Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Violent propaganda
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 135 (198855)
04-13-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Syamsu
04-13-2005 3:39 AM


Re: hm
quote:
Gee, are you all too frightened to do it, to pick up the gun and shoot the terrorist?
No - I think the "terrorists" are in the right, and the West is in the wrong.
quote:
- a wordy cartoon of the prophet having sex with a young child (which is generally believed to have happened AFAIK).
This would be a good example of something that would send the (accurate) message that the west is comprised of a bunch of ignorant intolerant hypocrites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Syamsu, posted 04-13-2005 3:39 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tusko, posted 04-13-2005 7:04 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 135 (198884)
04-13-2005 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tusko
04-13-2005 7:04 AM


Re: hm
quote:
You say you think the terrorists are in the right, but surely there's a qualification to that; namely, that you don't share their religious sentiments, or hold the belief that-to-the-letter Sharia or whatever is going to be A Good Thing?
Correct - but equally, I think the whole attribution of the cause of the present conflict to religion is mistaken. The third world is conducting an armed resistance to Western imperialism - much as it has done, on and off, for the last 200 years. Certainly, their rhetoric is phrased in religious terms, just like Bush's rhetoric is phrased in democratic terms: both structure their arguments in the light of the prevailing ideology.
quote:
As a side note, did you see those excellent "Power of Nightmares" documentaries? I only caught two of the three but thought they were really illuminating.
Oh yes, very good indeed, although as it happens I also only saw 2 of the 3. Indeed, I think that case is entirely plausible; its one of the reasons I have taken to saying "if they exist" whenever I mention Al Qaida.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tusko, posted 04-13-2005 7:04 AM Tusko has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 135 (199170)
04-14-2005 7:01 AM


quote:
To maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military-economic supremacy]... we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming.... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standard and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.... The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning, U.S. State Department, 1948
quote:
The fact that some elements [of the U.S. military/government] may appear to be potentially ‘out of control’ can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary’s decision makers...
That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries... It hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed...
U.S. Strategic Command, Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence, 1995
quote:
To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire, and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace.
Tacitus
This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-14-2005 06:01 AM

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 135 (199516)
04-15-2005 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tal
04-14-2005 10:26 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
with promises of more from the bad guys.
You ARE the bad guys. The villains. The Black Hats. The evildoers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tal, posted 04-14-2005 10:26 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tal, posted 04-15-2005 11:07 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 135 (200055)
04-18-2005 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tal
04-15-2005 11:07 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
Feel free to point a weapon in my general direction.
Why should I bother? I am already a civilian, and therefore a target.
You may be amused to know that in the recent PCGamer review of America's Army, they captioned a picture of 4 guys covering different directions as "the Women & Children formation, in which you spray bullets wildly into crowds of civilians".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tal, posted 04-15-2005 11:07 AM Tal has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 135 (200057)
04-18-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
04-16-2005 6:58 PM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
If we had finished the job in Afghanistan instead of going after a country which had never attacked us, things would be much better.
Nonsense. There was nothing gained by attacking Afghanistan; it was merely the first bit of Imperialism that the administration knew it would get rubber-stamped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 04-16-2005 6:58 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 9:52 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 135 (200089)
04-18-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
04-18-2005 9:52 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
The Taliban was supporting the terrorist that attacked us, and he was in Afghanistan.
- according to intelligence - the same intelligence that reported WMD in Iraq.
- Even if he was there, Afghanistan was still a soveriegn state
- By your admission, your beef was not with the Taliban, but AQ (if it exists).
quote:
We were quite justified in going after the Taliban and Bin Laden.
There was no justification for "going after the Taliban". The Taliban were doing their own thing in their own country and did not pose a threat to you; they had no effective army and minimal weaponry.
quote:
Of course, my point was that we had no justification at all in going after Hussein and Iraq, and it was a diversion of needed resoources that could have been used effectively elsewhere.
And my point is, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is ALSO a crime and one for which the USA will be held accountable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 9:52 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 12:04 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 135 (200303)
04-19-2005 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by nator
04-18-2005 12:04 PM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
No, that's not correct. Our intelligence never provided evidence of WMD in Iraq. Bush and Co. just lied about it being there.
