is likely that teh best funded cells of Al Qaeda are inside the countries of Britain and teh US tehmselves as well as elsewhere.

If the Bush admin had not lied through it's teeth to the UN and had presented a plainer view of things with more forethought and better human intelligence gathering, I am certain that the rest of the world would have pitched in ala afghanistan.

But Iraq is an error, the sooner the US and Britain get out and the UN and it's member nations are allowed in to police and secure and normalize the country the better.

I do not think teh US should try to take on the role of global policeman either but instead should make attempts at better running it's diplomatic corps and improve it's trade relationships with other countries and stop putting huge debts on 3rd world countries through debtor nation policies that these countries will never be able to climb out of.

Of course there are more aspects to the solutions, but it starts with the end of aggressive war measures in other sovereign nations.

Better to get the CIA to get its act together and to start taking action on the head of the snake instead of picking away at the body. That prganization went down the tubes long ago and should probably be dismantled and get5 the secret service back into operations proper instead of just making them flunky treasury agents and bodyguards to the four year men.

regards

[ZIM]

The UN has a purpose alright, but its apparent the member nations have forgotten it in their zeal to profit from the world's tragedies.

Cutting the head off the snake, as you put it- what would you suggest? To you, it seems that you mean our country- and that I won't agree with. The terrorists are the "snake", not us.

In order to put them to bed, you'd have to engage in ssome pretty drastic measures. Kill their money, kill them, have a global cop of some sort, increase spying, etc. Or just nuke Mecca and be done with it, bomb their unis, kick out every single Muslim immigrant, etc.

Neither solution I'd like, nor would you, I'd wager.

Ultimately, the onus is on the so-called Moderate Muslims to take back their "religion of peace" from the radicals. They need, desperately, to fight them on doctrinal grounds, showing that terror is not commanded by holy writ. I don't see that happening.

Containment may be the only good interim solution. That, and encouraging democracies in the ME wherever possible. Muslim moves like the idea of using Sharia law for international law and recognition of Sudan on the UN human rights commission are to be shunned and fought at every step. Rewarding religious terror with tolerance is both weak and stupid.

[David Jamieson]

zim-

if you do a search through here, you might find a thread where i state moe or less that the reagan admin neutered the ability to really take care of business when it need to be taken care of by passing his anti assassination dilly.

If the US admin wanted to do it right, then the would have spec-oped saddam and not taken such a hard line on Chalabi just because he was not intheir pocket.

Now it looks like Chalabi is the man anyway. He appears to be the plan b new leader in iraq when all along he was in excile from Iraq and vocally anti Hussein even when the US was supporting Saddam.

But instead of making that imple hit on the head of the snake, we now see this extended fiasco that has cost literally thousands of lives and billions of US tax dollars. Ridiculous!

Better human intelligence to destroy terrorist cells-

Endorsed surgical strikes on leaders with clear intent and hostility if they cannot be swayed diplomatically. -

UN control of any reperation or police action against a sovereign nation to prevent hitlers etc etc. A good example would be North Korea, but, it would also be just as good an idea to get to the table with China and sort it out, after all, the north Koreans are in China's pocket afterall and China should take some of the responsibility with their bad dog running amok.

cheers

[ZIM]

Somehow, I think you're playing falsely. I'm sure that if the US were to run about assassinating leaders of sovereign nations, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs that we were attempting to enforce our will by playing dirty. Nice try, though.

This war with radical Islam started awhile back, during Carter, if you ask me. We hadn't pursued it, really, until now, precisely because it was "over there". Now it isn'tand the stakes are far higher. It can't be ignored.

The UN has no history of dealing with nascent "Hitlers" in an effective way without asking us to help and engaging in warfare [Kosovo, Bosnia, etc, for example]. If you're denying that the US should 'play cop', then lobby the UN to be more pro-active. Don't allow them to sit idly by and allow atrocities like Rwanda happen. [I say this fully knowing that we didn't either- its a stain on us, too]

Personally, I think the UN has had its chance and failed. The future for cooperation is in bodies like NATO and the WTO. That isn't to say I agree with all they do, just that I see them as more effective, having teeth to go with their barks.

Anyhow, like it or not, the world isn't just the war in Iraq, the UN and us. Iran will be attacked soon, almost guaranteed, and likely by Israel. That region blew up and somebody- I almost don't care who- better be there to straighten it out. It can be fast but uncertain [by war and democracy, now] or slow and certain [allowing the despots to gain power by massacres while we sit by]

[red5angel]

Don't allow them to sit idly by and allow atrocities like Rwanda happen. [I say this fully knowing that we didn't either- its a stain on us, too]Personally, I think the UN has had its chance and failed.

amen to that.

I'm curious ZIM, what makes you think that Israel will most likely attack Iran? The nuclear weapons program?

[ZIM]

Sorry- had a thunderstorm here so couldn't get back for a bit. :)

here's one indication for an Israeli strike (http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/05070000aaa02761.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=WORLDNEW&Type=News&Filter=World%20News)

The UN, BTW, is inspecting the Iranian nuclear program...but there's apparently two of them- one military, one civilian. I suppose I don't need to say which one the UN is looking into. ;) :rolleyes:

Useless!

Backstory: Iran has stated from the first that, should they get Nukes, they will *test* them on Israeli soil, not their own. Probably Tel Aviv. We, even Canada, would pre-emptively strike anybody who said/did that, so I can't fault them at all...

[red5angel]

That's something I didn't know was going down. Sounds like someone should hit them first.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
where and when did it start and who took the first action?
I don't recall arabs coming to the west and meddling with the affairs, governments or societies here.

Originally posted by rogue
If we include Islam in general we also have Islam invades Spain in 711 driven out in 1492, 732 Battle of Tours, that's in France. Not to mention capturing the Holy Land which wasn't muslim at the time. Toss in Constantinople for luck.

Originally posted by Kung Lek
these things you have listed are acts as retaliation.
Here's some reading on the events rogue alluded to: the battle of Tours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours), the great siege of Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Malta#The_Great_Siege), the battle of Vienna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna), the Moorish occupation of Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain#Al-Andalus_(8th-15th_centuries)), the Fall of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople), and the battle of Yarmuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmuk).


Originally posted by Kung Lek
So, if in your eyes, or anyone else's that makes me "dumb" then I can live with that.
It doesn't make you dumb, just ignorant - you simply don't know your history. On the other hand, willfully remaining ignorant to protect untenable opinions would make you dumb.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
death toll vs death toll of innocents, the west beats the arabs hands down.

Let's engage this claim critically. I maintain you have it backwards. In response, I will consider the event under discussion now: American occupation of Iraq. A liberal estimate (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) of the innocents killed by the west in this engagement is 10,994. On the other hand, a liberal estimate (http://www.krg.org/reference/halabja/index.asp) of the innocents killed by Saddam in a single day's activity in Halabja is 12,000. To be clear: there have been single days when Saddam killed more innocents than the Americans have throughout this entire engagement. That's an extraordinarily remarkable comparison - dramatically offering a refutation of your above claim.

[rogue]

How would Israel attack Iran? Wouldn't they have to fly over Iraq and contend with the Iraqi airforce and anti-aircraft fi.... Oh, never mind.



if you do a search through here, you might find a thread where i state moe or less that the reagan admin neutered the ability to really take care of business when it need to be taken care of by passing his anti assassination dilly. I believe that was Jerry Ford.


If the US admin wanted to do it right, then the would have spec-oped saddam and not taken such a hard line on Chalabi just because he was not intheir pocket. We did have that policy, the ******* was a hard target. Our best chance was when a large part of the Iraqi military revolted thinking we'd provide support. Guess who was our infamous leader that took a pass on it?


...not to mention the slavery and oppression of the blacks that still continues in some shapes and forms today by allowing aryan nations and kkk to function as legitimate organizations in your country. We have a funny thing called freedom of speech that protects likes of the KKK, but also radical Islamic groups, radical black groups and conspiracy fans. In Canada are you allowed to play on the radio what ever the public wants to hear even if it was 100% US content?
Also, let's guess who in the last 30 years has robbed and killed more blacks than the KKK and Aryan nation put together. Could it be black street gangs?


The UN has a purpose and to minimize it and alientae the members as the political moves of the Bush administration has done is shameful. Yes, the main purpose of the UN is to keep the high end hooker trade going, to double park and block fire hydrants, and to provide kick backs to their family members.

[Christopher M]

Food for thought - would Mr. Berg have been murdered had only the legitimate photographs of Al Gharib been distributed?

The propaganda battle is not a distraction during slow times at work, nor reducible to partisan politics; the meme war has flesh and blood casaulties. This is too high a cost for merely the narcissitic buzz and sense of community arising from moral indignation.

[ZIM]

ISLAMABAD - The Al-Qaeda terror network views Canada as a legitimate target because it is a "selfish" nation committing "terrorism" against Muslims around the world, an unofficial spokesman for jihadists waging holy war against the West said yesterday. link (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aed9d12f-689e-4725-b652-12d25afe4ebe)

[rogue]

Yeah, they'll hijack a zamboni and drive it into the penalty box at a Maple Leafs game.:D

[Christopher M]

France is on the list of top targets too.

Kind of throws a wrench in the "they're only responding to American foreign policy" theory.

[ZIM]

No schadenfreud on my part. I hope they'll be OK.

On edit:
Another gem in my daily news rummaging:
Kafka was a visionary, it seems (http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=16062)
The inventors of bureaucracy [the French! imagine that] seem to want to bury the EU under Red Tape so as to keep any other nation from having an upper hand over them...

One of the primary goals for the EU envisioned by a core group which has been pushing it the hardest is to Frenchify the rest of the continent by smothering it in just as much bureaucratic red tape as is currently hampering the French economy, so that no one else will have an advantage over France. from another site, this comment:
Monstrous in its hold upon us, the bureaucratic mind is sustained by the self-perpetuating mechanics of government and the claptrap of its own rhetoric. Marxist critics, in all their exotic colorations, have always taken, and will naturally continue to take, great care to avoid such an uncomfortable truth, for Marxists of all sorts (like the social insects generally) possess the bureaucratic mind and need political structure to provide them with security and self-definition. If Marxism is a substitute for religion, bureaucracy is its theology.

[ZIM]

TKD instructor becomes suicide bomber (http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=791966)

Staff and some pupils at the centre, on Rothay Road, Grimesthorpe, were heartbroken when the martial arts expert blew himself up in Iraq last November. :(
and more from Canada. (http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=1610978) :(

wotta sorry world this is....

[David Jamieson]

Chris-

You site a couple of battles from the so called dark ages? And then you call me ignorant and not knowing of history? wtf is wrong with you? Read a history book yourself and you will find that it is your own ignorance that is not sitting well here.

Basically while teh arabs were in a state of actual civilization, Europe was barely out of caves. It got it's first taste of civilization and was brought into the renaissance vis a vis the knowledge and teachings and science of Islam.

Please just read and don't pose your moronic post modern crusade reasoning in regards to this. And while you're at what a butcher saddam is, why don't you check w's standard on executions in the state of texas during his governorship. I think you're a bit thick, and you have indicated that several times. As for the others, I think it is a weakness they have to call others down when they are presented with facts.

