Take the GLOVES off our troops NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

[spot]

BTS wrote: So then tell us all.............. Where is Mr Nick Berg then?It hadn't occurred to me that anyone might seriously think he wasn't dead. What suggests any alternative, to you?

[spot]

BTS wrote: Look at your quotes. You used it TWICE in this threadand this thread is... today? I thought so.

[BTS]

spot wrote: It hadn't occurred to me that anyone might seriously think he wasn't dead. What suggests any alternative, to you?
So what does this infer?



spot wrote:

[report...] by a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts (IABPA). (http://www.iabpa.org/) It concludes "...the blood pattern shown in the video is NOT consistent with the cutting or breaching of the carotid artery or arteries of a person where the victim's blood pressure would be considered to be within the normal range. Based on this observation alone, this investigator questions the authenticity of the video as it was been presented for bloodstain pattern analysis."

[spot]

BTS wrote: So what does this infer?It infers nothing. What it implies is that the body being decapitated in the video was a dead body.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0174.html might help.

[BTS]

spot wrote: Have you actually read those references, BTS?



...no date was provided. It was not possible to authenticate the claims.



An unidentified Iraqi officer introduced the video, saying all insurgent groups in Iraq were covers for Syrian intelligence. He named a number of well-known groups, including one which has killed and beheaded foreigners.



Iraqiya TV is believed to be widely watched by Iraqis mainly those who cannot afford satellite dishes offering the Gulf-based Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya stations. But the station, which went on the air in May 2003 with help from the Pentagon, is viewed by many Iraqis as an American propaganda tool having a pro-American slant.

And you call *me* naive???
You really believe that the biggest part of the jihadist are Iraqi's then?



Even your hero admitts the Iraqi's are not good for suicide bombings.



A letter written by al-Zarqawi and believed to be intended for top al-Qaeda leaders reinforced this assessment. Al-Zarqawi noted the reluctance of the “Iraqi brothers” to conduct “martyrdom” operations and their preference for “mines planted, rockets launched, and mortars shelling from afar.” He is also clear on the targets for the foreign jihadists’ attacks: police, military, and the Shiites.



Look at the biggest attacks in the last few months. are they suicide for the most part? Just wondering?

Perhaps you could ask al-Zarqawi, over a glass of Pauls wine when you dine with him next.

[spot]

BTS wrote: Look at your quotes. You used it TWICE in this threadFinally, I've worked out what you're referring to - the "drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay" bit. It's a quote, BTS, describing that sieg-heil-fascist opinion writer Christopher Hitchens. Anastrophe introduced him to the thread as an exemplar, and I mentioned the only reference to the man that I could remember off-hand. If you feel that's equivalent to me saying that Christopher Hitchens drinks to excess, then -as I said - it's twice in one day. I dispute that I "seem to toss it out quite a bit", never once having suggested it of anyone on FG before this thread.

[spot]

BTS wrote: Even your hero admitts the Iraqi's are not good for suicide bombings.Either you're prepared to converse, or you're looking for an excuse to crack inane jokes. I have no admiration for al-Zarqawi, I have never expressed admiration for al-Zarqawi, I have no interest in the survival or imminent demise of al-Zarqawi, I find al-Zarqawi a distasteful chap all round. Your use of the word "hero" is a snide cheap gibe with no basis to it. Either pull your act together, BTS, or talk to yourself for a while. Politeness costs nothing.

[BTS]

spot wrote: Either you're prepared to converse, or you're looking for an excuse to crack inane jokes. I have no admiration for al-Zarqawi, I have never expressed admiration for al-Zarqawi, I have no interest in the survival or imminent demise of al-Zarqawi, I find al-Zarqawi a distasteful chap all round. Your use of the word "hero" is a snide cheap gibe with no basis to it. Either pull your act together, BTS, or talk to yourself for a while. Politeness costs nothing.
Oh me Oh my.......... Hit a High note here did I?

I am sure if you would invite the "NATIVE jihadist" over for a little brunch and chat you wouldn't invite their leader over also?

Hard to believe...







What is it just the poor peasants (jihadist's) that us naughty Americans have suppressed so over there and not their brave beheading leader you support?

They are one in the same in my book.



spot wrote: I didn't mention them at all. Just the natives. I imagine that the syrian jihadists coming into iraq to murder shiite iraqis are (1) few in number and (2) dreadful people to whom I would be unlikely to issue a dinner invite. I don't like them.

[spot]

BTS wrote: What is it just the poor peasants (jihadist's) that us naughty Americans have suppressed so over there and not their brave beheading leader you support?

They are one in the same in my book.You're totally incapable of reading threaded material, aren't you.

The composer of the words "syrian jihadists coming into iraq to murder shiite iraqis" was anastrophe, not me. Had it been me, I would have referred with rather more correctness to jihadis, had there been a jihad in progress. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in authority has called a jihad.

There was a point, earlier, that I didn't find a space to answer - if you look up "false flag operation" anywhere sensible, you'll get a feel for the "show me where my country's intelligence was responsibe for the atrocious murder of Mr Nick Berg" bit. Or is "show me" asking for an operational dossier with signatures and fingerprints? There are limits to what these people see fit to publish. I gave my opinion, as best I can judge. Your mileage may vary. Being a true patriot paid-up My Country Right Or Wrong member, I expect it does. In my case, it's called reasonable judgement. In yours, it's called bias.

[BTS]

spot wrote: In my case, it's called reasonable judgement. In yours, it's called bias.
Guilty as charged...............Biasssed towards your point of view here.

You are right I am wrong........... Is that what you wanted to say?



But I believe you said they (syrian's) are a small part of the insurgency in Iraq....

If you said that then that is where we part ways and what my point has been all along.

The insurgency is fueled by outside interests by far.

If you can not see that I quit!!!!!!!!

[spot]

BTS wrote: Guilty as charged...............Biasssed towards your point of view here.

You are right I am wrong........... Is that what you wanted to say?



But I believe you said they (syrian's) are a small part of the insurgency in Iraq....

If you said that then that is where we part ways and what my point has been all along.

The insurgency is fueled by outside interests by far.

If you can not see that I quit!!!!!!!!You're probably right that there's a significant proportion of non-resident muslims in Iraq who are active within the insurgency. You're probably right that, at various times since the Second Liberation, travelling through Syria to get there was the main route. I've no idea what proportion of those travelling were Syrian. I'm not, frankly, as interested in the answer as you appear to be. Perhaps you think that a First Liberation of Syria would be appropriate, if it turned out to be a significant proportion? It would be a less likely outcome if you - plural - would stop cheer-leading for your Administration every time your Prez has himself landed on a carrier, or performs in any other such carnival, and waves his prompt card. This is how liberty dies - to thunderous applause.