I'm afraid that IS correct. Remember, Clinton was on this bandwagon too - that is why he authorised the Desert Fox campaign, and December 16th 1998 he said:
quote:
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
What Bush did was to substantially underplay the tentativity of the intelligence. But as the subsequent reports on US intelligence show, there was a manifest willingness to accept the worst case scenario as most probable, and that they heard what they expected, or wanted, to hear.
The blame cannot be laid purely at Bush's door, or that of the Republicans. The whole American establishment has read the situation incorrectly in almost every detail. It is not even clear that Al Qaida even exist in any objective sense, or whether US intelligence "deduced" the existance of AQ from first principles.
quote:
The Taliban, which was the current religious dictatorship leading Afghanistan at the time, was funding and harboring and sheltering Al Qaida and Bin Laden. After 9/11 and before invading, the US demanded that the Taliban turn Bin Laden over, and they refused.
The Taliban can only be said to be "funding and sheltering" Bin Laden and Al Qaida if AQ actually exists in a meaningful sense. And no evidence has ever emerged from Afghanistan making this conclusive case. American intelligence alleged these "facts" - but they also alleged, and Rumsfeld presented this on TV, that AQ had vast underground concrete bunkers in the mountains - none of which have ever been found. To date, almost no claims about AQ have ever been verified. The few identifiable AQ activities we are certain of all postdate 9/11 by some way.
It is not clear that the demand to the Taliban was therefore reasonable or achievable. Furthermore, what right does the US have to go around unilaterally demanding that citizens of other states be handed over to you merely becuase you demand it? It is outright bullying, and the threat was followed up by actual violence.
Please remember that ALL American citizens are protected from prosecution by other states even if they commit war crimes. Why do you hold the Taliban to a standard you yourselves do not honour?
quote:
Therefore, we invaded.
Well that bit is indisputable. Its also why you are in the wrong.
quote:
They made a choice to ally themselves with Al Qaida and Bin Laden against the US both before and after Bin Laden bombed the WTC, so they paid the consequences.
And once again we see here the self-righteousness of declaring the violence of your enemies illegitimate. Americas support of Israel and its persecution of Palestinians is the real issue, and America paid the price for its cruelty on 9/11.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-19-2005 05:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 12:04 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 04-19-2005 9:28 AM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 135 (200359)
04-19-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
04-19-2005 9:28 AM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
Look, you keep switching back and forth between Iraq and Al Qaida in the same breath. They are very different situations, and the fact that you keep switching like that leads me to believe that you have them conflated in your mind for some reason.
Inasmuch as they are both pretexts for American Imperial expansion the Middle East, yes.
quote:
Anyway, Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998 was in direct response to Iraq's giving lots of difficulty to the UNSCOM international weapons inspectors, including attacking helicopter pilots when they tried to fly the inspection teams to planned destinations, attacking photographers with the inspectors when they tried to take pictures of a site, etc. Around this time, evidence of Iraq's WMD plans and actual acivity were uncovered by coalition weapons inspectors:
I'm well aware of the allegations. That said, I consider some of them spurious - one is that a group of guards refused to let them into an HQ; that could be simply cockup rather than conspiracy. You will need to more specific about alleged attacks on inspectors - I don't recall any such. And clearly, no such WMD plans or programmes were in fact uncovered: because as we now know, they were clean since 1991.
This is exactly the 'seeing what you want to see' I suggested. Everyone "knowns" that Iraq has WMD, therefore anything suspicious "must" be indicative of an attempt to conceal.
Nevertheless, the point remains that you simply cannot lay the Iraq debacle on Bush's door alone. Bush did and Clinton were both willing to kill and maim on the basis of their dodgy intelligence reports alone. Clinton, and his Democratic administration, were every bit as convinced that Saddam was armed to the teeth as Bush was. Bush exagerated; he understated the partial data; for these he can and should be held to account. And so should Bomber Bill.