Man, I am starting to think there is something in the water. YOu guys actually think that invasion and occupation is ok? YOu think it is better to kill off a few thousand innocents in revenge and to continue the cycle of violence? Why do you pose such nonsense. And then to go back to pre-crusades? WTF??

Look guys, essentially, I think you don't have a clue on what is going on in the outside world because you seem to pick and choose those things you want to listen to.

I have read teh Bush doctrine, I have read teh various articles and books by the neo-con puppet masters of Bush and his cronies.

I don't think it's right and you'll likely rebutt this in some inane hope that perhaps you can try and ridicule my point and therefore gain support for whatever it is you're attempting to support.

You guys like death and war? you sure seem to support it alot. One guy get's beheaded and you're all distracted from the BS that the bush admin is pushing? You seem to find a point to defend this nonsense on turning every corner.

Your arguments are fairly weak, and your attitudes are barbarian in scope when you speak of teh lives lost so that the might US can "save lives". Are you guys dumb? smoking pot? People are dying and for what? You think there is some ideology at play or is it all about driving bigger and bigger fords?

ya'll are messed up and without any logic.

whatever, retort as you will. YOu can't convince me that the right thing is being done or has been done. The US should get out of Iraq, the UN forces should be given full control and fix it up and basically the US should maybe re-ink some if not a great deal of it.s hegemonic foreign policies.

It's not to late to get back to the status and prestige and respect your nation had before this nut bar W took over your government.

toodles

[rogue]

I have read teh various articles and books by the neo-con puppet masters of Bush and his cronies.
Once again KL approaches the subject with a clear and open mind.:p


Montreal police arrest five in firebombing of Jewish school
Lies, lies lies!!! Such a thing could never happen in the peacenik paradise known as Canada!

[ZIM]

Basically while teh arabs were in a state of actual civilization, Europe was barely out of caves. It got it's first taste of civilization and was brought into the renaissance vis a vis the knowledge and teachings and science of Islam.
Their Jewish slaves preserved the knowledge of the Classical period. The muslims burned whole libraries, claiming that all knowledge was contained in the Koran.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Read a history book yourself and you will find that it is your own ignorance that is not sitting well here.

I've read 'a history book', which is why I am able to support my views with explicit references to historical events, rather than vague allegations that people who disagree with me are ignorant, as you offer here.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
Their Jewish slaves preserved the knowledge...

No, no, he's right: Moslem imperialism did bring the renaissance - had they never sacked Byzantium, the Greeks never would have had to flee to Italy with all their books! :p

Those books, of course, were all originally written by Moslems who travelled in time back to classical Greece - since the the west had no culture until their rediscovery, and thus couldn't have produced them. :D

[David Jamieson]

rogue-

yes, a library in a jewish school was burnt in montreal.
and there are even more anti jewish acts going on in canada such as the desecration of headstones throughout the Toronto area and people painting swastikas on jewish neighborhood doors.

The behaviours are reprehensible and carried out by cowardly punks in teh middle of the night. they are hardly of the scope of "terror" that the media would like them to be though I would think and suppose.

I think it is laughable that an american would point to one canadian incident or even two or three of this nature when the record of hate crimes in the USA outstrips canada at any level at any point in history by huge margins.

:rolleyes:

And yes, i did and do continue to read the books and articles written by the David Frums and Richard Perles and Mr Wolfowitz's of the world.

I do it because i do want to understand how and where and why they control policy making in the US government and what their reach is.

Frankly, I think the neo-cons are as far off base and out of touch with reality as any other fundamentalist religious group and I think it is dangerous for the Americans to let them have so much power over policy in the states.

You don't honestly think the US is doing well economically or politically with the rest of the world do you?

regards

[rogue]

I'll let the rest of the world get it's economic and political **** together before I worry what they think of my country. It is good to see your hatred for the US finally coming out. :p

[red5angel]

Basically while teh arabs were in a state of actual civilization


moron. Most of those countries are still in the state they were a few thousand years ago.


YOu guys actually think that invasion and occupation is ok?


When it's necessary, in this case it was necessary.


Look guys, essentially, I think you don't have a clue on what is going on in the outside world because you seem to pick and choose those things you want to listen to.


same old weak watered down argument Kung Lek? Same old pot stil calling the kettle black, jacka$$.


I have read teh Bush doctrine

I doubt it, interpretation sof those documents on conspiracy theory websites don't count KL. Sorry man, gotta get a real source.


You guys like death and war? you sure seem to support it alot

No, we're trying to stop it, not sitting on our asses reaping the benefits of our neighbors.


Your arguments are fairly weak

your' cracking me up! The only thing stopping Canada from reaping the whirlwind that is Islamic extremism is the US. Keep that in mind fukko.


ya'll are messed up and without any logic.

No, it's just we actually bother to think about what's going on in the world. Dion't mistake "not logical" with realistic here dumb a$$. That's what we are, realistic. See, sitting around waiting for the sh!t to happen isn't going to get anywhere, you should tell your prime minister that. Let him know he's almost as big a target as we are, it's just we're more proactive so until we've been taken out - never gonna happen by the way - Canada is free and clear. Your fukking welcome.


I've read 'a history book', which is why I am able to support my views with explicit references to historical events, rather than vague allegations that people who disagree with me are ignorant, as you offer here.

Kung Lek, pay close attention to this statement, cause it's been something everyone else has been trying to tell you.


You don't honestly think the US is doing well economically or politically with the rest of the world do you?

Economically we're as strong as we ever were. Politically who gives a crap. We're doing the things other people are afraid to do and allow them to look good and make us look bad. As long as we're getting the job done who cares what Canada thinks? Atleast we're doing something.

[red5angel]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4899904/


wadda ya think there KL? Did Bush order this assassination so he could stay in power longer in Iraq ;)

[Merryprankster]

The ignorance of Middle Eastern history on the part of some people is astounding. Re: state of civilization in the past Islamic world, I ask "Which Caliphate or Sultanate?"

On a slightly different note, I would like to point something out here. This is a hunch I came to in college, but have since had verified through my own research (which includes REAL books - many of them sitting on my shelf). It's nice to be right from time to time.

Islam is not just a religion. In contrast to both Judaism and Christianity, it is also a method for structuring society, economics and government. I recognize that in Christianity and Judaism, elements of religion seep into the structure of the state, but Judaism has survived throughout persecution PRECISELY because it is not socioeconomic-policitcal structure. In Christianity, there is a biblical bias towards separating church and state; not that they CAN'T mix, but more that the affairs of one are not necessarily the affairs of the other.

The head of state in Islam, however, is Allah. Government is bound by Sharia (however liberally or conservatively interpreted). Islam provides a social, economic and political structure. Muslim scholars often quote the following, which is frequently attributed to Muhammed himself, but may be derived from Iran (which lent its administrative practices and language to the Eastern part of the historically Islamic world after the fall of the Theocratic Zoroastrian Sasanid Empire):

"Islam and government are twin brothers. One cannot thrive without the other. Islam is the foundation and the government the guardian. What has no foundation, collapses; what has no guardian, perishes."

If that doesn't demonstrate how inextricably bound the two institutions are both in doctrine and tradition, I don't know what does.

Anyway this has a significant impact on how the Islamic world percieves what states look like and also on what the concept of religion MEANS.

[Merryprankster]

Oh, and Red, gotta disagree.... torture has long been demonstrated/regarded as an inaccurate way to obtain information. The tortured will tell you whatever they think you want to hear.

Secondly, torture is like the death penalty. You can't take it back. If you're wrong about who you're torturing, you can't just chalk it up to utilitarianism and go, oops, so sorry.

There are far better ways to reach our goals in Iraq than torture. I am NOT suggesting that torture is policy.

In fact, for all the cognitively challenged out there, I'd like to point out the difference between what these soldiers did and, say, Saddam Hussein's regime.

These soldiers were acting CONTRARY to policy and are being indicted. This is a poor sort of apology, and I understand that. However, this behavior is immoral and unjust and there are real repercussions in our system.

By contrast, these actions were POLICY in Iraq. Such behavior was commonplace, not isolated, and condoned by the regime.

Please don't let the door hit the moral equivallency argument on the ass on its way out.

[ZIM]

OT-
Looks like somebody found some WMDs (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040517/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sarin)


BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb containing deadly sarin nerve agent exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday. It was believed to be the first confirmed discovery of any of the banned weapons that the United States cited in making its case for the Iraq war.

In other news: Jeffrey Imm commented on the recent picket (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2004/05/290962.html) of Marks and Spencer, Oxford Street :

"The London Anarchists protested Mark and Spencer's Department Store, because one of the founders was Jewish, and because the department store is willing to do business with Israel. One of the protestors repeatedly shouted 'Heil Hitler'. The original report of the M&S Anarchist protest was edited to remove the text celebrating the killing of Israeli soldiers by Anarchists: 'heroic killing of 6 Zionist soldiers'" The links between the far left and the Islamic terrorists seem to be growing.

[Spark]

Anarchism isn't the far left

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
These soldiers were acting CONTRARY to policy and are being indicted. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

[red5angel]

The disaster that is the reconstruction of Iraq has been the key cause of the insurgency.

That article you posted is pretty much invalidated by thos statement masterkiller. The rebuilding of Iraq has hardly begun, yet there are people out there who would have you believe that it has "failed".



We’re getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world. We’re getting good stuff. But we’ve got more targets”—prisoners in Iraqi jails—“than people who can handle them.”

[David Jamieson]

rogue-

I don't "hate" the US. But I think your president is an idiot. :)

Red5-

interpret shminterpret, it's pretty much all on the table in it's over-zealous, neo conservative vestments of glorious idiocy.

here's a couple of links for ya, non conspiracy (because i know how those offend you so. :rolleyes: )

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020715&s=falk

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/frankjgaffneyjr/fg20010313.shtml

There is tons more out there dude. there is also a whole lot of criticism of the doctring that is being used to form policy and there is a lot of criticism for Bush the younger's apparent inability to think for himself and to allow the neocon chicken hawks run his mind for him.

regards

[MasterKiller]

Maybe you'll like this one better:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact


In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.


The military-intelligence officers have “encouraged and told us, ‘Great job,’ they were now getting positive results and information,” Frederick wrote. “CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI’s request.” At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. “His reply was ‘Don’t worry about it.’”

[BM2]

I recall reading that the Nazis used "I was only following orders" as their defense during their trials. They still were hung.
And didn't Kung Lek want all topics such as this one from being posted? What? I see that he is not only reading them but posting!

[scotty1]

"Looks like somebody found some WMDs "

Looks like somebody found ONE. :)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by scotty1
Looks like somebody found ONE. :)

The entire popular concern over WMDs is pure fantasy resulting from a misunderstanding. WMDs have been found consistently in Iraq every year, before, during, and after the war. The UN weapons inspectors were not looking for WMD which they suspected were there, but were verifying the quantities of WMD which were explicitly known and admitted to by the Iraqi administration. Another aspect of the fantasy is to imagine that the war was accomplished to find WMD; this is simply a falsehood.

These issues have been discussed here before. If you would like citations supporting any of these statements, let me know what standard would convince you of their accuracy so that I can accomodate you.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Not sure if Sarin prooves anything, it is very easy to produce and bassically can be done by anyone with a higher chemical education. Ricin is another easily produced baddy.

Heck, Aum Shinrikyo asked a few members who were University grads to produce it for them.