The insurgency could only be fueled by outside interests if a lot of outsiders feel the US has declared perpetual war on them. Why else would anyone flock to the barricades?

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: It hadn't occurred to me that anyone might seriously think he wasn't dead. What suggests any alternative, to you?
the inconsistency of these arguments is laughable. the [insert evil american agency] creates a fake video of mr. berg being decapitated. a week after the video comes out, mr. bergs decapitated body is found.



it makes absolutely, positively, no sense. if they were going to bother to decapitate him, why wouldn't they have filmed that? are you suggesting they didn't have the 'heart' to behead him while he was alive, so they beheaded his corpse? these people were ruthless enough to take an innocent person's life - but for the better part of discretion, they decided to cut off the head after he was dead? either way - his head was cut off.



frankly, it's idiotic. you, of course - want to believe so badly that it was the evil americans who killed him, to further their evil agenda, in service to the evil wolfowitz-rumsfeld-cheney-rove-bush cabal, that you'll believe any poppycock you can find on the net.



i'm not in the least bit surprised.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Either you're prepared to converse, or you're looking for an excuse to crack inane jokes. I have no admiration for al-Zarqawi, I have never expressed admiration for al-Zarqawi, I have no interest in the survival or imminent demise of al-Zarqawi, I find al-Zarqawi a distasteful chap all round. Your use of the word "hero" is a snide cheap gibe with no basis to it. Either pull your act together, BTS, or talk to yourself for a while. Politeness costs nothing.
you really can drop the sanctimonious crap any time, spot. there's no shortage of rancor, ad hominem, or sarcasm from you in this thread. your sophomoric 'binge drinking' comment to me is evidence that politeness is not exactly a coin jingling in your pocket either.



so, really - bugger off with this holier-than-thou stuff.

[spot]

I thought it was a commonplace, these days, that people tend to die in custody if they get pushed too far, too hard or too fast. Turning an overenthusiastic mistake into a recruiting opportunity just by making a video - maybe you just need that sort of a mind. I'm not refering to my own, here. Why you're asking me to speculate, I'm not sure. Anyone can create a scenario, nobody can know which is more accurate than others. What people can say, though, with some certainty, is that the video doesn't have arabs in it, or a live decapitation.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: You're totally incapable of reading threaded material, aren't you.



The composer of the words "syrian jihadists coming into iraq to murder shiite iraqis" was anastrophe, not me. Had it been me, I would have referred with rather more correctness to jihadis, had there been a jihad in progress. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in authority has called a jihad.
that's because your sources are far-left anti-america wild-eyed loonies. of course your authorities don't refer to it as jihad. they work mightily to supress the fact. never mind zarqawi calls it jihad at every possible turn. never mind that the reason there are so many suicide bombers lined up is because they believe killing the infidels is their ticket to paradise. never mind that they target shiites, 'different' muslims who they consider as equals to infidels. never mind that they want to take the region back to the seventh century. never mind that virtually every sentence out of their mouths ends with 'praise be to allah'.



seriously. be sure to never mind these facts. they're inconvenient to the blinkered life.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I thought it was a commonplace, these days, that people tend to die in custody if they get pushed too far, too hard or too fast. Turning an overenthusiastic mistake into a recruiting opportunity just by making a video - maybe you just need that sort of a mind. I'm not refering to my own, here. Why you're asking me to speculate, I'm not sure. Anyone can create a scenario, nobody can know which is more accurate than others. What people can say, though, with some certainty, is that the video doesn't have arabs in it, or a live decapitation.
"certainty".



astonishing.

[john8pies]

All of this type of thing is very sick but of course the worry is that if the `big guns` went in `without gloves`, things may just escalate to an even worse pitch (I can just hear terrorists saying something like, `hey, did you see what those Americans did to our comrades? Let`s do something that makes 11/9/01 ("9/11" in USA) look like a kiddies` tea party."

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Meanwhile, in the unlikely event that I see a soldier attempting to rape my sister, I shall try, in the manner of Lytton Strachey, to come between them.your choice is naturally telling. it would be a 'soldier' attempting to rape your sister. why? because it is implicit that the soldier is a moral derelict. thus, the perfect example in your blinkered world.



the problem with most pacifists, particularly those of the ivory tower intellectual ilk, is that, in the simplest terms, they are just commonplace cowards. "i'm a pacifist" sounds ever so much nicer than "i'm a coward".



most pacifists lack the moral backbone to defend themselves. but they'll happily let others put their lives in harms way to protect them. thus their moral bankruptcy.



mind you, this doesn't apply to all pacifists. buddhist pacifists live the pacifist life, with no police force or army to protect them. that is real pacifism. those who sit in their comfy little homes made safe by the sacrifices of others who went before them and others on duty through the dead of night are not pacifists of any stripe. their mere cowards.



of course, i've no idea which class spot falls into. heavens no.

[BTS]

spot wrote: I thought it was a commonplace, these days, that people tend to die in custody if they get pushed too far, too hard or too fast. Turning an overenthusiastic mistake into a recruiting opportunity just by making a video - maybe you just need that sort of a mind. I'm not refering to my own, here. Why you're asking me to speculate, I'm not sure. Anyone can create a scenario, nobody can know which is more accurate than others. What people can say, though, with some certainty, is that the video doesn't have arabs in it, or a live decapitation.
spot:

You got me looking in the dumpster where you seem to get your info on this so called American (after death) beheading of Mr Nick Berg.



Boy you guys have some DOOOOZIES going around........



Like this here:



And Here!!!



Was Nick Berg killed by US intelligence? By Sirajin Sattayev







There is much more to this than meets the eye.



(FROM ABOVE LINK)

Since it can proved that BushCo practically greenlighted the 9/11 attacks, we know that there are extremely suspicious connections between them and the Saudis, the bin Laden family, and al Qaeda regarding their failed relationship with the Taliban to procure pipeline rights to the Caspian Sea oil reserves. Look where all the U.S. military bases are in Afganastan and you will notice that they are all located along the planned pipeline route. Mere coincidence? Hardly.