And before you ask, yes I was out on the streets protesting against Desert Fox. You may be pleased to learn that American pilots managed to bomb a flock of sheep, so that only bits of said sheep and their shephard could be found. Of course, nobody was held responsible.
quote:
As you can read, this is REAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that Iraq was producing illegal chemical weapons, because it had to be destroyed. Overall, the timeline shows that Iraq was basicaly jerking the inspectors around.
Thats the allegation that has now been comprehensively disproven. You will remember that Scott Ritter testified that "we got it almost entirely wrong", and as I recall he ran USNCOM during this period. This is also the period in which UNSCOM inspectors were revealed to be US intelligence agents, in total violation of the agreed tersm of the inspection.
Once again, these alleged products that justified Desert Fox have never been found.
quote:
Also note that I do NOT think that Iraq had WMD when Bush invaded. Desert Fox was a completely different mission than Desert Storm.
Riiiiight. Is that because you supported 'Fox, huh? There was no evidence - there were merely allegations, since disproved.
quote:
Anyway, pretty much the entire international community recognizes that Al Qaida exists, so I'm not sure why I should believe you when you say it doesn't. Here's my info:
The problem is, the rest of the world does not haver access to US intelligence sources, and cannot verify US claims. And that is all we have to go on.
I never said that AQ certainly did not exist. I say, IF it exists.
But the real problem is that it is not clear if AQ EVER existed in any meaningful sense until the US invented it. As the Wikipedia link reports:
quote:
Although "al-Qaeda" is the name of the organization used in popular culture, the organization does not use the name to formally refer to itself. The name "al-Qaeda" was coined by the American Federal Government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made in Afghanistan, which talks about the organization as "the base" of the jihad.
Bin Laden certainly had contacts. He probably had intent. But he probably never had an actual organisation that existed in conspiratorial cells, being organised by an international terrorist master-mind. But now that the US is so insistent there is such an organ, the name has certainly acquired a currency and cachet it never had before. The US is fighting demons largely of its own creation, and own invention.
quote:
Uh, Bin Laden has been identifying himself (and his group) as being responsible for many attacks and bombings on US targets, including 9/11. Do you deny what he says?
As you well know, many rival organisations are proine to claiming reponsibility for any given act of resistance. And if AQ is indeed the paranoid figment of US imagination, then it might even be easy to claim the strike on behalf of AQ as a means of putting the US off the scent.
Frankly, AQ does not behave like any other terrorist organisation anyone has ever heard of. It behaves like a James Bond villain. This alone is reason to doubt is actual existance as a meaningful entity - a threat deduced from nothing more than a single list in the posession of one individual. Seeing what you want to see again, especially as the predictions of huge bunkers in Afghanistan - the cited reason for the invasion - are now utterly discredited.
quote:
Did they offer to help find bin Laden and to bring him to justice?
Why should they, when Bin Laden was administering justice?
But yes, the Taliban did publicly say they would hand Bin Laden over if they knew where he was. There are some suggestions they were lying about that, and did know where he was, but lets bear in mind: the Taliban have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to the USA. When, for example, will you be handing your killers and torturers over to the Iraqi judicial system?
quote:
Anyway, it had been very well known that bin laden had been conducting terrorist training camps in Afghanistan for years before that.
No its not well known - its violently disputed not least by the very people who wqere arrested by the US in those very camps. They repeatedly report that the camps exiosted for training militia and mujahadeen for work in the India-Pakistan border, for theongoing Palestinian conflict and indeed for anti-Westerrn strikes. But it is quite clear that Bin Laden did not "run" any of these camps - they were run by the likes of Hizbollah and related organs and sympathisers. And these are the people that the US has been obliged to release back to the UK without charge. There are undoubtedly more innocent victims presently languishing in American gulags.
By the way, the Kurds run similar camps for their expats too. And I have known several British Pakistanis who have attended training camps in Pakistan learning to use AK's and RPG's. But you know the real reason they go? Charity donations by paying for that service in Western currency; they have no intention of taking up the struggle thmeselves.