Plus, the process is widely available on the Net, get someone with a good chemical clearance to purchase the ingredients and you are set.
:D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
Not sure if Sarin prooves anything

Things don't count as WMD unless you need a doctorate to make them? Are people killed by sarin less dead than people killed by something more complex?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Christopher M

Things don't count as WMD unless you need a doctorate to make them? Are people killed by sarin less dead than people killed by something more complex?

Do YOU know when/where the Sarin in the Shell was produced??
I don't, neither does the military till the tests come back from the lab which is outside of Iraq.
Once the analysed the chemicals used, component mix and match it against existing samples than we can talk if it is part of Saddams WMD program or not.

Chemical field tests are not that reliable, and they need to be confirmed by PROPER lab tests.

Too many people jumped on the article and LOUDLY proclaimed we got now PROOF of Saddams WMD program. WE were never wrong, etc.

[scotty1]

These issues have been discussed here before. If you would like citations supporting any of these statements, let me know what standard would convince you of their accuracy so that I can accomodate you.

Don't get your knickers in a twist Chris, I was joking because Zim said WMD(S).

And they WERE a big thing in Britain, to try and sway opinion in favour of an invasion. But that's by the by...:)

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by Christopher M
WMDs have been found consistently in Iraq every year, before, during, and after the war. The UN weapons inspectors were not looking for WMD which they suspected were there, but were verifying the quantities of WMD which were explicitly known and admitted to by the Iraqi administration.

They were also supervising the destruction of them. Scott Ritter (who was head of the UN weapons inspection team) has testified that between 1991 and 1998 they verifably destroyed or put beyond use 90 to 95% of Iraqs known WMDs, and that the rest were unaccounted for- which is not to say that the Iraqis knew where they were either. Whilst its true that that the inspections came to an end in 1998, this was not because the regime threw them out (as Tony Blair lied on a TV interview) but because they were withdrawn by the UN after it emerged that they had been infiltrated by CIA and MOSSAD spies (who were demanding access to Saddams private residences thus increasing the risk to Saddam of assasination).

For pointing this out on numerous occassions in the run up to the invasion, Scott Ritter was subject to a blatant smear campaign designed to discredit his testimony in the eyes of the public, which centered around the claim that he was a peadophile.

Similarly former US ambassador Joseph Wilson established that suggestions by British intelligence that Iraq was trying to purchase Uranium from Niger were false and based on forged documents. Its now known that the Whitehouse were told that they were false 10 months before Bush's state of the union address in which he said, quote 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ' For pointing this out, the identity of Wilsons wife (a CIA operative) was leaked to the press-thus endangering her life as well as constituting a serious criminal offence.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by ZIM
The London Anarchists protested Mark and Spencer's Department Store, because one of the founders was Jewish, and because the department store is willing to do business with Israel.

Theres slightly more to it than that. M and S buys agricultural produce from the occupied territories grown on land which is illegally occupied by Zionist settlers, and then says on the packaging that it is produced in Israel.


Originally posted by ZIM
The links between the far left and the Islamic terrorists seem to be growing.

Okayyy. So anyone who utters a word of protest against Israeli abuses in the occupied territories is automatically by definition either an islamic terrorist, a nazi or a communist :rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
Do YOU know when/where the Sarin in the Shell was produced?

WMD only counts if its created in certain times and places? I wasn't aware of that one either.


Too many people jumped on the article and LOUDLY proclaimed we got now PROOF of Saddams WMD program.

As I noted previously, Saddam's WMD program was never in doubt - he admitted it himself, and the UN weapons inspectors were there verifying what he admitted. The converse is a complete misunderstanding.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Christopher M

WMD only counts if its created in certain times and places? I wasn't aware of that one either.


Show me where I said that "WMD" only count when they were created at certain places or times?
Reread my post I said that at the moment we CANNOT proove that the Sarin came from Sadam's WMD project, never said that it was different from any other CW/WMD.



As I noted previously, Saddam's WMD program was never in doubt - he admitted it himself, and the UN weapons inspectors were there verifying what he admitted. The converse is a complete misunderstanding.

Never said that it was any different, don't know where you read those things into peoples posts.

Sarin is a CW and can be used as a WMD, BUT Iraq + Sarin does not mean that the Sarin came from Saddams WMD project as the original poster was implying.

This is kinda like saying the following scenario:
My Wife was killed with rat-poison and because my neighbour has rat-poison he is the killer.

For all we know the Sarin in the Shell might come from Syria, Iran, Pakistan or wherever and I think the thought that the Iraqi insurgents got access to a free & fresh supply of Sarin is very scary indeed as the same supplier might offer them other things too.

[Christopher M]

We already know that Saddam created and used WMD; this isn't in dispute to begin with.

Following your example: this is like if your neighbour works for a rat poison manufacturer, killed everyone on your street with rat poison, had a basement filled with rat poison, and when someone finds a jar of rat poison in your neighbours house you say "There's no reason to believe this is my neighbours!"

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Christopher M
We already know that Saddam created and used WMD; this isn't in dispute to begin with.

Following your example: this is like if your neighbour works for a rat poison manufacturer, killed everyone on your street with rat poison, had a basement filled with rat poison, and when someone finds a jar of rat poison in your neighbours house you say "There's no reason to believe this is my neighbours!"

They still have to match the rat-poison to the one that was used to do the killings, which is STANDARD PROCEDURE in a criminal investigation.
Poisons don't match = no case, unless you got other evidence to proof that he did it.

Gotta go:
"The New Detectives: Case Studies in forensic Science" is on Discovery Channel, followed by "Medical Detectives". :D

[cerebus]

Heh, heh. Dude, check your food for rat poison! :D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey
They still have to match the rat-poison to the one that was used to do the killings, which is STANDARD PROCEDURE in a criminal investigation.

They're not conducting a criminal investigation. They already know Saddam killed people using WMD, this isn't under dispute.

[MasterKiller]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
For pointing this out, the identity of Wilsons wife (a CIA operative) was leaked to the press-thus endangering her life as well as constituting a serious criminal offence. Wilson's new book suggests that Cheney or his Chief of Staff are responsible for this act of treason. He says the White House keeps stone-walling the investigation.

[GroungJing]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
rogue-

these things you have listed are acts as retaliation.

go back further. take a look at what our western leaders have been doing in the middle east many years and many incidences before these actions.

no one has responded as to "why" these attacks were made and "how" they were connected to foreign policy in the middle east.

it is not correct to surmise that things such as teh wtc were first strikes. THey weren't. There weren't right and they are not justified but they are not to be so easliy explained away and I don't think america and teh west in general are such a large group of innocents as you would portray them to be.

our socioties have commited as many if not more attrocities in the arab world than they can ever hope to commit here.

death toll vs death toll of innocents, the west beats the arabs hands down. we have consistently taken more of tehir lives than they could ever hope to take of ours in any act of vengeance for our affairs and business actions in their lands near their holy places were we to this day keep a standing foreign army.

all you have to think about is what if there was an arab army standing guard over the orange trees of florida were they worth as much as oil.

Is it really that hard to put the shoe on the other foot for one minute and think about the fit?

Don't be short sighted or forgetful in your accounting of events. Look at teh root of the problem, not the symptoms.

regards

Kung lek

This is becoming a habit. I think this is the third time I’ve stated you might want to check your premise. Although your posts has some merit they are often extremely short sighted and selective.

It appears your still living in the land of Sept 10th the day before 9/11.

Let’s take this post for example

Kung lek
“ go back further. take a look at what our western leaders have been doing in the middle east many years and many incidences before these actions. Etc etc etc…”



Yes, your post is partially true (especially, if you have a selective memory or don’t know what your talking about) Iran’s first revolution against the Shaw was put down by General Schwarzkopf's dad working in the CIA in the 1950’s. Yes, the Shaw and his father where terrible dictators. Guy’s like you like to cite stuff like this and say, “see this is what I was talking about!” However in you short sightedness you forget where Iran is located (on the border of the USSR) your forget that the USSR had a long history of trying to assimilate Iran or other counties in that area (Take for example Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and finally Kazakhstan. (Some of these countries are still fighting against the former Soviet Union.) You forget that these countries played one side off of the other in order to gain. Same with Iraq

You like to forget that the cold war ever existed and you like to forget that there were no rules involved in the conflict. If you were educated then you would understand what Machiavelli meant by “effectual truth” or nice guys finish last especially when there are no rules. What was done was done in the name western security (your security as well as mine) You like to forget that for your Partisan beliefs!

That is the correct premise not yours. These people hate all outsiders not just the USA.

Let’s look at Israel for it is here that your assessment of American foreign policy clings to hope. First of all we had nothing to do with the legitimacy of the state of Israel, it was the United Nations that created this mess. Yes, we support Israel because they are (or were) our only allies in the region. What would you have us do? We certainly were not going to deal with inconsistent nations during the cold war. Jordan and Egypt are fast becoming our new allies and our policies towards Israel will probably change accordingly. (I cite American foreign policy towards Germany and Japan after the fall of the USSR as an example)

If we look closer at the Palestinian plight we find a nation of people who no one wanted. Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen etc…treated Palestinian refugees from multiple wars with contempt; they were starved and pushed into the desert by everyone. There is no great cry of injustice done to the Palestinians by any nation of Islam. It’s a myth (Yes, that doesn’t make it right)

With your selective memory or faulty Western Socialist Rousseau education, you seemed to forget that every country in contact with Islam and the Arab states have major crises on their hands. For example, India (Yes Pakistan is Muslim and it was a Muslim extremist that killed Gandhi, remember? Our odds of getting to Osama “I want to blow up your mama” Bin Ladin are next to nil, Pakistan is playing a game with us…this is clear just like all of them do……what’s not clear to you is that these countries are playing a game with Canada too!) How about Kazakhstan? How about Yugoslavia? Who do you think the Serbs where having a problem? How about the Philippians?
How about China?

The list goes on and on!!!!!

What should this tell you? What does the societies of these respected Islamic cultures tell you. Compare western human right and quality of living against theirs and ask your self what do the leaders of these Monarchies and Theocracies have to loose?
Don’t give me no Hegemonic USA sits on the top of all countries and exploits them crap either. There isn’t a legit economist that supports that socialist viewpoint!!!


Yet, this American administration takes a proactive approach and you want to cite faults like WMD’s and mistreatment of prisoners as proof of American colonialism!


Please…that’s pretty short cited.

Oh its all about then OIL I don't need to go into that do I?

Creating a democratic Iraq in the middle of these Monarchies and Theocracies is a pretty sane way of pulling the rest of the Arab nations into the modern age. To me it’s a pretty sound plan…. If you can come up with another plan that has merit I’m all ears……….

To use a reference from Plato “Your casting shadows on a wall” please stop it!

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Christopher M

They're not conducting a criminal investigation.


It might not be a criminal investigation, but they ARE investigating where the Sarin came from.
If you can't see why it is important to know where it came from ... :rolleyes:



They already know Saddam killed people using WMD, this isn't under dispute.

Check your record player, looks like your record is stuck.
Nobody is talking about what Saddam did with WMD's, stop kicking the dead horse it won't come alive by doing so.

Again the point is that the military NEEDS to know where the Sarin came from, not who did what some years ago.

Have fun, I am done here as you keep saying the same thing over and over and try to build strawman that you can attack.