If you examine the "execution" clip, it is obvious that Berg(?) is already dead when his head is removed as there is no arterial eruption of blood during the cutting. The assailant speaks with an Iraqi accent, not Jordanian, and keeps flipping repeatedly through the same pages as he reads. Examine any government confiscated al Qaeda recruitment video and you will see a totally different attitude and posture assumed by the militants. These men are fidgity and wear gold jewelry and are probably Iraqis working under coalition intelligence supervision.



Berg(?) was more than likely murdered at Abu Ghraib where the video was shot. The fact that the members of the freerepublic website harasses anybody that disagrees with their extremist neo-fascist political philosophy, it is likely that they play a role in the whole Berg plot since his Promeatheus company was on their hit-list. Which is ironic, considering Berg(?) was pro war and pro BushCo.





I rest my case and am sorry if this is where you get your enlightened news from.........

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: never mind that they want to take the region back to the seventh century. never mind that virtually every sentence out of their mouths ends with 'praise be to allah'.Purely on a point of information, from where does your country derive its authority to interfere in the region, should you be right about their intention? Where is your "clear and present danger" to your own domestic security, required even within your own rulebook? Who, exactly, allowed all of these fanatical Taliban-inspired monsters of depravity into Iraq in the first place? I don't recall pre-Liberation Iraq allowing them any access, where their remit still ran. And finally, if more of the non-Iraqi jihadis are Saudi instead of Syrian, why are you talking of Liberating Syria instead of Liberating Saudi Arabia? I think that, if you read the estimates, that's what the figures say.

The fact that you don't like a bunch of people doesn't give you a God-given right to travel half-way around the planet to indiscriminately slaughter their wives and children. Unless, of course, you see this as some sort of inspired crusade.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Purely on a point of information, from where does your country derive its authority to interfere in the region, should you be right about their intention? Where is your "clear and present danger" to your own domestic security, required even within your own rulebook? Who, exactly, allowed all of these fanatical Taliban-inspired monsters of depravity into Iraq in the first place? I don't recall pre-Liberation Iraq allowing them any access, where their remit still ran. And finally, if more of the non-Iraqi jihadis are Saudi instead of Syrian, why are you talking of Liberating Syria instead of Liberating Saudi Arabia? I think that, if you read the estimates, that's what the figures say.



The fact that you don't like a bunch of people doesn't give you a God-given right to travel half-way around the planet to indiscriminately slaughter their wives and children. Unless, of course, you see this as some sort of inspired crusade.
translation: true to form, i will ignore that they are waging jihad. they are merely 'freedom fighters'.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: your choice is naturally telling. it would be a 'soldier' attempting to rape your sister. why? because it is implicit that the soldier is a moral derelict. thus, the perfect example in your blinkered world.If you really don't know about Lytton Strachey, the thing to do is to look him up first. He went before a Conscientious Objector's Tribunal. The Tribunal asked him how he would react if faced with an enemy soldier attempting to rape his sister. I quoted his reply verbatim.



anastrophe wrote: the problem with most pacifists, particularly those of the ivory tower intellectual ilk, is that, in the simplest terms, they are just commonplace cowards. "i'm a pacifist" sounds ever so much nicer than "i'm a coward".



most pacifist lack the moral backbone to defend themselves. but they'll happily let others put their lives in harms way to protect them. thus their moral bankruptcy.



mind you, this doesn't apply to all pacifists. buddhist pacifists live the pacifist life, with no police force or army to protect them. that is real pacifism. those who sit in their comfy little homes made safe by the sacrifices of others who went before them and others on duty through the dead of night are not pacifists of any stripe. their mere cowards.



of course, i've no idea which class spot falls into. heavens no.Indeed you don't, little man. Indeed you don't.

May I bring in a singularly heroic compatriot of yours? One Eugene Debs? He never recovered his health, he died early, but his voice at being sentenced by someone very like you still echoes down the years:

"years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

For which (or for the full address to the court, at http://pbahq.smartcampaigns.com/book/print/220 ), someone quite like you killed him.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I don't recall pre-Liberation Iraq allowing them any access, where their remit still ran.
let me guess: saddam hussein is merely misunderstood. he was a good man - he only had the interests of his people at heart. thats why he relentlessly tortured and murdered his own citizens. he had to kill them to save them.



is that what you're suggesting dear spot?

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: let me guess: saddam hussein is merely misunderstood. he was a good man - he only had the interests of his people at heart. thats why he relentlessly tortured and murdered his own citizens. he had to kill them to save them.



is that what you're suggesting dear spot?nope, sorry, but thanks for asking!

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: If you really don't know about Lytton Strachey, the thing to do is to look him up first. He went before a Conscientious Objector's Tribunal. The Tribunal asked him how he would react if faced with an enemy soldier attempting to rape his sister. I quoted his reply verbatim.
good for you. sad that the best you can do is quote someone else on the matter.





Indeed you don't, little man. Indeed you don't.



May I bring in a singularly heroic compatriot of yours? One Eugene Debs? He never recovered his health, he died early, but his voice at being sentenced by someone very like you still echoes down the years:



"years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."



For which (or for the full address to the court, at http://pbahq.smartcampaigns.com/book/print/220 ), someone quite like you killed him.
i guess you misunderstand the opposite of pacifism, which is unsurprising. those who aren't pacifists aren't interested in killing pacifists. see, this is the fundamental difference. the people who serve to protect you are still committed to protecting you, regardless of your cowardice. they *will* lay down their life to preserve your right to be a coward. their interest is preventing harm from being done to innocent persons, and the coward is an innocent person, regardless.



i've stated, quite clearly here on forumgarden, that i absolutely, fully support any conscientious objector. if you don't want to serve your country, that's your right, in my opinion. if the penalties are found to be onerous, then go elsewhere. my father - you know, the world war II vet who was in instrumentality to your ability to sit in your home and spout your poppycock - accompanied a family friend to his draft board hearing in the 1960's, to speak on his behalf as a conscientious objector.



you just don't get it. the opposite of a pacifist is not a bloodthirsty moral derelict. the opposite of a pacifist is a hero.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: nope, sorry, but thanks for asking!
you're very welcome! care to explain then, what your basis of defense for saddam's regime would be? better a thuggish, brutal megalomaniac keeping his people buried under his heel, than a free people fighting for their own destiny?



no? no problem! feel free to justify it in your own words!!

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: you just don't get it. the opposite of a pacifist is not a bloodthirsty moral derelict. the opposite of a pacifist is a hero.In a world absolutely teeming with miscegenation, you must be one of the last who thinks that white is white and black is black.