Thus the point is the whole region is rife with armed "terrorist" camps, by which, once again, the term terrorist merely means "army without uniforms". There is absolutely no way the simple coincidence of Bin Laden at such a camp indicates he was ever in charge. He may have been the afternoon guest preacher.
quote:
It wasn't unilateral. The UN and much of the international community demanded it also:
Yes thats true. Unfortunately, we are fools to support America in this regard ever, becuase it will be thrown back in our faces: the US still will never sign up to the conventions governing war crimes which would allow its citizens to be extradited to face justice. What this incident is a demonstration of is only the silly sympathy the world felt for the US after 9/11, and the fact that appeasement of US imperialism does not work.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-19-2005 10:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 04-19-2005 9:28 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 04-19-2005 2:49 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 135 (200644)
04-20-2005 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
04-19-2005 2:49 PM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
Oh, so you see conspiracy everywhere when you are looking at a government you don't like, but you give Saddam Hussein's government every benefit of the doubt? What an amazing double standard you have there, contracycle.
*I* most certainly do NOT have a double standard - remember, I was opposing Aemrica's support for the brutal Saddam back when washington was feting him as Our Friend in the Middle East. It is America that demonstrably has the double standard, turning round know to complain about events like Halabja which it turned a blind eye to at the time. In fact, they even said that it was understandable Hussein was using extreme measures against Kurdish terrorism.
The fact of ther matter remains that however terrible Saddams regime was, it was not so unusually terrible that it was in immediate need of toppling. The hypocritical military humanists who seem to think that democracy is achieved by laser guided munitions from 15,000 feet clearly never examined the consequences of their use of force properly, and far far more Iraqi's have died at the hands of the West than died at the hands of Saddam.
quote:
Well, I have my news sources which say that they happened. Do you have any particular reason or evidence which would cause me to doubt them?
Yes, I do - your own media's subsequent collective and public confession that they failed to apply due scrutiny to official pronouncements about the Iraqi government. Which is much like the same confession they gave over Vietnam. Your media has a discernible and repeated pattern of being overawed by the executive and failing to hold it to any kind of account. This is why I say the USA is the most thoroughly propagandised state on the planet.
quote:
Source please.
Source for what? Ritters testimony to the committee? Otr the allegations of espionage? I'm sure you have cited Ritter yourself in the past; as for the espionage allegations, by all means see here:
quote:
U.S. Spied On Iraqi Military Via U.N.
Arms Control Team Had No Knowledge Of Eavesdropping
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 2, 1999; Page A01
United States intelligence services infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency that it used to disguise its work, according to U.S. government employees and documents describing the classified operation.
By all accounts the U.N. Special Commission, or UNSCOM, did not authorize or benefit from this channel of U.S. surveillance. This contrasts with previous statements in which the Clinton administration acknowledged use of eavesdropping equipment but said it was done solely in cooperation with UNSCOM to pierce Iraqi concealment of its illegal weapons.
As recently as last week, the administration asserted again that its intelligence work within UNSCOM was invited by the panel's senior leaders and directed at rooting out Iraq's forbidden missiles and its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/...20360/Readings/cia%20AND%20unscom.HTM
quote:
What bullshit.
Do you think that no other governments besides the US monitor Al Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups?
Of course they do. But that does not mean that they know the things the US knows or claims to "know" - this is not science-land, everything is murky. We are not taking about independant reproducibility at all. And no intelligence agenceis had heard of this alleged "al Qaeda" before the US advanced its claims. Not one.
quote:
Italy, France, Spain, Germany and Great Britain all have counter terrorism offices and monitor Al Qaida and similar groups.
What they monitor is people alleged to be members of Al Qaeda according uncheckable and unverifiable US claims. They also monitor local extremists, who may NOW be in contact with an "organisation" calling itself al qaida; but that does not imply AQ had a prior exiostance or was being monitored. Nobody had ever heard of them before 9/11.
quote:
He administered justice to office workers? Cleaning staff? Fire fighters? You have a very twisted idea of what justice is.
War is hell, Schraf. Maybe Bomber Bill should have though about that when he adminstered justice to make-up girls, programme producers and cameramen when he orderd the bombing of Belgrade's TV station. Or is it OK and not really murder if you are a Democrat?
Once again American Exceptionalism insists that the US not be held accountable for its brutality and cruelty. Well, Bin Laden DID hold you accountable, and you didn' like it much, did you?