[Christopher M]

I don't need to make a strawman, you're saying nothing all by yourself.

Recall: Zim posted on a WMD discovery, Scott1 criticized it saying only one was discovered (jokingly as it turns out), I criticized Scotts1's criticism, and you replied to that. My guess is you've completely failed to follow that line of discussion, and have been replying by reflex. In any case, I can't see where your point of contention is.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by GroungJing
Iran’s first revolution against the Shaw was put down by General Schwarzkopf's dad working in the CIA in the 1950’s. Yes, the Shaw and his father where terrible dictators.

So US gov's do support Brutal Dictators when it suits their foreign policy interests. Congratulations- Thats more than a lot of people will admit. BTW, prior to the Shah (not Shaw as in Shaw bros.) taking power in a CIA backed coup, Iran had a democratically elected leader named Mossadeq.


Originally posted by GroungJing
However in your short sightedness you forget where Iran is located (on the border of the USSR) your forget that the USSR had a long history of trying to assimilate Iran or other counties in that area (Take for example Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and finally Kazakhstan. (Some of these countries are still fighting against the former Soviet Union.) You forget that these countries played one side off of the other in order to gain. Same with Iraq.

Geographical proximity to the USSR does not explain many other US gov. foreign interventions, both covert and overt, following WW2.

For example:
- In Nicaraua: illegal and covert support for a terrorist army (the Contras) against a democratically elected leader (Ortega) and his party (the Sandanistas).

- In Indonesia: support for the Suharto regime whilst they attempted to systematically exterminate the inhabitants of East Timor.

- In Chile: Backing a milatry coup against the democratically elected Socialist leader (Allende) and putting a murderous dictator in his place (Pinochet) subsequently responsible for thousands of 'disappearences'.

Ergo it is entirely possible that this does not explain the reason for intervention in Iran either.


Originally posted by GroungJing
'You like to forget that the cold war ever existed and you like to forget that there were no rules involved in the conflict.'

You're right- there were no rules. The 4 million people dead in Indo China as a result of Amercian bombing from 1962 to 1972 can attest to that. As well as the children born today with birth defects as a result of US chemical (there's that word) warfare.


Originally posted by GroungJing
What was done was done in the name western security (your security as well as mine) You like to forget that for your Partisan beliefs!

On the contrary, declassified documents conclusively show that 'what was done was done' because of the threat of nationalisation (i.e. conversion to state ownership/management) of US owned/controlled Foreign assets by socialist governments and the precedent this would subsequently set if it were allowed to continue unchallenged. For example the nationalisation of the sugar and tobacco industries in Cuba. The nationalisation of the fruit industry in Guatamala. The Nationalisation of Oil in the middle east (including Iran) and Indonesia. The nationalisation of Key shipping routes in Panama. The nationalisation of the mining industries in Chile etc.

Its also worth noting for anyone who underestimates the geo political significance of Oil as a factor in foreign policy decision making what the post war US planning documents say about it. They describe it (middle eastern oil) as 'possibly the greatest material prize in human history' and a 'tremendous lever of world power'.


Originally posted by GroungJing
Don’t give me no Hegemonic USA sits on the top of all countries and exploits them crap either. There isn’t a legit economist that supports that socialist viewpoint!!!

On the contrary Joseph Stiglitz (sp?) a former head of the world bank has just written a book on this very subject.


Originally posted by GroungJing
[/B]Creating a democratic Iraq in the middle of these Monarchies and Theocracies is a pretty sane way of pulling the rest of the Arab nations into the modern age. To me it’s a pretty sound plan…. [/B]

Todays assasination would suggest otherwise.

[Merryprankster]

Nick,

I think the larger point is not geographic proximity to the USSR, but rather stemming the spread of Communism.

Containment was U.S. policy from the 1950's through the fall of the Soviet Union. And the U.S. was more than willing to support bad, corrupt and evil guys in high places as long as they served the containment policy.

[rogue]

- In Nicaraua: illegal and covert support for a terrorist army (the Contras) against a democratically elected leader (Ortega) and his party (the Sandanistas). Did Ortega win some kind of run-off election against Samoza that I missed? Sorry Nick the Sandies are money grabbing, power hungry, murderers just like Samoza. Elections in South and Central America are always suspect.

Using the phrase "illegal and covert support for a terrorist army " is funny as it describes the Sandies to a T. Oh well, one mans terrrorists is anothers freedom fighter.

[Spark]

Originally posted by rogue
Elections in South and Central America are always suspect.

Using the phrase "illegal and covert support for a terrorist army " is funny as it describes the Sandies to a T. Oh well, one mans terrrorists is anothers freedom fighter.

And why do you think elections in South and Central America are always suspect? Are you familiar with The School of the Americas? Nice quote at the end there ;)

[jun_erh]

from healing Iraq blog

Strange coincidence that the Nick Berg video was released almost simultaneously with the video of Palestinian ‘freedom fighters’ displaying the severed head of an Israeli soldier on a table. Al-Jazeera had the head blurred out, and the Nick Berg video was casually mentioned near the end of their news bulletin, and that was that. No extensive discussions with Arab ‘intelligentsia’ followed, no replaying of the video over and over again for days (as the Abu Ghraib images), no talk shows with enraged, fist shaking, name-calling Arab figures discussing the effect of these videos on the ‘image’ of the Islamic or Arab world. Just shame and guilty silence. Apparently, pictures of an American female soldier taunting a naked man with underwear on his head is much much more gruesome to Arabs. I guess not everyone is perfect.

So, to distance myself from the shameful hypocritical Arab and Muslim masses. I wish to denounce this barbaric act and the pathetic ideology that fueled it, to disown any person from my part of the world who would justify it, and to offer my sincere condolences and sympathy to the family and countrymen of Nicholas Berg.

And for Muslims, who are definitely going to say ‘this isn’t the real Islam’:

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.” Surat Mohammed:4

Grow up, and leave the 7th century.

Update:
Some angry readers have interpreted the above last statement as an attack against fellow Muslims. That was not what I had intended. I usually do my best to avoid theological debates on Islam for safety considerations but I’ll indulge them just this once. My purpose was to point out that Islam indeed excuses such barbaric acts. This is not the same as saying that all Muslims believe in such acts or commit them, moderate Muslims exist, but Islam is not moderate. Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists have not deviated from Islam, in fact all their practices are derived from the Quran and Hadith.

So yes, Islam is the problem here. Poverty, economic conditions, abuse by so called colonialism, and political frustration are not. Similar conditions elsewhere in the world have not prompted non-Muslims to commit suicide bombings or fly planes into towers. Islam, along with favourable cultural, tribal, and social values existing in the Arab world has prompted that drive. Islam and the Quran alone are the root cause.

The solution is not however to alienate all Muslims, or to expel them, or annihilate them. It is up to ‘moderate’ Muslims and their clerics to carefully examine their scriptures and to reform, the same way Jews and Christians did. The Quran is a book, and its tenets were appropriate for a certain era in history. Most of it does not apply today, so it is not ‘untouchable’. You either believe in the whole book, together with its violent verses, or you should stop claiming to be a consistent believer. You cannot select verses which appeal to your argument and ignore the rest.

How would you explain these, for instance:

“The just retribution for those who fight Allah and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the hereafter.” Surat Al-Ma’ida:33

“O believers, do not take Jews and Christians as allies, they are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them.” Surat Al-Ma’ida:51

I can go on and on, but I would rather not. I have intensively examined the Quran and Sunna, and I might have a few things that would scare some pious believers. Maybe, some other time, when I’m in a safer environment, I would devote a website or a book to the subject.

[rogue]

And why do you think elections in South and Central America are always suspect? Are you familiar with The School of the Americas? Nice quote at the end there
Hey Spark, ever wonder where the Sandies and other "freedom fighters" got their training? You think these clowns were naturals?

jun_erh, was the poster a Westernized Muslim?

[jun_erh]

he's an iraqi (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/)

[Spark]

Originally posted by rogue

Hey Spark, ever wonder where the Sandies and other "freedom fighters" got their training? You think these clowns were naturals?

jun_erh, was the poster a Westernized Muslim?

You should answer a question with an answer, not a question. When you do that, I'll reply to whatever you like.

[red5angel]

nice post there jun_erh, interesting blog too. Very interesting to see things through the eyes of someone who lives there.

[Merryprankster]

Oh well, one mans terrrorists is anothers freedom fighter.

That's because these people don't think well.

A freedom fighter is quite distinct from a terrorist. Freedom fighters strike legitimate opposition targets and try to avoid non-combatant, non-regime casualties.

Terrorists attempt to kill as many people as possible and disrupt lives/economy/etc, in an effort to (surprise) terrorise the populace into forcing policy changes.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

MP.

One quick question would you classify the ANC during the Apartheid era Freedom Fighters or Terrorists??

[quote]
Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) (Spear of the Nation) was the military wing of the African National Congress (ANC). Founded December 16, 1961, by the ANC and South African Communist Party (SACP) as the answer to the political, social and economical oppression against blacks by the South African Apartheid regime; future South African President Nelson Mandela was among its leaders. The MK carried out numerous bombings of military, industrial, civilian and infrastructural sites. Notable among these is the January 8, 1982 (to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the formation of the ANC), attack on the Koeberg nuclear power plant in Cape Town. Umkhonto we Sizwe was officially disbanded on August 1, 1990.

[Merryprankster]

Freedom Fighters. Note the following:


A strong element of moral restraint characterised MK's initial campaigns. This restraint was the product of the influence of two factors - the strong ethical ideals present within the Congress Alliance(11) and the realisation that the population had to be politically and psychologically prepared to support an armed struggle. The third distinguishing feature of MK was its non-racial ideology as reflected in the multi-racial and multi-ethnic nature of its echelons hierarchy and its rank-and-file membership. Unlike any other armed formation in South African history, MK was representative of South Africa's diverse population in both its institutional make-up and in its culture and traditions.

A further range of MK actions were witnessed in 1982, including a Special Operations attack on the Koeberg nuclear power plant outside Cape Town. Over a period of twelve hours, a series of explosions rocked the various security areas within the plant. In a further indication of MK's growing sophistication in the sphere of Special Operations, May 1983 saw a car bomb explode outside the HQ of both the South African Air Force and Military Intelligence in Pretoria. Extensive structural damage was caused to both military HQs, a number of military personnel were killed, but, also, a number of civilians were killed in the aftermath of the explosion. Whilst this operation clearly indicated MK's capacity to operate deep within the country's urban areas, it also reflected a shift away from symbolic military actions. As if to prepare people for this tactical shift, the ANC announced that it could not guarantee that civilians would not be injured in 'crossfire':(16)
'We further accepted that some civilians might be caught in the crossfire. Apartheid was definitely at war with our people and we understood that in a situation of war some casualties, though unintended, might be unavoidable. But we remained emphatic that we would not deliberately close on white civilians.'

Typical MK targets included pass offices (which issued passes to control blacks' movement), power infrastructure, police stations, military compounds and other non-civilian targets that were instruments of oppression.

Contrast this with Al Qaida, the RIRA, GSPC, Hamas, Hizballah, LTTE, ASG, IMU, DHKP/C, etc which intentionally conduct attacks designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in an effort to force policy change. There is no possible explanation for suicide bus bombings, train attacks, hospital explosions, church bombings, ferry sinkings, bank bombs etc, other than to cause casualties.