Actually, speaking of extreme positions, it's one of the many strange things I've noticed about you. You seem to think that if you push my centrist viewpoint past the limits of reason, then note with pleasure that it falls off and won't hold up any longer, I have employed a reductio ad absurdum argument (because - I'm guessing - you think you have reduced it to absurdity?). I suggest that, before you smugly use the accusation again, you look in a book and discover what the expression actually means. I have never, in your hearing, employed a reductio ad absurdum argument. If I ever do, I'll tell you that I'm doing it.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: you're very welcome! care to explain then, what your basis of defense for saddam's regime would be? better a thuggish, brutal megalomaniac keeping his people buried under his heel, than a free people fighting for their own destiny?Than a *what*?

Do you know, for the last twenty five years, students at Seoul University have year after year demonstrated against the continued US occupation of their country, and year after year they've been beaten up and sent home bleeding for it. Or hospitalized. Or dead.

' Earlier this month a few thousand members of Hanchongryon -- South Korea's largest student group -- staged a demonstration and tore down wire fences at an air force base in Gwangju, demanding the United States remove its Patriot missiles and withdraw from South Korea altogether. The group, which is outlawed by the South Korean government yet still operates openly, has dubbed June a "period of anti-United States and anti-war struggle," and more demonstrations are expected, according to an editorial in the Joong Ang Daily newspaper. 'That's a free people fighting for their own destiny - they're none of them Muslims - who, exactly, are they fighting? OK, move over the water:

' "Our long-standing position is that we want the base here closed," said Hiroyuki Suzuki, an official in Zama, where the U.S. Army's Japan headquarters are located. Camp Zama is rumored to be a possible new home for several hundred soldiers currently assigned to I Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash. "We're worried that the base will become more permanent," Suzuki said. Zama officials organized the petition drive to give weight to their opposition and make it more difficult for the Japanese government to accept an expansion plan. 'That camp's been there sixty years. How many of those years do you think the locals have been pleased to have it there? How about zero? How many Japanese are Muslim?

There are permanent protest camps in the UK, outside bases like these, which have been continuously occupied since the 1960s, and the UK wasn't even an Occupied Territory.

Should I mention the Philippines? Cuba? Maybe not. Maybe you think they continue to welcome their Liberators. Have we gone back a hundred years, at this point? I think we have.

Strangely enough, the UK retained bases - we still have the odd few. Gibraltar howls with anguish if the question ever comes up of us dismantling the base there. Cyprus wouldn't know what to do with their spare time if we went. Hong Kong went back, but we handed it back in a magnificent condition. Have a guess which has the higher life expectancy, Hong Kong or the USA?

And you have the gall to speak of transforming Iraq - a nation of towel heads that your population despises worse than they ever did their own slave population - into a free people fighting for their own destiny? While leaving all these KBR/Halliburton constructed bases in place? Occupied by US services for - let's guess on the basis of past experience - a hundred years?

What planet are you living on? Of course they were better off pre-Liberation. Pre-Liberation, if you'd just stayed away instead of bombing year after year for over a decade, they'd have re-organized. President Hussein would have been far less in control, without an external enemy to bolster him (just as President Bush would be far less in control, without an external enemy to bolster him, however mythical that enemy was before he fed it).

The last thing you want to see in Iraq, anastrophe, is a free people fighting for their own destiny. I feel it would not be fighting your enemies for you any longer, the way it did through the 70s and 80s.

[BTS]

spot wrote: Than a *what*?



Do you know, for the last twenty five years, students at Seoul University have year after year demonstrated against the continued US occupation of their country, and year after year they've been beaten up and sent home bleeding for it. Or hospitalized. Or dead.



' Earlier this month a few thousand members of Hanchongryon -- South Korea's largest student group -- staged a demonstration and tore down wire fences at an air force base in Gwangju, demanding the United States remove its Patriot missiles and withdraw from South Korea altogether. The group, which is outlawed by the South Korean government yet still operates openly, has dubbed June a "period of anti-United States and anti-war struggle," and more demonstrations are expected, according to an editorial in the Joong Ang Daily newspaper. 'That's a free people fighting for their own destiny - they're none of them Muslims - who, exactly, are they fighting? OK, move over the water:



' "Our long-standing position is that we want the base here closed," said Hiroyuki Suzuki, an official in Zama, where the U.S. Army's Japan headquarters are located. Camp Zama is rumored to be a possible new home for several hundred soldiers currently assigned to I Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash. "We're worried that the base will become more permanent," Suzuki said. Zama officials organized the petition drive to give weight to their opposition and make it more difficult for the Japanese government to accept an expansion plan. 'That camp's been there sixty years. How many of those years do you think the locals have been pleased to have it there? How about zero? How many Japanese are Muslim?



There are permanent protest camps in the UK, outside bases like these, which have been continuously occupied since the 1960s, and the UK wasn't even an Occupied Territory.



Should I mention the Philippines? Cuba? Maybe not. Maybe you think they continue to welcome their Liberators. Have we gone back a hundred years, at this point? I think we have.



Strangely enough, the UK retained bases - we still have the odd few. Gibraltar howls with anguish if the question ever comes up of us dismantling the base there. Cyprus wouldn't know what to do with their spare time if we went. Hong Kong went back, but we handed it back in a magnificent condition. Have a guess which has the higher life expectancy, Hong Kong or the USA?



And you have the gall to speak of transforming Iraq - a nation of towel heads that your population despises worse than they ever did their own slave population - into a free people fighting for their own destiny? While leaving all these KBR/Halliburton constructed bases in place? Occupied by US services for - let's guess on the basis of past experience - a hundred years?



What planet are you living on? Of course they were better off pre-Liberation. Pre-Liberation, if you'd just stayed away instead of bombing year after year for over a decade, they'd have re-organized. President Hussein would have been far less in control, without an external enemy to bolster him (just as President Bush would be far less in control, without an external enemy to bolster him, however mythical that enemy was before he fed it).



The last thing you want to see in Iraq, anastrophe, is a free people fighting for their own destiny. I feel it would not be fighting your enemies for you any longer, the way it did through the 70s and 80s.
Better if the North moves down and exterminate em?

[spot]

BTS wrote: Better if the North moves down and exterminate em?Gosh, BTS, I bet they're so grateful to have an ally like you on their side.

Do you not think that, living where they do and knowing what they know, they're in a better position to judge their own interests than you are?