I remind you of the debts you owe, yet unpaid:
quote:
Until we go through it ourselves, until our people cower in the shelters of New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere while the buildings collapse overhead and burst into flames, and dead bodies hurtle about and, when it is over for the day or the night, emerge in the rubble to find some of their dear ones mangled, their homes gone, their hospitals, churches, schools demolished only after that gruesome experience will we realize what we are inflicting on the people of Indochina...
William Shirer, 1973

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 04-19-2005 2:49 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 04-20-2005 11:14 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 135 (200877)
04-21-2005 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by nator
04-20-2005 11:14 PM


Re: The Great Satan defines itself
quote:
The fact of the matter is that you are willing to give Saddam's government every benefit of the doubt (as if he had the reputation of being a wonderfully upright, just, virtuous leader instead of a homicidal sociopath), and you are completely willing to see conpiracy everywhere from a government you don't like.
Thats outright nonsense and personal slander, Schraf. And amazingly hypocrtitical; having frequently criticised Republican apologists for damning anyone who opposes the state as unaptriotic, here you know resort to their same dishonest technique of launching aspersions against my character and suggesting I am a "Saddam lover". Are you going to call me a cheese-eating surrender monkey next?
Secondly,I have never suggested that Saddam was anything other than a homicidal sociaopath - rather like Bush and Clinton in that regard. or have I ever said that he was just an virtuous under any circumstances. Those are outright lies to blacken my character, are they not, Schraf?
Third, I am not "willing" to see "conspiracy" in a government I don;t like - what I see, and have abundant evidence of, is an agressive racist and Imperialist state that executes a foreign intervention nearly every years in the last hundred. The idea of the USA as a peaceful state contributing to stable world order is a groos nationalist fiction.
As we already, you are insufficiently knowledgeable of your own states long and thoroughly documented history of assasination, torture, invasion and deception that you cannot even name 10 US interventions in Latin America - so I am substantially better informed of the FACTS about your state than you are. Do I have to give you a massive list of American crimes again?
quote:
You know, it must be really comfy living in that black and white world, where everything is so crystal clear and you know that the "bad guys" are 100% bad and the good guys are 100% good.
Except of course, that is NOT the world *I* live in - that is the world the US lives in. Just as we saw when the Us turned on its buddy Saddam, having gone from claiming he was one of the virtuous good guys and defenders of dmeocracy to denouncing him as a sociapth. the blind, Orwellian doublethink switch from 100% good to 100% bad; this happens in YOUR political environment, not mine.
quote:
Except for China.
Possibly. But not probably, becuase both states regard their leadership and the decisions of its state apparatus as inherently virtuous and unequesionably good.
quote:
Maybe Bin Laden should have though about that when he adminstered justice to office workers, firefighters, and cleaning crews when he orderd the bombing of the World Trade Center. Or is it OK and not really murder if you are a non-American?
I'm quite sure he did think about it. In fact, I know he thought about it, because his statement on thw 9/11 strike makes that explicitly clear:
quote:
What America is tasting now is something insignificant compared to what we have tasted for scores of years. Our nation (the Islamic world) has been tasting this humiliation and this degradation for more than 80 years. Its sons are killed, its blood is shed, its sanctuaries are attacked, and no one hears and no one heeds.
and...
quote:
Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are being killed in Iraq without committing any
sins, and we don't hear condemnation or a fatwa (religious decree) from the rulers. In these days, Israeli tanks infest Palestine in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jalla, and other places in the land of Islam, and we don't hear anyone raising his voice or moving a limb.
When the sword comes down (on America), after 80 years, hypocrisy rears its ugly head. They deplore and they lament for those killers, who have abused the blood, honor and sanctuaries of Muslims. The least that can be said about those people is that they are debauched. They have followed injustice. They supported the butcher over the victim, the oppressor over the innocent child. May God show them His wrath and give them what they deserve.
quote:
When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime, it is something that has justification. Millions of children in Iraq is something that has justification. But when they lose dozens of people in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (capitals of Kenya
and Tanzania, where U.S. embassies were bombed in 1998), Iraq was struck and Afghanistan was struck.