If you can't see the difference between acknowledging that civilians may die in your attacks against government instruments, and intentionally making an effort to kill as many people as you can, I can't help you.

'A' for effort though :D

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

MP.

I and many others do see them as Terrorists.
Considering that I was present when they killed civillians in the business district by placing Limpet mines in PUBLIC rubbish bins(sat in a pub eating lunch across the road as they went off).

The incident involved 2 bombs in the same lcoation timed to go off 3-minutes apart, just enough time for people to gather round and get the second blast.

There were many similar incidents during my stay in South Africa, not sure if they were reported internationally.

Maybe it is because of my experiences vs. just reading about the happenings.

[Merryprankster]

I really think you'd have to look at the totality of their actions to come to that determination.

Did they USUALLY do stuff like that? Or was this an exception to the rule?

If it was commonplace, and part of their modus, then I'd be perfectly willing to classify them as terrorists.

[Nick Forrer]

Merry/James,

You mentioned

'the RIRA'

Do you mean the real IRA? As opposed to just the IRA? I should say that one is a splinter group from the other- the former opposing the peace process the latter not. However in terms of tactics and targets both give coded warnings and both (Omagh aside) predominatantly attack infrastructure (like Hammersmith bridge- right near me), state symbols (like the BBC - I heard the bomb go off from where I live; or the big city banks) and politicians (as in the attempt to assasinate the Tory cabinet during their Brighton conference). I dont know whether on your definition that puts them down as freedom fighters or terrorists.

Also where would you put Timothy Mcveigh. I understand his was a 'political' target and that the 'collateral damage' was unintended. Does this make him a freedom fighter?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I really think you'd have to look at the totality of their actions to come to that determination.

Did they USUALLY do stuff like that? Or was this an exception to the rule?

If it was commonplace, and part of their modus, then I'd be perfectly willing to classify them as terrorists.

I know of about 10 bombs(quiet a few on City buses) in 4yrs that exploded in the City that I lived in.
We were constantly told to look out for any suspicious packages in shopping centres, etc.

The Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) usually employed young members to do those type of things.
There were times when the ANC leadership thought that the MK went too far, but I don't think they had too much control over them.

Personally, I think the distinction between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists is usually done depending if the person agrees with the goals & actions of said group or not.
There seems to be a fine line between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists and I think many Freedom Fighters at times have and will cross the line to further their goal.

[Merryprankster]

Also where would you put Timothy Mcveigh. I understand his was a 'political' target and that the 'collateral damage' was unintended. Does this make him a freedom fighter?

There was no effort made to minimize casualties. It was clear the casualities were intended, not an after-effect. He used an ANFO bomb--a huge explosion, and attacked in the middle of the day.

If he were intent on the symbolism of the act, he would have done it in the middle of the night. But he didn't. He did it in the day, when averybody was around.

The IRA WAS clearly a terrorist organization. However, I was under the impression that they had stopped conducting attacks. The IRA and RIRA are not groups I am expert in, so I'll defer to your superior knowledge on this issue. Personally, I would consider banks to be non-legitimate targets - it's a symbol sure, but it's not really a government instrument in the same way that police stations are. It's rather clear you're going to be killing lots of people that aren't immediately linked to the government.

[Merryprankster]

Personally, I think the distinction between Freedom Fighters and Terrorists is usually done depending if the person agrees with the goals & actions of said group or not.

I agree that this is what people usually do. I also think that is an improper way of looking at things. It's not a good critical look at the world and those who do it are making a greivous error.

I will, however, agree that the MK is one of those groups where you kind of scratch your head a bit. I would have to know how the leadership felt about these attacks - did they condemn them as a rule, or gloat? Did they hasten to say they didn't condone such behavior and apologize? Because in any fight, some people become overzealous, and independently do things contrary to established norms and policy. My Lai for instance... or Abu Ghraib.

Does it happen all the time but is whitewashed? Or are these fairly uncommon in the grand scheme of things? Those are important questions, in my mind. Saddam Hussein, for instance, clearly embraced a policy of physically torturing prisoners as accepted practice. The United States, Great Britain, etc, clearly do not. All you have to do is look at the public outcry - the fact that a soldier turned in the evidence, that these actions are being condemned within the U.S., the administration, and the military ranks to see that we're not happy about this and are taking corrective steps (however untimely).

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

MP.

For the most part the ANC/MK simpply accepted responsibility, in a few instances they apologised.

I think if any disputes regarding the action existed they were handled internally, realising that to expose a rift within the group might hurt them more than further their goals.

Pretty academic now considering that they now are in power and seem to be doing a decent job.

[Merryprankster]

Well like I said, this one's a bit of a head scratcher. You might have to say something along the lines of, "For the most part, the MK attacked legitimate targets, but occasionally conducted and claimed responsibility for terrorist acts designed to injure civilians." Some things are muddy and not either/or. Nature of the beast.

My personal take on this is that the fact that sometimes they claimed responsibility, sometimes apologized, sounds like there WAS an internal struggle about what the appropriate course of action was. FWIW, this is the official U.S. definition of terrorism:

The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

I DO believe freedom fighters are different from terrorists in that they don't attempt to maximize civilian casualities or attack things like buses, shopping malls, etc. Now, you can get bogged down in the definition of noncombatant targets, but I think some things are clearly noncombatant targets, some things clearly are, and others are a bit fuzzy. For instance, hospitals and buses are obviously noncombatant targets. Military bases are combatant. What about police forces? Hmmm...

That's why I really think you have to look at the overall spectrum of what these guys are doing generally. What target sets do they usually pick and why?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Mp.

I agree that it is a bit of a head scratcher.

It looks like there is no universal derfinition of what is a Freedom Fighter and what is a Terrorist, with most allowing groups to be classed as both at the same time.

Best I heard so far is:
Terrorism = Action
Freedom Figher = Motivation
Again one does not exclude the other.

[Merryprankster]

That may be a useful political distinction, but it allows genuine terrorists to masquerade as legitimate groups by appealing to a "higher cause."

Consequently, I don't much like it.

The Official U.S. definition is pretty good, as long as you recognize that some groups will be obviously terrorists or freedom fighters, while a small number will be in the fuzzy zone.

From an international perspective, all the big dogs are obviously one or the other, so that makes the job a bit easier!

[GroungJing]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer


So US gov's do support Brutal Dictators when it suits their foreign policy interests. Congratulations- Thats more than a lot of people will admit. BTW, prior to the Shah (not Shaw as in Shaw bros.) taking power in a CIA backed coup, Iran had a democratically elected leader named Mossadeq.



Geographical proximity to the USSR does not explain many other US gov. foreign interventions, both covert and overt, following WW2.

For example:
- In Nicaraua: illegal and covert support for a terrorist army (the Contras) against a democratically elected leader (Ortega) and his party (the Sandanistas).

- In Indonesia: support for the Suharto regime whilst they attempted to systematically exterminate the inhabitants of East Timor.

- In Chile: Backing a milatry coup against the democratically elected Socialist leader (Allende) and putting a murderous dictator in his place (Pinochet) subsequently responsible for thousands of 'disappearences'.

Ergo it is entirely possible that this does not explain the reason for intervention in Iran either.



You're right- there were no rules. The 4 million people dead in Indo China as a result of Amercian bombing from 1962 to 1972 can attest to that. As well as the children born today with birth defects as a result of US chemical (there's that word) warfare.



On the contrary, declassified documents conclusively show that 'what was done was done' because of the threat of nationalisation (i.e. conversion to state ownership/management) of US owned/controlled Foreign assets by socialist governments and the precedent this would subsequently set if it were allowed to continue unchallenged. For example the nationalisation of the sugar and tobacco industries in Cuba. The nationalisation of the fruit industry in Guatamala. The Nationalisation of Oil in the middle east (including Iran) and Indonesia. The nationalisation of Key shipping routes in Panama. The nationalisation of the mining industries in Chile etc.

Its also worth noting for anyone who underestimates the geo political significance of Oil as a factor in foreign policy decision making what the post war US planning documents say about it. They describe it (middle eastern oil) as 'possibly the greatest material prize in human history' and a 'tremendous lever of world power'.



On the contrary Joseph Stiglitz (sp?) a former head of the world bank has just written a book on this very subject.



Todays assasination would suggest otherwise.





And what is your point? (Nice rattling off of facts “just more shadows on the wall.... different poser this time....” )

I'm gathering from your post you would rather be living in a communist state like the Soviet Union or China.



What you typed below was pure

SWAG!!!

Scientific Wild A$$ Guessing!!!!

You wrote:
"On the contrary, declassified documents conclusively show that 'what was done was done' because of the threat of nationalisation (i.e. conversion to state ownership/management) of US owned/controlled Foreign assets by socialist governments and the precedent this would subsequently set if it were allowed to continue unchallenged. For example the nationalisation of the sugar and tobacco industries in Cuba. The nationalisation of the fruit industry in Guatamala. The Nationalisation of Oil in the middle east (including Iran) and Indonesia. The nationalisation of Key shipping routes in Panama. The nationalisation of the mining industries in Chile etc."



What documents ?.........where? etc....cite some sources buddy!!
Come on!!!!!!! You’re going to have to do better smart guy!
I cut my teach at the U of Michigan in the Political Science Department (the most liberal Anti-American establishment this side of Berkley California)

What partisan web site did you read that from?


You wrote:
“Geographical proximity to the USSR does not explain many other US gov. foreign interventions, both covert and overt, following WW2.”


Yes it does.....
Foreign policy 101 I cite the American missilesi n Italy and Turkey as well as the Russian missiles in Cuba during the Cuban missile crises as an example


Next!
Nicaragua/ Afghanistan
Indonesia/ Vietnam
Chile/Cuba

For every county you name an American fubar!!! (F'up beyond all recognition) I can cite another where the USSR did the same thing. Hell, I can cite where the French did the same thing in Africa......or England doing the same or Spain etc etc......

What you are selective ignoring was called the Cold War...no rules...everything goes...play fare and you Loose.

According to your logic when I'm in a street fight I should fight fare.....Did I metion Machiavelli...oh yea I did you just chose to ignore that too.....




You need to check up on this World Bank. “Is this the same World Bank that' wants the United States to default on all it’s loans to third world counties?”

“Do you know what would happen to western economies if all those loans by the United States were defaulted on?”

Can you say “World Depression?”


Yes you can say "World Depression" ….Yes you can, come on try it! Because I know that you can understand that the US economy is interlinked to the other G9 nations…right? If one goes down the others go down. Yea I should read Joseph Stiglitz (sp?) NOT!!!

Did I tell you my other major was World Economics?


You wrote:
“You're right- there were no rules. The 4 million people dead in Indo China as a result of Amercian bombing from 1962 to 1972 can attest to that. As well as the children born today with birth defects as a result of US chemical (there's that word) warfare”

Again what's you point?

Because" 2-4 million Vietnamese were killed by their own government after we pulled out of Vietnam. Countless others died of starvation and disease when the economy went belly up after it resorted to being centrally controlled.