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: my centrist viewpoint
:yh_rotfl



thanks man, i really needed a good laugh this morning!!



have you ever considered doing stand-up comedy for living? you were born for it.



for those who are not playing with a full deck, here's spot's definition of 'centrist viewpoint': berg was killed by [insert evil american agency] to whip up the credulous american public. the jihadists are 'freedom fighters'. saddam hussein's regime lacked jihadists, therefore it was superior to what they have now. all those in the military are moral derelicts. hitler may have been evil, but he wasn't at the far end of the spectrum, he had his good points too (he could keep a room clear of annoying flies and bugs just by farting, i suppose). the wolfowitz-rumsfeld-cheney-rove-bush cabal engineered and perpetrated the 9/11 attack.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: thanks man, i really needed a good laugh this morning!!



have you ever considered doing stand-up comedy for living? you were born for it.



for those who are not playing with a full deck, here's spot's definition of 'centrist viewpoint': [blether]I've never seen anyone wreck their own position so consistently as you do. Every time you open your mouth, you put your own foot into it. How can you be so stupid as to say here's spot's definition of 'centrist viewpoint', and then quote your own deliberately rubbishing and exaggerated paragraph, entirely in your own words, instead of something I wrote?

[capt_buzzard]

spot wrote: I don't think Iraq shares a land border with Afghanistan, Captain. Maybe the American and British forces in South Korea could go out and get them instead?But the Troops have been there already. Come and gone, and that's still a mess?

[spot]

capt_buzzard wrote: "But the Troops have been there already. Come and gone, and that's still a mess? The aid worker was abducted by armed men on May 16 as she was being driven to her home in the capital, Kabul."

Which I think must translate to a Yes.

[BTS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTS

Better if the North moves down and exterminate em?





spot wrote: Gosh, BTS, I bet they're so grateful to have an ally like you on their side.



Do you not think that, living where they do and knowing what they know, they're in a better position to judge their own interests than you are?I think they (South Koreans) are smart enough to know if we shut our bases down it will embolden North Korea and their nuclear ambitions. But I keep forgetting a pacifist like you feel all countries should have nukes if the Good ol US of A is allowed to have them.



You believe if we close them the North will just go away?

Look at the history pal........

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Than a *what*?



Do you know, for the last twenty five years, students at Seoul University have year after year demonstrated against the continued US occupation of their country, and year after year they've been beaten up and sent home bleeding for it. Or hospitalized. Or dead.spot's method: switch 4,000 miles away to a different country, a different political system, a different history, rather than addressing the question. brilliant. if you're a doorknob.









' Earlier this month a few thousand members of Hanchongryon -- South Korea's largest student group -- staged a demonstration and tore down wire fences at an air force base in Gwangju, demanding the United States remove its Patriot missiles and withdraw from South Korea altogether. The group, which is outlawed by the South Korean government yet still operates openly, has dubbed June a "period of anti-United States and anti-war struggle," and more demonstrations are expected, according to an editorial in the Joong Ang Daily newspaper. 'That's a free people fighting for their own destiny - they're none of them Muslims - who, exactly, are they fighting? OK, move over the water:











' "Our long-standing position is that we want the base here closed," said Hiroyuki Suzuki, an official in Zama, where the U.S. Army's Japan headquarters are located. Camp Zama is rumored to be a possible new home for several hundred soldiers currently assigned to I Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash. "We're worried that the base will become more permanent," Suzuki said. Zama officials organized the petition drive to give weight to their opposition and make it more difficult for the Japanese government to accept an expansion plan. 'That camp's been there sixty years. How many of those years do you think the locals have been pleased to have it there? How about zero? How many Japanese are Muslim?and this has what to do with the question i asked? oh, right, how silly of me. nothing.







There are permanent protest camps in the UK, outside bases like these, which have been continuously occupied since the 1960s, and the UK wasn't even an Occupied Territory.



Should I mention the Philippines? Cuba? Maybe not. Maybe you think they continue to welcome their Liberators. Have we gone back a hundred years, at this point? I think we have.



Strangely enough, the UK retained bases - we still have the odd few. Gibraltar howls with anguish if the question ever comes up of us dismantling the base there. Cyprus wouldn't know what to do with their spare time if we went. Hong Kong went back, but we handed it back in a magnificent condition. Have a guess which has the higher life expectancy, Hong Kong or the USA?



And you have the gall to speak of transforming Iraq - a nation of towel heads that your population despises worse than they ever did their own slave population - into a free people fighting for their own destiny? While leaving all these KBR/Halliburton constructed bases in place? Occupied by US services for - let's guess on the basis of past experience - a hundred years?

let's be clear here, for the lurkers and those who mayhaps have not followed the discussion. the following are 100%, entirely, spot's words, unattributable to anyone in this thread or on forumgarden for that matter: "a nation of towel heads that your population despises worse than they ever did their own slave population"



now, to pull that apart just a bit further - what we have here, in an interesting turnabout, is spots own admission of his intense bigotry - towards americans. spot - from his comfortable ivory tower - seems to think he knows what all americans think and feel, and that, to a man, we despise the iraqi population, and by extension all muslims, arabs, middle easterners. talk about palpable, unadorned bigotry!



he comfortably forgets the first free elections ever held in that nation a few months ago. i have absolutely, positively, no doubt that spot will poo-poo that - staged, a mockery, puppets of the wolfowitz-rumsfeld-cheney-rove-bush cabal .



and we're to take from this that spot is a centrist, rather than a wild-eyed conspiracy theory fed extremist. again, thanks for the laughs, it's great.





What planet are you living on? Of course they were better off pre-Liberation. Pre-Liberation, if you'd just stayed away instead of bombing year after year for over a decade, they'd have re-organized. President Hussein would have been far less in control, without an external enemy to bolster him (just as President Bush would be far less in control, without an external enemy to bolster him, however mythical that enemy was before he fed it).:yh_rotfl



stop! STOP! yer killing me with this centrist humor! i can't take it any more, my sides are aching!





The last thing you want to see in Iraq, anastrophe, is a free people fighting for their own destiny. I feel it would not be fighting your enemies for you any longer, the way it did through the 70s and 80s.tell me again what'd you'd have done to stop hitler? i mean, we're talking deep cabal stuff relentlessly here, wolfowitz-rumsfeld-cheney-rove-bush conspiracy, berg killed by [insert evil US agency], jihadists are actually freedom fighters, life under saddam would have been better. seriously - would you have let the ovens burn at auschwitz? if - assuming you weren't in the midst of posting while binge drinking (tip o' the fez there to ya, old boy!) - when you wrote "Absolutely, totally, pacifist" - then that suggests you would under no circumstances have lifted a finger to stop the killing. correct? incorrect?