Hypocrisy stood in force behind the head of infidels worldwide, behind the cowards of this age, America and those who are with it.
quote:
To America, I say only a few words to it and its people. I swear by God, who has elevated the skies without pillars, neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, peace be upon him.
Bin Laden is abundantly clear - America was struck in just vengeance for its crimes. Bin Laden speaks for the free people of the world, albeit in a religious voice. He points out the hypocrisy we are all aware of; he highlights the disregard America exhibits for non-American lives, and the hysteria it falls into when Americans die.
He points out that Americans should not expect to live in peace while they wage war and bomb from the skies. While they fund and support and arm the state terrorism of Israel. Fundamentally, Bin Laden is right and the US is wrong, murderous and hypocrticial state that it is.
quote:
Once again a Terrorist Apologist insists that the extremist religious terrorist not be held accountable for its brutality and cruelty.
Ha ha. Of crouse I'm a terrorist apologist - and have been for years. Thats becuase the "terrorists" - by which the West means a peoples army - is usually in the right, and criticism of "terrorists" is invariably hypocritical. Why should I not be proud to challnge that Western hypocrisy? Of course I am.
And if you want to start talking about accountability, why don't you state exercising some at home Schraf? Why don't you impeach your war criminal president? Why did you re-elect the mass murderer in the first place? How can you have the outright hypocratical arrogance to denounce terrorists for striking the twin towers while your terrorist state, lead by a war criminal, is openly allied with the terrorist Israeli state, also lead by a war criminal, while providing funds and weapons to aid the Israeli state in killing more civilians?
You don't have even the slightest trace of self-awareness, guilt or conscience, do you? And you wonder why I think the brutal US is the most propagandised place in the world, huh.
quote:
Show me that the chemical weapons were not actually found and destroyed, contrary to my Wikipedia timeline source.
Ha ha ha - you know I can't prove a negative.
But I can point to some of the reports:
quote:
Revelation casts doubt on Iraq find
Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday October 7, 2003
The Guardian
The test tube of botulinum presented by Washington and London as evidence that Saddam Hussein had been developing and concealing weapons of mass destruction, was found in an Iraqi scientist's home refrigerator, where it had been sitting for 10 years, it emerged yesterday.
David Kay, the expert appointed by the CIA to lead the hunt for weapons, told a congressional committee last week that the vial of botulinum had been "hidden" at the scientist's home, and could be used to "covertly surge production of deadly weapons".
Revelation casts doubt on Iraq find | Politics | The Guardian
Note how Kay builds his case purely based on allegations of intent, rather than material evidence. He looks for confirmation of his expectations, and lo and behold, he finds them. What a hard job that must be.
On Maqy 17th 2004 Fox News reported:
quote:
"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."
The round detonated before it would be rendered inoperable, Kimmitt said, which caused a "very small dispersal of agent."
However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.
Now, how is it that this is the FIRST FIND of a chemical weapon, if chemical weapons were allegedly found in 2003, huh? And this one is thought to have been an old shell that the IED-planters probably did not even know contained gas.
As Scott Ritter, UNCOMS head until 1998, wrote in War on Iraq
"If you listen to Richard Butler, biological weapons are a "black hole" about which we know nothing. But a review of the record reveals we actually know quite a bit. We monitored more biological facilities than any other category, inspecting over a thousand sites and repeatedly monitoring several hundred... For Iraq to have biological weapons today they'd have to reconstitute a biological manufacturing base... [the inspectors] blanketed Iraq--every research and development facility, every university, every school, every beer factory: anything that was a potential fermentation capability was inspected--and we never found any evidence of ongoing research and development or retention."
The Washington Post wrote, of Desert Fox:
quote:
Thanks to the hard work of the United Nations Special Commission (Unscom), US targeters know a lot more about the Iraqi regime today than they did during the Gulf War in 1991. The United States and Britain now have a diagrammatic understanding of the Iraqi government structure, as well as of the intelligence, security and transport organisations that protect the Iraqi leadership. The same mission folders that Unscom put together to inspect specific buildings and offices in its search for concealed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) became the basis for the targeting folders that missile launchers and pilots used in December.