Should we go ahead and count the 1/2 million that died at the hands of the French before we got involved? You are pulling a Kung lek “i.e. selectively pushing certain facts while ignoring others that don’t agree with your world views”


You wrote:
"Its also worth noting for anyone who underestimates the geo political significance of Oil as a factor in foreign policy decision making what the post war US planning documents say about it. They describe it (middle eastern oil) as 'possibly the greatest material prize in human history' and a 'tremendous lever of world power'."



It's all about the oil!!!!! The old liberal/left wing commi arguement

word!!!

Mexico is (CIA world report) is probably sitting on unexplored oil reserves equal to Saudi Arabia
Why are we not evading Mexico? Hell, it is the USA that is being invaded by Mexico!!!!!!!


Don't come up in my face and point at a small smug on the American flag and try to convince me that the whole thing is dirty just because "YOU" don't like the look of it!!!

Pull your spin job on someone else!




By the way do you have a spell check?

[rogue]

Oh well, one mans terrrorists is anothers freedom fighter. I hope you all know that I was being sarcastic.:eek: I think that one of the important differences is attacks against noncombatants. Nice bit of info there MP.

Things tend to get very fuzzy when you have guerilla war, but still generally one group will go for the hearts and minds of the non-combatants while the other will generally go with fear and loathing. Groups like FARC seem to be insurgents who sometimes use terrorism but terrorism isn't their main tool. Crime on the other hand is used often to finance their movement.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by rogue
I hope you all know that I was being sarcastic.:eek: I think that one of the important differences is attacks against noncombatants.

So, would you call Hiroshima and Nagasaki acts of terrorism?

This isn't at all applicable to the Iraq situation; I'm just curious. They were clearly attacks on noncombatants, so if that's the only criterion you're using...

[kungfu cowboy]

I would call them wrong. This is my best case scenario: Only voluntary participants and military should be involved in war games, and they should all go and do their thing on some deserted island, away from those who aren't interested.

[scotty1]

"Mexico is (CIA world report) is probably sitting on unexplored oil reserves equal to Saudi Arabia
Why are we not evading Mexico? Hell, it is the USA that is being invaded by Mexico!!!!!!!"

No-one's saying that oil is the only reason for the invasion. but you can't deny it's got to be a factor, amongst many.

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by GroungJing

‘I'm gathering from your post you would rather be living in a communist state like the Soviet Union or China’

Actually it would probably be more accurate to write ‘nominally communist state like the Soviet Union or China.’ After all, the USSR described itself as a ‘socialist democracy’. But is there any reason to believe it when it calls itself a democracy? Presumably not. So why believe it when it calls itself Socialist? (This echoes Voltaire’s 'the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor roman nor an empire').

Moreover, many so called ‘capitalist’ societies (like Haiti or Brazil) have appalling human rights records and very low standards of living (by typical indices such as life expectancy/infant mortality rate/GDP etc.) and yet there is never any attempt by critics of the USSR to infer that the latter state of affairs is a sine qua non of the former.


Originally posted by GroungJing

And what is your point? (Nice rattling off of facts “just more shadows on the wall.... different poser this time....” )

Well, at the risk of generalising, a certain world view seems prevalent here viz. that ‘America’ is essentially a benevolent force in the world, that imperial ambitions/economic considerations do not factor in their foreign policy interventions, that when it acts it acts for democracy, stability and peace, that, fundamentally, it is well intentioned and when it kills innocents these are accidents or ‘FUBAR’s’ or as in Abu Ghirab or My Lai a few rotten apples that spoil the barrel.

However consider this- in all the foreign policy interventions that the US has been involved in over the last 50 years (and they are legion) is there not one where you are prepared to say – yes the US was the aggressor here, yes the US committed atrocities, yes the US is at fault.

If you look at these conflicts the same tactics are always used to justify them to the population (when they are known about) namely – we are acting in self defence, they are the aggressors here, if we don’t do something all hell will break loose, inaction is not an option etc.

You want examples? How about during the Reagan era the claim that the Sandanistas were two days marching time from Texas and therefore must be stopped lest they invade, or that there was a secret Soviet air base in Grenada from which they (the Soviets) might try and attack, or that there were squads of Libyan Hitmen roaming the street of Washington trying to take out the president, or, more recently, that Iraq has a huge stockpile of WMD’s ready to fire at 45 minutes notice at British targets in Gibraltar and Cyprus.

What’s my point? I’m not sure- maybe to draw attention to some of these facts, to try and ensure that they aren’t airbrushed from history, to debunk the idea (which seems to be prevalent) that foreign policy interventions (by either the US or any other state) are essentially benevolent in nature and aren’t motivated by self interest/corporate profit.


Originally posted by GroungJing

‘What documents ?.........where? etc....cite some sources buddy!!
Come on!!!!!!! You’re going to have to do better smart guy!’

Well a good place to start is Chile. The minutes of the 40 committee (basically the body that decides covert foreign policy, headed by the NSA) which were recently released, detail the plan to kidnap and murder Rene Schneider (a pro democracy general in the Chilean army) in the hopes of sparking off a military coup. Also look at the testimony of Edward Korry, the former US ambassador to Chile who, has described how American companies like Pepsi (who Nixon used to work for) petitioned the Whitehouse to remove Salvador Allende, the recently elected Socialist leader of Chile, because their investments in the foreign owned Chilean mining industry were under threat from Nationalisation.


Originally posted by GroungJing

‘Mexico has oil…….Why are we not invading Mexico?’

Control and access do not necessarily entail invasion. The US (along with other imperial/colonial powers) has been more than willing to let proxy agents/ client regimes run the show for them (it looks better and is less messy) as along as they ultimately take orders from Washington. The Saudi royal family are a good example. Consider this- if Saudi Arabia were to succumb to a communist/ hard-line Islamic takeover tomorrow and were to cease oil supplies to the west do you think the US would just sit there and do nothing? The US consumes 20 million barrels of Oil a day of which less than half comes from its own fields. Yes in the short term they could switch to domestic supplies (which is exactly why they have a contingency stockpile). However there is no way that they would let the largest oil well in the world dry up indefinitely.

Actually a better recent example is Venezuela (I’ve talked about this before on here). The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has probably the largest democratic mandate of any democratic leader in the world (he got around 90 % of the vote). Venezuela is also and importantly the third largest oil exporter to the US after Saudi Arabia and Russia. Historically the (large) profits of the oil industry have been funnelled off to a mainly white rich elite while the rest of the country (mainly non white) lives in poverty. Chavez nationalised the oil industry and sacked the oil cartel executives on national TV chief amongst them Pedro Carmona. They then lead a coup (probably with the covert support of the US (Ari Fleischer said something along the lines of ‘its no secret that we were not a fan of Chavez’ in a post coup press briefing)) which failed when around two million people came out on to the streets (despite numerous police killings) and stormed the palace. Chavez was restored to power and Carmona is currently a resident of the US.


Originally posted by GroungJing

‘Hell, it is the USA that is being invaded by Mexico!!!!!!!’

There seems to be something of a racist subtext here. You might want to consider who it is that does all the crappy jobs that no one else wants.

Also you ask

‘BTW do you have a spell check’

But then you write

‘I cut my teach at the U of Michigan in the Political Science Department’

You mean ‘teeth‘ surely?;)

[Merryprankster]

They were clearly attacks on noncombatants, so if that's the only criterion you're using...

There are some important distinctions:

1. An act which meets all other terrorism criteria, but which is done by official government forces is a human rights violation, not an act of terrorism.

2. War is a legally recognized state of affairs in international law.

3. What was acceptable to an era of carpet bombing probably isn't exactly acceptable to an era of smart bombs.

Plus, the entire ramifications of the nuke really hadn't been worked out yet... the U.S. gubmint was still experiementing with low-yield tactical nukes in the 50's. And I do mean tactical... as in nuke the field, have your troops put on goggles and masks and send them in. :eek:

[ZIM]

OT, sorta-

Any Dutch speakers can make sense of this? (http://www.spunk.nl/upload/pro-irak.swf)

And did any Londoners see this program? (http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1218779,00.html) I'm curious about your reactions to it.

[David Jamieson]

An act which meets all other terrorism criteria, but which is done by official government forces is a human rights violation, not an act of terrorism.

kill one person and you are tried for murder.

kill ten people and you are hunted down as a serial killer.

kill 10,000 people and you are calle to the table for peace talks.

The longer that people believe war is a valid way of dealing with things globally, the longer we will be held back from progress and will always be on the brink of mutual destruction for teh sake of economic gains determined by the political ideologies of the very few and costing the lives of the very many.

war is the result of a failure to communicate properly. I am a little more than bemused that we are now into teh 21st century and can still not resolve our differencves through co-operative efforts.

Constant retaliation is juvenile in concept and in action.
To declare outright war on such a shadowy beast as terrorism by attacking sovereign nations one guesses may support them to a small degree or large is in and of itself an error in thinking.

the concept of "might makes right" is essentially barbarism and you can wrap it up in all the logic you want to, it is still misanthropic to hold to the idea that war will solve anything.

The current war in Iraq is only breeding a new generation of terrorists who will hate the US and the UK for the duration of their lives. No one who has lost innocent family in this conflict will likely ever forgive and forget and so we head into yet more violence.

To think that the US or the UK is winning hearts and minds is egrigious at best. And now they(tyhe us and uk) are ****ed if they do and damend if they don't pull out.

it was mistake and the rest of the world is in the position of saying "we told you so". But apparently not enough lives have been lost on the western worlds side of the scope yet to make that glaringly apparent...and so it will continue.

But, you get what you deserve in office in any democratic nation. :(

cest la vie. It is most unfortunate that the military industrial complex of the western world still has more importance than education and healthcare. just stack up the dollars invested in each and you will see that that is a fact jack.

I hope that I will see it change in my life time.

regards

[ZIM]

/I'd like to thank the Academy

[rogue]

war is the result of a failure to communicate properly. Good lord KL, maybe we should all gather on a hillside, have a Coke and sing "I'd like to teach the world to sing".:rolleyes:

[red5angel]

I am a little more than bemused that we are now into teh 21st century and can still not resolve our differencves through co-operative efforts.

That's right, because after tha huge cloud of enlightnment engulfed the world in the mid 60's you'd think we'd no better then to hate people who think and look differently then we do! Or maybe that's just Canada? :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

your perpetuation justifies nothing.

are you afraid of lasting peace?

are you afraid to talk to your detractors?

it is fear from which violence springs forth. It is fear which brings about war.

and yes, i would like to see progress in communication between cultures and acceptance instead of mere tolerance. To belittle and ridicule these concepts is a little backward in my opinion.

regards

[old jong]

Or maybe that's just Canada?

Funny how it's easy to generalise. Don't forget that the big "peace and love" thing in the sixties came from the US as a protest against Vietnam among other reasons.

My country chose not to follow Bush in his personal vendetta against Irak but is present in Afganistan where it's needed. There must be a very big percentage of americans who are not happy with Bush also.

So it's maybe just about half of the USA?...:rolleyes:

Looking forward to see "farenheit 9/11" ;)

[ZIM]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
your perpetuation justifies nothing.

are you afraid of lasting peace?

are you afraid to talk to your detractors?

it is fear from which violence springs forth. It is fear which brings about war.

and yes, i would like to see progress in communication between cultures and acceptance instead of mere tolerance. To belittle and ridicule these concepts is a little backward in my opinion.

regards Not really. I'm just waiting to see something a little more substantial than the political equivalent of the Underpants Gnomes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes)

[red5angel]

kung lek, your the only one drinking haterade around here. You keep talking about how much you hate Bush and his cronies. what's with all the hate?