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I've never seen anyone wreck their own position so consistently as you do. Every time you open your mouth, you put your own foot into it. How can you be so stupid as to say here's spot's definition of 'centrist viewpoint', and then quote your own deliberately rubbishing and exaggerated paragraph, entirely in your own words, instead of something I wrote?


(for those scoring at home, note that spot has neither contradicted a word i wrote, nor suggested that i'm not 'spot' on with it. rather than actually tell us why my mock definition is wrong, he tries to turn it around onto me. can you say, 'dissembling'? sure you can!)

[capt_buzzard]

Believe or Not. The Terrorists are Winning the War.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Of course they were better off pre-Liberation. Pre-Liberation, if you'd just stayed away instead of bombing year after year for over a decade, they'd have re-organized. President Hussein would have been far less in control, without an external enemy to bolster him (just as President Bush would be far less in control, without an external enemy to bolster him, however mythical that enemy was before he fed it).
tell us a story about how much better off the iraqi people were before under saddam.



On 2 July 1999 Al-Shaikh Yahya Muhsin Ja’far al-Zeini, a 29-year-old former theology student, was arrested in his parents’ house in Saddam City, Baghdad. His father and two brothers had been detained as substitute prisoners until his arrest. Security men blindfolded him and took him to the Saddam Security Directorate in Baghdad.

During the five months that Al-Shaikh Yahya was held at the Directorate he was regularly subjected to electric shocks followed by beatings on the feet. For two months he had to sleep on the floor with his hands tied behind his back and his face on the floor. On one occasion he was suspended from a window for three days. After being transferred to the Security Directorate of al-Rassafa district, also in Baghdad, he remained held without charge or trial until 14 April 2000, when he was released.

Al-Shaikh Yahya’s detention was part of a wave of arrests which followed widespread anti-government protests in southern Iraq and in Saddam city, the Shi‘a dominated district of Baghdad. The protests were sparked by the killing of a well-known Shi‘a Muslim cleric, Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, in February 1999 in the southern city of al-Najaf, and resulted in the killings of dozens of protesters by the security forces and the arrest of hundreds of people. Many, like Al-Shaikh Yahya, were the victims of torture. Methods of torture used included suspension followed by repeated beatings on various parts of the body, the use of electric shocks on the genitals as well as psychological torture such as torturing detainees in front of relatives or friends, and solitary confinement.



more of the story: http://web.amnesty.org/wire/October2001/iraq



The Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party has been in power in Iraq since 1968. Under the leadership of President Saddam Hussein, who seized power in 1979, the Iraqi government has committed a vast number of crimes against the Iraqi people and others, using terror through various levels of police, military, and intelligence agencies to control and intimidate large segments of the Iraqi population.

Two Iraqi groups in particular have suffered horrific abuses—the Kurds in the north, and Shi`a populations in the south. Two decades of oppression against Iraq’s Kurds and Kurdish resistance culminated in 1988 with a genocidal campaign, and the use of chemical weapons, against Kurdish civilians, resulting in over 100,000 deaths. After the 1991 Gulf War, in the aftermath of a popular uprising in the South, Iraq drained the marsh regions and sent in the military with tanks to shell and burn villages, causing tens of thousands of Marsh Arabs, who are Shi`a, to flee to Iran. The Iraqi military has also used chemical weapons in its war against Iran, committed serious human rights violations during its occupation of Kuwait, and committed other crimes.

While Human Rights Watch has long advocated the prosecution of Saddam Hussein and others for crimes against the Iraqi people and others,1 it takes no position on the advisability or legitimacy of the use of force against Iraq or the goal of removing Saddam Hussein. See “Human Rights Watch Policy on Iraq,” http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/hrwpolicy.htm. As the possibility of armed conflict and a possible transition increases in Iraq, however, it is necessary to consider how such crimes should be brought to justice.



more: http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq1217bg.htm



i look forward to tales of how Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are pawns of the wolfowitz-rumsfeld-cheney-rove-bush cabal.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: You seem to think that if you push my centrist viewpoint past the limits of reason, then note with pleasure that it falls off and won't hold up any longer, I have employed a reductio ad absurdum argument (because - I'm guessing - you think you have reduced it to absurdity?). I suggest that, before you smugly use the accusation again, you look in a book and discover what the expression actually means. I have never, in your hearing, employed a reductio ad absurdum argument. If I ever do, I'll tell you that I'm doing it.
you know, i'm rather amused by this. that little bit must have really been eating at you! i suggested 'reductio ad absurdum' in a different topic entirely, nearly a week ago. you had no truck with it then, but you bring it up here, now.



indeed, i employed the term incorrectly. in fact, i used the wrong term, mixing up my reductio's so to speak. i had in mind reductionist fallacy, but out came reductio ad absurdum.



ah well.



say, while we're bringing up old news, i have a proposal. i'd like to 'publish' our email exchange of a bit more than a week ago, in a new topic, to air it out for all to see. i would post it verbatim - in chronological order, no eliding or explaining or any other modification of the messages, all repeated text from one reply to the other included to maintain context (i'm not sure how the attribution characters from email will translate here however, in which case i'd have to add notation to indicate who was speaking/who was replying). i'll note that you did explicitly state that you would make no reference to the fact that the discussion took place without prior permission, but i should also note that you made no such request of me for the same, so my bringing it up is not a violation of any privilege, save my being a bit of a treacherous bastard (of course, we're both treacherous bastards, but here i hold the high ground by admitting it openly)



are you willing? i could post it in a separate journal topic so that it couldn't be muddied with other people's comments - or for that matter, you could post it.

[spot]

Let me tell you what I did on Monday night. I prepared a meal, sat down, took a while enjoying it, came back up, saw the extent to which you'd packed my in-tray, thought for all of thirty seconds about whether I was seriously interested in talking to someone who was quite evidently not listening, and instead went out to the local live music venue where I enjoyed two impressive sets and a long chat about France with a tableful of acquaintances.

So, that was Monday night. I'm glad I took the breather. You're screaming "why, why, why?" in everything you write, and each reason I give is firstly ignored - merely scanned for ammunition - and secondly screamed down in turn with further "why"s. You get less interesting to talk with by the day. You grow careless, you have ceased to think, you're as predictable as a hangover.