It is clear from the target list, and from extensive communications with almost a dozen officers and analysts knowledgeable about Desert Fox planning, that the US-British bombing campaign was more than a reflexive reaction to Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with Unscom's inspectors. The official rationale for Desert Fox may remain the 'degrading' of Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the 'diminishing' of the Iraqi threat to its neighbours. But careful study of the target list tells another story.
Thirty five of the 100 targets were selected because of their role in Iraq's air defence system, an essential first step in any air war, because damage to those sites paves the way for other forces and minimises casualties all around. Only 13 targets on the list are facilities associated with chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles, and three are southern Republican Guard bases that might be involved in a repeat invasion of Kuwait.
The heart of the Desert Fox list (49 of the 100 targets) is the Iraqi regime itself: a half-dozen palace strongholds and their supporting cast of secret police, guard and transport organisations. Some sites, such as Radwaniyah, had been bombed in 1991. Other sites, particularly 'special' barracks and units in and around downtown Baghdad and the outlying palaces, were bombed for the first time.
National security insiders, blessed with their unprecedented intelligence bonanza from Unscom, convinced themselves that bombing Saddam Hussein's internal apparatus would drive the Iraqi leader around the bend. 'We've penetrated your security, we're inside your brain,' is the way one senior administration official described the message that the US was sending Saddam Hussein.
Without the target list, such a view seems like sheer bravado. With the target list, a host of new questions arises: Is the administration's view of Saddam Hussein's hold on power in line with reality? And what is the feasibility, not to mention the legality, of what amounts to an aerial assassination strategy?
So Schraf, these alleged chemical weapons found in Iraq in 1998 such that it justified Desert Fox are:
1) refuted by the head of UNSCOM at the time
2) refuted by the result of Iraq Survey Group
3) not reflected in the targetting list actually used in Desert Fox
And we also see from the likes of David Kay that the Us was purposefully applying the worst and most malicious spin it could concoct to any finding in Iraq whatsoever.
Desert Fox, Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq - all based on paranoid, hypocritical and frankly racist assumptions about foreign states. It is America that is in the wrong in all these matters, case closed. And September the 11th was not nearly enough payback, not at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 04-20-2005 11:14 PM nator has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 135 (201118)
04-22-2005 8:51 AM


Burma gas attack alleged
John Aglionby, South-east Asia correspondent
Friday April 22, 2005
The Guardian
The Burmese army used chemical weapons in an attack on ethnic Karenni rebels in February, the UK-based rights group Christian Solidarity Worldwide alleges in a report published today.
Martin Panter, the organisation's international president, told the Guardian he had interviewed and examined five reported survivors of the February 15 assault on Karenni positions in Nya My, just over the border from the northern Thai town of Mae Hon Son.
"I believe there's overwhelming and compelling circumstantial evidence that these soldiers are victims of chemical weapons," he said.
"I cannot say exactly what the cocktail of chemicals was but it appears to have contained blister agents, mustard gas and neurological agents." He said the Karenni forces had allegedly been enduring an artillery bombardment for more than a month when, on February 15, a shell exploded with a different sound.
"They said there was a strongly pungent acrid yellow vapour," Dr Panter said. "The gas was yellow, tasted like chilli and was hot."
The Karenni allegedly told Dr Panter their eyes watered, and they suffered severe nausea and vomiting, coughed up blood and suffered gastro-intestinal illnesses such as diarrhoea and had great difficulty walking for some time.
"I have a report from a doctor who examined them five days after the attack and what I saw was completely consistent with what was in that report," he said.
--
Burma gas attack alleged | World news | The Guardian
So now we wait and see what the moral west will do in response.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 04-22-2005 07:52 AM

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 135 (204869)
05-04-2005 4:35 AM


Tal isn't much interested in reality, Mick. As you can see, all his arguments depend on quotes from leaders of large instutions, and invariably ones which have a vested interest.
Whish is why I'd like to ask Tal if any of these great works were paid for with American money? Because as you will no doubt recall, USAID said the considtions in Iraq were so unstable they had only been "able" to spend 2% of their budget up until last year, despite finding ways to spend the entirety of the aid budget allocated by the United Nations.