[Merryprankster]

Maybe if Hitler had properly communicated his desire to exterminate the jews we wouldn't have gone to war?

[David Jamieson]

lol

typical retorts from teh like minded.

no hate here, and btw red5, no where in any post have i stated "hatred" towards anyone, including the *ahem-cough* commander in chief in the wh. :rolleyes:

nice try though.

merry- minimizing does nothing for or against teh cause of peace and to throw in such a lame reason is stunning coming from someone who is more than capable of speaking at a slightly higher level of comprehension.

well, i expected as much from you guys anyway.

anyone else wanna have a go at why war is "the better way"?

the merry go round is open, i expect the same sames will jump on and in at any given moment.

here's my position. peace is powerful, war is for barbarians who are incapable of making peace their focus.

discuss

and for the sake of it, war isn't about who's right, it's about who's left. It is not a viable solution anymore. especially not with the levels of human intelligence we are now capable of and the levels of certainty with which we can locate the head of the snake.

why needlessly destroy the lives of thousands when we can simply not buy into the voice of a small group of people.

the geopolitical ideals of those who are getting this buy in these days will eventually fall away. then what? what will there be to fear then?

what colour is the alert chart at today by the way?

[red5angel]

actually you have on more then one occasion there Kung Lick, but I have to go home now so you'll have to catch my cut and pastes tomorrow ;)


anyone else wanna have a go at why war is "the better way"?


atleast your interpretation is consistant. :rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

merry- minimizing does nothing for or against teh cause of peace and to throw in such a lame reason is stunning coming from someone who is more than capable of speaking at a slightly higher level of comprehension.

I don't expect any better from you. I've come not to.

Here's the deeper meaning of my comment Kung Lek:

There are situations where no amount of talking is going to create safety for people. It's that simple. WWII was a prime example of this. There was no misunderstanding. There was a fellow who believed so much in the power of his own hatred that he was willing to roll over other countries and exterminate entire classes of people in order to realize this hatred.

If you can't understand how talking won't stop a man like that, I can't help you.

[rogue]

KL Showing up in the middle of war torn Whereeverland! (http://www.sciflicks.com/things_to_come/images/things_to_come_04.html)

KL get's his flying wing ready (http://www.sciflicks.com/things_to_come/images/things_to_come_08.html)

KL and friends singing Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows ! (http://www.sciflicks.com/things_to_come/images/things_to_come_15.html)

[ZIM]

Haha (http://www.lagmonkey.com/images/040518_moore_target.jpg)

Isn't it amazing that the Euros trash us for being fat, stupid and ambitious to the point of lying to get ahead, then they embrace the embodiment- literally- of this? The mind boggles...

[Nick Forrer]

1) I didnt catch the prog. on the BBC re: terrorist attack on London, but apparently there have been a few near misses already. It wouldnt surprise me if something on the level of Madrid happened here, but dirty bombs, anthrax, Sarin etc. are IMV less likely- though of course not impossible. However Londoners have had to deal with the threat of terrorism (from the IRA) for the last 30 years or so, so its not new to us or the security services.

2) Just for the sake of historcial accuracy and without any political subtext on my part, extermination of Jews had little if anything to do with Britain or Americas reasons for entering WW2. In Britains case it was the invasion of Poland, in America's case the attack on Pearl Harbour. The full extent of the holocaust wasnt really known until the liberation of the death camps.

Addendum: Did anyone see the 'attack' on Tony Blair in the house of commons? Someone threw purple powder at him.

[rogue]

You want examples? How about during the Reagan era the claim that the Sandanistas were two days marching time from Texas and therefore must be stopped lest they invade, or that there was a secret Soviet air base in Grenada from which they (the Soviets) might try and attack, or that there were squads of Libyan Hitmen roaming the street of Washington trying to take out the president, or, more recently, that Iraq has a huge stockpile of WMD’s ready to fire at 45 minutes notice at British targets in Gibraltar and Cyprus.
But Nick believes this...

Actually a better recent example is Venezuela (I’ve talked about this before on here). The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has probably the largest democratic mandate of any democratic leader in the world (he got around 90 % of the vote). And he believes that Chavez is a beacon for democracy.:eek:

And then we have...
Moreover, many so called ‘capitalist’ societies (like Haiti or Brazil) have appalling human rights records and very low standards of living (by typical indices such as life expectancy/infant mortality rate/GDP etc.) and yet there is never any attempt by critics of the USSR to infer that the latter state of affairs is a sine qua non of the former. Yup, I forgot about the pristine human rights records of Cuba, the USSR and all the other workers paradises that still bloom like fragrant flowers of goodness.


The minutes of the 40 committee (basically the body that decides covert foreign policy, headed by the NSA) which were recently released, detail the plan to kidnap and murder Rene Schneider (a pro democracy general in the Chilean army) in the hopes of sparking off a military coup. If anybody cares what the 40 Committee is... (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/40Comm.html)

Nick and KL, c'mon guys come clean, you don't believe this stuff you're just trolling right?:confused:

[ZIM]

The full extent of the holocaust wasnt really known until the liberation of the death camps. Not to argue overmuch with this point, because its quite valid- but an addendum for your consideration:

the CIA/FBI files (http://www.archives.gov/iwg/press_releases/fbi_cia_gehlen_release.html) on Nazi War crimes have been released just recently. We did have indications at least a full 6 months prior to FDR's announcements:

"Of the 48,500 Jews still living in Prague before the occupation, approximately one half [were] deported [by] the day of my departure. Everything was carried through upon direct orders from Berlin, where they had had a good deal of practice before. From the small towns almost all Jews were deported, in Prague only those could remain who were married to an Aryan. Later transports went to Theresienstadt, a garrison about one hour from Prague...Later on Theresienstadt was used only as a transit place. After three days the Jews were sent on to Poland...Men and women were separated and many died of starvation. Reports coming in indirectly from Poland give heartbreaking details. If Hitler remains true to his program of destroying all European Jewry...he will have achieved that goal soon and most countries will be depleted of Jews."
-Alfred Goldschmied, refugee, August 8, 1942
This didn't get fed up the chain of command efficiently, I guess. :(

Nonetheless, do look into the records. They're fascinating files. [See? Where a statement is correct, I'll say so, even help out...]

Thanks for the update re: the TV program, BTW

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by rogue

But Nick.. believes that Chavez is a beacon for democracy.:eek:

(adopts Cartman voice) Its quite simple Kyle....

90% of the people of Venezula are poor,

Chavez promised to do something about it (by nationalising the oil industry and thus channeling the vast profits that come from it away from the rich white overclass and into social programs of the schools, housing, infrastructure, hospitals variety)

therefore 90% of the people voted for him

Whether or not you agree with this/think its a good thing is neither here nor there. Its just a fact- plain and simple.


Originally posted by rogue


And then we have... Yup, I forgot about the pristine human rights records of Cuba, the USSR and all the other workers paradises that still bloom like fragrant flowers of goodness.



You've missed the point- to whit. that the following argument:

'state X was communist
state X committed human rights abuses

therefore

state x's human rights abuses were a neccessary outcome of i.e. followed inexorably from, the fact that it was communist.'

Is not a valid argument, which is to say that the conclusion does not follow, as a matter of logic, from the premises

Further, if it were a valid argument it must surely apply equally to capitalism (as in the examples of Haiti and Brazil I gave), thus pulling the rug out from those who would try and use it to debunk communism as a mode of social and economic organisation and promote capitalsim as a viable alternative (which is not to say that there aren't arguments that do that- only that this is not one of them).

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by ZIM
Thanks for the update re: the TV program, BTW

You're welcome. Thanks for the link. I'll have a proper look when I have more time.

[rogue]

Whether or not you agree with this/think its a good thing is neither here nor there. Its just a fact- plain and simple.

Nick, could you point me to where you are getting your facts. I think you might be off on a few of them. I mean about 47% of the population was below the poverty level in 1998, and Chavez won re-election with 60% of the vote in 2000, but you're tossing the number 90% around for both. Now if the facts you're using are incorrect doesn't it follow that you're really not checking these facts? Here, just in case you might want to know. (http://www.ifes.org/eguide/resultsum/venezuela2res.htm)

It will be interesting when your view of the world hits the reality of it when you get out of school.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Maybe if Hitler had properly communicated his desire to exterminate the jews we wouldn't have gone to war?

The problem wasn't Hitler's communication, it was that the West had to push their hegemonic imperalist pigdoggery on everyone. The West figures that just because they don't commit genocide, no one has to.

Actually, the whole genocide thing was pure propaganda. Hitler was leading Germany towards a workers paradise, and the global capitalist oppression machine just couldn't stand it.

[rogue]

Plot to overthrow Hugo that threatened the heart of the nation! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3709609.stm)

who only had one pistol between 74 of them. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=5&u=/nm/20040514/wl_nm/venezuela_colombia_dc)

From the right-wing press (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3026742.stm)


human rights anyone? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3533935.stm) Venezuela's ambassador to the UN says he is resigning his post in protest at President Hugo Chavez's policies.

Nick, you may want to do some reading of current events. :D

[CaptinPickAxe]

Actually, the whole genocide thing was pure propaganda. Hitler was leading Germany towards a workers paradise, and the global capitalist oppression machine just couldn't stand it.

:confused: wait a minute...I hope your kidding.

[Serpent]

Yeah, could you explain that one for us?

[shaolin kungfu]

I think he's using sarcasm (I hope anyway).:confused:

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by rogue
About 47% of the population was below the poverty level in 1998, and Chavez won re-election with 60% of the vote in 2000, but you're tossing the number 90% around for both.

I understood that this was the case. My mistake. Thank you for the correction. However the following facts still stand

1) that Chavez was democratically elected,
2) that venezula has large (billion dollar) revenues from its oil exports
3) that historically those profits have remained amongst the white elite minority
4) that Chavez nationalised the oil industry in order to re channel those profits back into the poor black majority
5) That in response to the nationalisation of the oil industry the oil executives led a coup against Chavez (in which many people died).
6) That, after Saudi Arabia and Russia, venuezula is the largest exporter of Oil to the US
7) that the US thus has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in that country
8) that whether or not they actively assisted in the coup, they certainly weren’t against it.
9) that the coup failed when more than a million people stormed the palace in order to protest, despite the risk of being shot by the army or police (hows that for democracy)
10) that the leader of the coup – Pedro Carmona now lives in exile the US – an interesting fact given that he is guilty of murder and treason.
11) that now that the Soviet Union is no more, the blame for interventions can ‘no longer be laid at the Kremlins door.'

If you want a good source on this I direct you to the documentary 'inside the coup' made by two film makers who were caught up in the coup whilst doing a profile of Chavez.

Btw I know its hard but try and stick to facts and arguments rather than petty ad hominem attacks.

[Spark]

Originally posted by rogue
Plot to overthrow Hugo that threatened the heart of the nation! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3709609.stm)

Nick, you may want to do some reading of current events. :D

The landslide victory of Chavez was in the 1998 election, not the 2000 election.