Nevertheless, I shall write my defense of absolute pacifism. Not because you scream "why" at me, but because it interests me to think through the reasons that you seem unwilling to consider respectable. In particular, you claim that refusing to take up arms against the Axis Powers in 1939 would be a moral dereliction, because:

"you'd have surrendered england to germany, going down neville chamberlain's path, is that correct? if you are absolutely, totally, pacifist, then that means you are against any and all military activity. therefore, the ovens at auschwitz could have kept on burning, within your moral landscape, correct? and they would continue burning to this day (though i doubt any jews or gypsies or homosexuals would be left for them)."

First, to put what I say in context, since you brought up the holocaust, what was the consequence of declaring war on the Axis in 1939, as far as European Jewry is concerned? You can write it two ways. Either you say "intervention saved the lives of three million Jews", from the pre-war total European population of nine million, or you say "intervention failed to save the lives of six million Jews". As an indication of a successful intervention, I'm not impressed. If that's the best that going to war can achieve, then it leaves a lot to be desired. I believe that absolute pacifism could have done better than that, but let's agree from the outset that even if it had failed as utterly as you claim it would, it would not have done much worse than declaring war did. Going to war, as a mechanism for preventing the holocaust, was by any definition a failure.

Secondly, absolute pacifism isn't anything to do with appeasement - if you think that, you're predictably uninformed but you're wrong. Neville Chamberlain's British Government's path in dealing with the Axis, and in particular with Nazi Germany, was one of appeasement. Absolute pacifism is most commonly a mass movement of individuals. I don't know of any historical moment when it has been a mechanism of government. It is a process adopted by people acting in concert, or even, exceptionally, by a single individual.

Thirdly, we have your concluding sentence: "using violence to stop violence is anathema to the total pacifist, so lifting a finger to stop hitler would not have been acceptable, correct?" which makes sense only if one equates violence with lifting a finger. I've always taken "lifting a finger" to mean taking action, not committing violence. It means doing something. Doing something would have been not just acceptable, it would have been an obligation. Committing violence would have been doing something unacceptable, it would have been forbidden by definition within absolute pacifism. Absolute pacifism employs force, it doesn't employ violence. It forces its opponent to change. That's its objective. It's employed as much to salvage the aggressor as it is to stop him from aggressing.

If you want an example of absolute pacifism succeeding in its goals, I have two examples for you. The student protest movement - you remember Kent State University? - that pulled the rug out from under Richard Nixon's administration. I'll settle for that, I won't go on to Martin Luther King's civil rights marches. If the Palestinians had anyone capable of leading an absolute pacifist campaign, they'd have a settlement in a few years because they'd have a different opponent to deal with instead of the hawks around Sharon. And, in my opinion, if absolute pacifism had been employed en masse throughout Europe against the Nazi regime in Germany, or against Il Duce's Fascist regime in Italy, it would not only have brought the Nazi occupations to an end more swiftly, it would have re-educated the Germans and the Italians into the bargain. It would most certainly have ended with far fewer deaths than the carnage that actually occurred as a result of declaring war. The more terror a nation state brings to bear against an absolute pacifist movement, the sooner it destroys itself. I have every confidence that this lesson will eventually be learnt, to the benefit of the planet as a whole.

What absolute pacifism brings to bear on a totalitarian or apartheid or unjust regime is both a financial penalty that the regime can't survive and a spotlight under which it can't disguise its nature. It may not act on the conscience of the fanatics at the top, but it tears out the support from under them by working on the conscience of the masses who would otherwise blindly follow orders. It may take less time than a military campaign, it may take more, I think that depends on how well it's organized and how aware the campaigners are of the need for total restraint on their part. It helps a lot if the regime's propaganda is recognised for the lies it carries, and that the information channels to the population at large - meaning the regime's followers - are open to factual reporting, but it's not essential. Truth will out.

You needn't bother to reply to the thread that you disagree with me, I'm already aware of the fact. If you wish to tell me why you disagree, however, then give me instances and examples, instead of opinion.

[spot]

BTS wrote: Quote:

Originally Posted by BTS

Better if the North moves down and exterminate em?





I think they (South Koreans) are smart enough to know if we shut our bases down it will embolden North Korea and their nuclear ambitions. But I keep forgetting a pacifist like you feel all countries should have nukes if the Good ol US of A is allowed to have them.



You believe if we close them the North will just go away?

Look at the history pal........BTS, I've stared at that "Look at the history pal" for long enough without understanding what you mean. Tell us, which bit of history would show that if you closed them the North would do something, or not go away, or whatever nasty consequence you're thinking of. After that, you could tell us when you have ever closed a base anywhere and had a nasty consequence.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: are you willing? i could post it in a separate journal topic so that it couldn't be muddied with other people's comments - or for that matter, you could post it.By all means. I was impressed by a lot of what you wrote there. I've no problem with it being an open thread.

[Wolverine]

flopstock wrote: or here's a different kind of idea. Let the italians go get the bad guys who keep kidnapping their aid workers!
The last time the Italians did that, US troops shot and killed the special operative that went in and rescued the Italian TV reporter. It was all over the news about 2 months ago. The special agent recieved a funeral that rivaled Pope John's.

[Bothwell]

So Spot the Kent State marches did what exactly, and although MLK did advance the black cause mightiliy I am not sure it has come that far. So I would like an example where the tru mass pacifism has benefitted mankind. As i understand it the Kent State affair was over Nixons expansion of the Vietnamese war into Cambodia, did it actually have any effect?

The holocaust example is IMO basically flawed in that if we had ignored Hitler completely then assuredly the whole Jewish population of occupied countries would have been exterminated, as you say 6 million were killed but not by Allies intervention, Hitlers plans for the jews were made independantly of his military ambitions, or are you saying that 6 million jews died because the allies declared war on Hitler if not then the war saved 3 million jews.

Finally on a personal note and it can only be personal as an ex serviceman I roundly object to the following statementPeople who sign up to the armed forces are moral derelicts, in my opinion. They had a choice to be useful members of society, and they threw it away in exchange for a lot of money and a great deal of personal satisfaction playing with noisy killing machines."


Also I cannot let the Strachey quote go away, it is thought in many circles that his reply to the army recruitment board that if he saw an enemy soldier about to rape his sister, that "I should try and interpose my body" was more a humorous declaration of his homosexuality than a serious point, but then I suppose there are those who would subscribe to the view that ALL the "Bloomsbury Set" were artists beyond compare and their views on real life are important.