So, is Tal here claiming credit for spending paid for for by the UN while American money remains in American banks?

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Tal, posted 05-05-2005 7:44 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 135 (204881)
05-04-2005 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by StormWolfx2x
05-04-2005 5:11 AM


Re: On responses and reaction to terrorism
quote:
simple example: giving in to all of a bankrobber's demands and letting them get away simply because they have a hostage may be good for that hostage, but probably would lead to copycat crimes and endanger more people.
Thats reasonable enough, but is that a valid scenario? If people are fighting for their freedom, acceeding to some of their demands shows you are not a tyrant. The dogmatic refusal to even discuss the demands and aims of the violent movement confronting you can only escalate the conflict.
quote:
living in america we don't hear very much about the IRA so im not totally informed, but through even some cursory reading of Wikipedia it seems to me that during and before that period there was a decrease in the "terrorist" power and activities of the IRA from the combined decrease in public support for the IRA due to collatoral damage incidents, a crackdown from the british gov arresting IRA members, large numbers of informents, and a mainstream outlet for their ideals (socialism has been increasingly more accepted worldwide after the collapse of the Soveit Union).
Ha ha. In the first instance, it is quite remarkable that you hear little about Irish terrorism, becuase after all America was the primary fundraiser for this terrorism, harboured terrorists, and contributed to the murder of British citizens. All of which makes the outcry against terrorism rather hypocritical coming from the US, and al;so why you hear little about that dirty little semi-secret.
Secondly, the reason for the decline in violence was becuase the IRA's political strategy was working. It's political wing, Sinn Fein, stood for and won elections (thus demonstrating the IRA had a genuine constituency) and moves by the British government toward a power-charing agreement. In other words, precisely the mature, negotated strategy that Mick was pointing to. And indeed, that discipline on the IRA side - not for nothing described as the most professional of European terrorist organs - arises in large part from the materialism and political praxis it acquired from its Marxist links and history.
quote:
it looks as if there were lots of peace talks in the 70's and 80's if talks are "One practical response to terrorism that has often been successful" why didn't it work earlier? Isn't it more plaussible that other, actually new factors played a larger roll in the change in # of deaths
First, note that the leader of the SDLP is not the British government.
Second, the reason it did not work earlier was because the public position of the UK was "we do not negotiate with terrorists". The main impediment was a) BritGov coming to the deicsion to negotiate, and b) BritGov backtracking on its unwillingness to negotiate.
At the same time, the British and Us governments were backing the hardline stance of the NAtional Party in South Africa against negotiating with the ANC on exactly the same grounds. I specifically recall Ronald Reagan expressing sympathy for the South African state and its struggle against evil.
Quite clearly, negotiation does work. It does work because the combatants do have grievances that can be met. The main impediment is moralism, and the illingness to keep fighting and dying becuase of the alleged danger of negotiating with terrorists - a danger all the more hypocritical becuase we manifestly do, as states, use the threat of violence to force others to do as we say.
quote:
so about a 2/3rds reduction in death, what makes your secret talks more of a factor than massive public outcry?
What public outcry? You forget, the IRA are the leading edge of a legitimate and broad-based popular concern. While there are concerns about the use of violence, the British Army is after still in occupation, is it not?
What controlled violence is that the IRA leadership were able to rein in their members becuase they had reason to believe that negotiations were making progress. Throughtout the history of the troubles, the IRA have been quite diligent in trying to de-escalate the conflict. That hard-line, no negotiation, no compromise, fanatical position was on the part of the British Government.
{Fixed 1 quote box. - AM}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-04-2005 12:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by StormWolfx2x, posted 05-04-2005 5:11 AM StormWolfx2x has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by StormWolfx2x, posted 05-06-2005 5:17 AM contracycle has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 135 (205190)
05-05-2005 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Tal
05-05-2005 7:46 AM


You're not answering the question.
Is the money being spent that provided by the US, or by the UN? Can you tell me what proportion of the funds allocated by congress have been spent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Tal, posted 05-05-2005 7:46 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Tal, posted 05-05-2005 8:04 AM contracycle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024