As Nick has mentioned, Venezuala is an interesting case because, again, Chavez was democratically elected and when he was overthrown in an illegal coup, the champions of freedom and democracy stood by and did nothing. Say what you will about his human rights, but again, as Nick brings up - what about Haiti or Brazil then? Perhaps if Brazil cut off the supply of beef to McDonalds?

Nick, I would only reference Inside the Coup for the footage of the overthrow, because as I'm sure you know that movie paints Chavez like a champion and leans to the extreme left.

[ZIM]

LOL @ CM

Got it the first time. :D

Hey CM- You think like a girl! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/interactives/personality/brain_sex/brainquiz.shtml)

[ZIM]

OT-
Does anyone else read the Belmont Club? (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_belmontclub_archive.html#10850531487122 5337) It's prob'ly the most incisive writing on the war out there.

[Nick Forrer]

Have a read (http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=20936)

[Merryprankster]

Of course, you're right Nick, re: The Holocaust. That's why I added the little bit about rolling over other countries... Lebensraum, after all!

Spark, I'm not sure what your point is... Chavez was overthrown in a coup. Ok. Then the masses had a fit. Ok. He was reinstated. Ok.

What, exactly were we supposed to do about it one way or another? There is no right answer to that question.

To Nick, I comment - well, of COURSE they weren't against it. Bush and Chavez aren't exactly buddies. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. As a side note, an international investigation, headed by a non-American and conducted by I THINK the Organization of American States revealed no evidence of ANY U.S. involvement in the coup.

About the only thing we could have done was perhaps issue a strongly worded statement asking the coup guys to step down and allow democracy to take its course. Which may not have been a bad idea.

But actually DOING anything about it? Nah.

Honestly, if we're going to start talking oil, Nigeria is a much better example than Venezuela...Far better excuses for doing something military there....

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by ZIM
Hey CM- You think like a girl!

Oddly enough, I really do.

[rogue]

Nick, Nick Nick...


Originally posted by Nick Forrer


I understood that this was the case. My mistake. Thank you for the correction. However the following facts still stand
.
.
.
Btw I know its hard but try and stick to facts and arguments rather than petty ad hominem attacks. Funny coming from someone who either didn't know the simple facts of an election, or, lied about it or, just pulled the number 90 from his ass. If you're going to use facts to support your arguments they should be actual facts. Sadly your facts all come from extreme left... uh I mean independent sources who reference other far left sources. Thanks for playing though, Christopher M has some lovely parting gifts for you. :rolleyes:

VHeadline.com remains 100% independent of all political factions in Venezuela Oh please, just read the "articles" and enjoy the independence. Has the internet made commies dumber than they used to be? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ZIM]

Oddly enough, I really do. Same here. ;)

"Are you rilly a senator? Do you rilly own a Porsche?" [bats eyelashes] "Rilly....?" </falsetto>

:D

[Nick Forrer]

Originally posted by rogue
If you're going to use facts to support your arguments they should be actual facts.

Facts 1-11 as I have enumerated them still stand until such time as you or anyone else can produce compelling evidence to the contrary, in which case I will be more than happy to revise my opinions on the matter.

Also my criticism of the fallacious argument you and others seem to keep pushing still stands namely the argument that human rights abuses by nominally communist regimes discounts once and for all the idea of public ownership of the means of production and/or a country's natural resources.

Personally, my two fundamental political convictions are these:
1) That the poorest people in society should be as well off as posible
and
2) That people should be free in so far as their freedom doesn't interfere with the freedom of others.

And I tend to support or criticise policy decisions, whether foreign or domestic, on this basis.

Of course it might be the case that these two principles are best realised by a lassez faire, free market economy, or even by no centralised 'economy' at all. If you can produce a compelling argument to that end I'd be more than willing to listen. However that would require actually making an argument of your own, something which, unless I missed it, you have manifestly failed to do so far.


Originally posted by rogue
Christopher M has some lovely parting gifts for you. :rolleyes:


Where? Did I miss them;)

[red5angel]

Same here.


My moneys on you guys actually being girls!


Facts 1-11 as I have enumerated them still stand until such time as you or anyone else can produce compelling evidence to the contrary, in which case I will be more than happy to revise my opinions on the matter.


I'm starting to think that Kung Lek started another account......

[rogue]

1) that Chavez was democratically elected,
And has proceded to make sure that he is the last democratically elected president. I believe he intends to stay president until 2027.
2) that venezula has large (billion dollar) revenues from its oil exports
Of course.
3) that historically those profits have remained amongst the white elite minority
4) that Chavez nationalised the oil industry in order to re channel those profits back into the poor black majority
Black majority? Which of these is the "black" majority? Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Arab, German, African, indigenous people. Also can you provide any records that the profits are going to these people and not lining the pockets of the ruling minority?
5) That in response to the nationalisation of the oil industry the oil executives led a coup against Chavez (in which many people died). How many? Are you counting the 17 deaths of anti-Chavez marchers that set off the coup?
6) That, after Saudi Arabia and Russia, venuezula is the largest exporter of Oil to the US
And...
7) that the US thus has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in that country
Roll this up to point 6 as it's dependent. So...
8) that whether or not they actively assisted in the coup, they certainly weren't against it.
OK...
9) that the coup failed when more than a million people stormed the palace in order to protest, despite the risk of being shot by the army or police (hows that for democracy)
Just wondering where you got the one million number, logistically that's quite large.
10) that the leader of the coup Pedro Carmona now lives in exile the US an interesting fact given that he is guilty of murder and treason.
I'll take your word on it...
11) that now that the Soviet Union is no more, the blame for interventions can no longer be laid at the Kremlins door.'
Actually it's Cuba that we're concerned about.

http://www.latimes.com/la-041802usvenez.htmlstory

C'mon Nick, you're a smart guy and you can do better than this. I'll check into what CM did with the cases of TurtleWax and Rice-A-Roni. :D

Red, KL is a Utopian, I think Nick is a communist.

[Spark]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

Spark, I'm not sure what your point is... Chavez was overthrown in a coup. Ok. Then the masses had a fit. Ok. He was reinstated. Ok.


Good to see you didn't leave out any details.

You can read the press releases from the US Govt on their website and you'll see what my point is.

[ZIM]

My moneys on you guys actually being girls!
<ricardo montalban voice>
"Now, now, joo seely monkee. It is obvious-- she's a man!"
</ricardo montalban voice>

Hey, you never sent the PM- I was curious...

[red5angel]

ooooooh yeaaaahhhhh

[red5angel]

cr@p, I can't remember which one it was I was responding too. you sent me the one titled cr@p, the scandinavian website of "dumb soldiers", I sent the guy an email.

The Syrian Korean connection was interesting. I'd like to see what comes of it in the next 6 months or so.

[ZIM]

Thanks for emailing him.

for the other, I think it will work out. The ? is: will the material "miraculously" show up now? That would be the giveaway.

Regardless, it was a 'message sent' kind of thing. ;)

Ixnay on the eplyray. :p

[Merryprankster]

You can read the press releases from the US Govt on their website and you'll see what my point is

Gee, feeling clever?

Call me thick, but your comments still add up to a giant so what.

I'm trying to figure out what YOU think the right answer was supposed to be.

[Nick Forrer]

I dont have time at the moment to add much but just on a things

First to clarify..I said that Chavez nationalised the oil industry. However thats not strictly true. It was already state owned. However it was state owned in name only...there was de facto privatisation with endemic corruption on a grand scale. Thus, what he brought about was, if you like, a complete change in management (similiar to a group of shareholders sacking an incompetant board of directors after finding out they have been embezzeling company profits for many years).


Originally posted by rogue
Chavez was democratically elected....and has proceded to make sure that he is the last democratically elected president. I believe he intends to stay president until 2027.

Actually one of his first acts upon taking power was to lay down a constitution ensuring that proper democratic safeguards are in place to prevent dictatorships in the future.

Further, It goes without saying that he wants to stay in power for as long as possible (its kind of a tautology..like saying a business man wants to make money). However he can do that via the ballot box...unlike Carmona and his cronies in the Oil industry who have tried military coups and industrial sabotage and, it wouldn't surprise me, may try assasination in the future.


Originally posted by rogue
Which of these is the "black" majority? Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Arab, German, African, indigenous people.

Venezuala (as Im sure you know) is a former colony. Thus like Brazil it has a significant indigenous population and also a significant african population (the former slaves). When I say 'Black' I am predominantly talking about these people, however probably a more accurate and more PC term would be non white. Of course racial classifications are often clumsy and only really make sense when looked at from afar (like an impressionist painting, the closer you get the fuzzier the boundaries become). This is why (believe it or not) I try not to use them wherever possible. Anyway the salient point is not one of Race but one of class. of course in former slave societies (like the good old U S of A) class divisions often come to the same thing as race divisions.


Originally posted by rogue
Also can you provide any records that the profits are going to these people and not lining the pockets of the ruling minority?

Since this is how things were before there would be no need for a coup if this was still the case. Of course if the corruption was still there (and I challenge you to find a society without any form of corruption whatsoever) and it was just a different bunch of people lining their pockets then the poor are no better or worse off than before and they can just vote for someone else at the next election. Remember this is precisely what the ruling class are scared of. If Chavez' reforms were to ruin the country there would be no need for a coup- the people would just vote him out. However if they succeed and are seen to succeed they may never get things to return to the way they were.


Originally posted by rogue
Are you counting the 17 deaths of anti-Chavez marchers that set off the coup?

A thought experiement: If thousands of armed Anti Bush protesters were to try and storm the whitehouse, how many people do you think the police/army would kill?


Originally posted by rogue
I think Nick is a communist.

I dont even know what this means. You tell me if you're against the following things:

-minimum wages
-maximum working hours
-holiday pay,
-redundancy pay
-maternity leave
-pensions
-health and safety regulations
-welfare
-state funded education
-state funded healthcare
-state assisted loans to small business'

And if so why?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Nick Forrer
Personally, my two fundamental political convictions are these:
1) That the poorest people in society should be as well off as posible
and
2) That people should be free in so far as their freedom doesn't interfere with the freedom of others.

...it might be the case that these two principles are best realised by a lassez faire, free market economy, or even by no centralised 'economy' at all. If you can produce a compelling argument to that end I'd be more than willing to listen.

There are some fairly classic arguments to this effect.

With regard to jobs and pay, it is a universal fact that a society needs certain work to be done and has a limited amount of productivity to offer in return for that work. It then follows that a premier problem in domestic policy for government is how to a) distribute the work force, and b) distribute the fruits of labor in return for the work being done.

The socialists argue that, insofar as all men are equal, and the broad spectrum of jobs equally necessary for society, none should be given a larger share of labor's products than any other. The problem with this arises when laborers do not volunteer in large enough numbers for essential labor. Without abandoning the socialist model, there are two solutions to this: i) do not accomplish the essential labor, ii) allow the state to dictate to the citizen what his labor will be.

The capitalists argue that neither one of these are acceptable responses: that society must accomplish essential labor while minimally jeopardizing the citizen's liberty. Following this, they reject the socialist model of state-mandated equal distribution, and allow the rates of distribution to moderate freely: such that the salary given for any work is that needed to attract enough laborers for the essential work to be done.

Which is less abhorrent - that not all men have the same wealth, or that people are not allowed to choose what they do with their lives?

I believe the former is less abhorrent. However, this is but one argument among many against the socialist position. (I gave earlier the argument concerning international trade, for instance)