[gmc]

posted by bothwell

So Spot the Kent State marches did what exactly, and although MLK did advance the black cause mightiliy I am not sure it has come that far. So I would like an example where the tru mass pacifism has benefitted mankind. As i understand it the Kent State affair was over Nixons expansion of the Vietnamese war into Cambodia, did it actually have any effect?


just to play devil's advocate

Jesus Christ? turn the other cheek and all that.

Ghandi?

[spot]

"the Kent State marches did what exactly"? I think they were one of the reasons for the congressional restriction of Nixon's administration through 1972, though others with more knowledge could say more here about that. Without that restriction, I think he'd have been allowed to complete his term. What I said was "The student protest movement - you remember Kent State University? - that pulled the rug out from under Richard Nixon's administration" - the reference to Kent State University was to focus the readers' attention on the particular student protest movement I was referring to. I don't think my words imply that the deaths on May 4th were the sole or even chief reason for anything but yes, it had an effect.

As for "where the tru mass pacifism has benefitted mankind", since you like none of the examples I gave, perhaps Gandhi's 1930 march to the sea at Dandi, where he made salt in defiance of the laws of the land, demonstrated with fewer than a hundred accomplices that Britain could no longer claim the moral high ground in maintaining the Empire. What Dyer at Amritsar had failed to achieve through incompetence, Gandhi managed with a theatric performance that nobody could misunderstand. There's a far better discussion of the place for pacifism at http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/NewsAndE ... VISION.pdf than I've managed to produce here. They've had more practice, of course.

In both cases, Kent State and Dandi, the shift in rectitude has a sharp pivot. It's not often that a moment like that can be seen, even in retrospect. The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted and inexcusable, just as the clubbing of unarmed Indians was. The claim by the National Guard that their lives were endangered by the students was fabricated subsequent to the event, just as the lies by the British to attempt to excuse the Dandi incident were exposed in the world's press. It's not just the act, it's the attempt at subsequent exculpation that creates the pivot which raises what's happened to a world-changing moment.

"are you saying that 6 million jews died because the allies declared war on Hitler if not then the war saved 3 million jews" - I don't know the answer to the first part. I could play what-if, but it's not a topic I care to be anything other than reverential toward. I don't know the truth or otherwise of your "then", either. I didn't bring the holocaust into this discussion. I don't think any of us know enough to bandy it about to score points.

I'm stuck with having a single fixed attitude on members of the armed forces, am I? OK, if I must, then I'll play along, it's easier than being complex and ambivalent. So, as an ex-serviceman, do you think you were paid less than a lot of money? Did you gain no personal satisfaction playing with noisy killing machines? That leaves us with the "useful member of society" bit. You know, I'm not convinced. If the money and personnel that goes into the armed forces went into policing, and education, and park maintenance, and repairing the canal system, the country would be a happier place, and we'd have cash left over. Trident's a great toy, I suppose, as were the Vulcans, but have they ever been worth the reduction of public services that they've entailed?

Lytton Strachey's Tribunal hearing was tense, not music-hall, according to those who were there and subsequently wrote about it. He was very nervous, knew in advance that the question would be put in exactly those terms, and constructed his reply to indicate that the question itself was both indecent and irrelevant. Given the state of the law against homosexual behaviour at the time, I can't imagine that he would declare his leanings in public at all, and I'm quite sure he never did. They became generally known after his death when referred to - in the 60s, if I remember right - in a biography. "I should try and interpose my body" makes for a more pointed joke about incest and sodomy, but it's not what he said to the Tribunal. I quoted his words quite accurately earlier.

[David813]

The more US troops kill the more we will be hated even more than we are right now. So I agree with the title of this thread; Tell the chumps to "Kill em All! Let God sort em out!" That will further embolden the courageous and honorable freedom fighters battling the imperialist invading hordes. Long live the Iraqi War of Independence!! Why isn't BTS there to replace Lynde England?!?!

[anastrophe]

David813 wrote: The more US troops kill the more we will be hated even more than we are right now. So I agree with the title of this thread; Tell the chumps to "Kill em All! Let God sort em out!" That will further embolden the courageous and honorable freedom fighters battling the imperialist invading hordes. Long live the Iraqi War of Independence!! Why isn't BTS there to replace Lynde England?!?!
david, david, david. have you read your signature line? 'fundamentalism stops a thinking mind'? how very true it is. a 'fundamentalist' sunni muslim wants women beheaded for going out without a veil. or trying to get an education. or for committing adultery. they want a petty thief to lose a hand. if the thief runs, he loses a foot, too. they want a closed society where all focus is on daily prayer and submission. the 'fundamentalist' sunni muslim jihadists are the ones blowing up themselves, and setting off car bombs - killing far more iraqis than soldiers i might add - in the name of allah. they want a 'fundamentalist' (as in the seventh century being 'fundamental') theocracy in place. these are hardly the communist/socialist ideals you support, or am i wrong?



these are not freedom fighters. they want theocratic fascism. no, i don't smell a hint of socialism or communism in it at all.



yes, long live the iraqi war of independence, begun with the first free election ever held, back in march.

[David813]

anastrophe wrote: david, david, david. have you read your signature line? 'fundamentalism stops a thinking mind'? how very true it is. a 'fundamentalist' sunni muslim wants women beheaded for going out without a veil. or trying to get an education. or for committing adultery. they want a petty thief to lose a hand. if the thief runs, he loses a foot, too. they want a closed society where all focus is on daily prayer and submission. the 'fundamentalist' sunni muslim jihadists are the ones blowing up themselves, and setting off car bombs - killing far more iraqis than soldiers i might add - in the name of allah. they want a 'fundamentalist' (as in the seventh century being 'fundamental') theocracy in place. these are hardly the communist/socialist ideals you support, or am i wrong?



these are not freedom fighters. they want theocratic fascism. no, i don't smell a hint of socialism or communism in it at all.



yes, long live the iraqi war of independence, begun with the first free election ever held, back in march.Unlike what most Americans believe, not all the freedom fighters in Iraq are jihadists! We gave them power AGAIN with the election of a Shiite extremist. Many of the rebels are ordinary Iraqi men that do not want a foriegn occupier in their country, handing it over to Shiite jihadists! Holy Warriors have descended on Iraq because of the turmoil we introduced to the region. The Palestinians hatred for apartheid Zionism is rooted in the misery of their daily lives, rarely through the Koran. The Islamic fundamentalists are but one of many elements opposed to foreign occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. A convenient excuse to "Take our gloves off" and REALLY get the blood splattering, but it just is not true.