Khalil Regrets Toppling Statue of Saddam
"If history can take me back, I will kiss the statue of Saddam Hussein which I helped pull down," Khalil told reporters on the fifth anniversary of the statue's toppling.
http://
www.informationclearingho...rticle19701.htm
"We hit the face of the statue with our shoes," he said, referring to an action considered the ultimate insult in Arab culture.
"It was a historic moment. I felt like I was born again. Most Iraqis felt happy as they all were affected by Saddam's regime."
But five years on, Khalil says the jubilation has long since vanished and that the situation in the country has vastly deteriorated.
Iraqi forces are still battling bloodshed that has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions of others.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says the plight of millions of Iraqis who still have little or no access to clean water, sanitation or health care is the "most critical in the world".
"Now I realise that the day Baghdad fell was in fact a black day. Saddam's days were better," said Khalil, who along with his brother runs a car repair shop.
"I ask Bush: 'Where are your promises of making Iraq a better country?'
"These days when we go out we have to carry a pistol. In Saddam's regime, we were safe. We got rid of one Saddam, but today we have 50 Saddams."
Mojo,
Looking back, I think there could have been better ways to remove Saddam Hussein. Personally, I wish there had been more of an Iraqi face to the liberation instead of simply dropping 150,000 soldiers into Iraq to act as the police force. Had we waited just a little longer, we could have done so.
However, what's done is done...we're there now. All of us need to be supporting the people of Iraq as they fight political extremism. From the news I've been seeing, there have been major successes against Al-Qaeda. There have also been some amazing developments in Anbar province and in other Sunni areas. Indeed, Iraqis and the American soldiers helping them have performed heroically.
However, we still do have the problem of facing down mookie al-sadr and his boys. The continued Iranian threat over Iraq frightens me, and I fear that the bearded Mullahs in Tehran are looking for a way to sway the presidential election. I say we give Al-Sadr two options. First off (it pains me to say this) the Iraqi government should try and do everything they can to convince him to disarm and come to the political process. Ideally, that would be best, because anything that would avoid the loss of innocent life would be the best way to go.
But if he goes down the road of "ending" the cease-fire, than we must take action...its that simple. We cannot stand back and allow his thugs to abduct innocent people and torture them like we saw in earlier stages of the conflict. The truth is, Mookie represents himself, not the majority of peace-seeking Shiites in Iraq. Personally, I think the man is a megalomaniac wrapping himself up under the banner of Islam to gain power. Its political, pure and simple. Most Muslims I've talked to in my community agree.
One way or another, its time we finish the job.
IM, that day, I didnt see it as the fall of Saddam. I saw it as the fall of a nation. Simply because the only thing that was removed was a statue. And not a movement nor the tyranny. We still have BOZOs who still wanna relive saddam days. We still have people who believed in Saddam's ideas and theories. Even though I loathed him and what he represented, to me that day really did constrict my heart. I didnt celebrate, nor will I ever celebrate. But thats just me...
"I didnt celebrate, nor will I ever celebrate."
Reading Sandmonkey's latest on Egyptian security forces brutalising people for protesting low wages reminded me of Sadman and his tactics. Iraqi's are free to protest. That's not an easy thing to come by in the Arab world. It's worth celebrating.
There was no life in Iraq before 2003. Sure,people went through the motions. They ate,slept,and feared. But,that's not life. That's just existing. Most Iraqis polled say their life is good now. They might have said that before 2003,but only out of fear. There's a price to be paid for freedom. Thanks to Saudi cult fanatics,Iraqis paid a higher price than most. But they're free now. Celebrate neurotic woman.
Builders of Nations
http://www.michaeltotten.com/
"Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country," Saghier told Voices of Iraq, indicating Sistani supports Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the government in the effort to sideline the Mahdi Army. "Sistani asked the Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government."
http://www.longwarjournal.org/
ar..._sistani_on.php
It seems Muqwaq outright lied when he said he'd consult with top Iraqi clerics on this issue. Sistani is THE top cleric,and he says Muqwaq didn't consult him.
"Still, it is going to come as a surprise to most people that for the last five years, an Arab Muslim army has been operating here in Afghanistan, alongside the Americans as part of the coalition."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south...sia/
7318731.stm
" As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, U.S. Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army PSYOP team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.
After the colonel, who was not named in the report, selected the statue as a "target of opportunity," the PSYOP team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a PSYOP team member. [...] Someone produced an Iraqi flag, and a PSYOP sergeant quickly replaced the American flag. Ultimately, a Marine recovery vehicle toppled the statue with a chain, but the effort appeared to be Iraqi-inspired because the PSYOP team had managed to pack the vehicle with cheering Iraqi children."
http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com...5_statue04.html
[maury] "There was no life in Iraq before 2003. Sure,people went through the motions."
What an arrogant prick!
Americans actually want British rule back.
They want to lick the Queens arse again.
If they tell you otherwise, it's because they live in fear.
"What an arrogant prick!"
Saddam's terror apparatus was/is a well established fact Burno. The population was terrified of Sadman. Even his closest advisors were terrified of the man. There's nothing arrogant in saying Iraqis lived in fear. It happened.
I'm sure you'd like to pretend black South Africans were ecstatic under Afrikaner rule too Bruno. Truth be told,they thought you were arrogant pricks. Of course,you were.....and are.
[mauron] "Saddam's terror apparatus was/is a well established fact Burno"
That's not exactly the same thing as saying "they had no life", now is it, Mauron?
GWB's terror apparatus is a well-established fact, Mauron.
Since Mauron is SO concerned with the opinions of black South Africans:
"On Saturday, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets across South Africa to voice their opposition to the US drive for war against Iraq. Demonstrations were held in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and Bloemfontein.
The protests were organised by the South African Antiwar Coalition, comprising more than 50 organisations. Amongst the groups involved in the protests were the African National Congress, the Azanian People’s Organisation, the Pan Africanist Congress, the United Democratic Movement, the South African Communist Party, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the South African National Civics Organisation, the South African Council of Churches, Lawyers for Human Rights and the Muslim Judicial Council. Not in My Name, an organisation of South African Jews opposed to the Zionist occupation of Palestine, also participated in the demonstrations."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../safr-
f18.shtml
I wonder if Mauron knows who the African National Congress is?
I wonder if Mauron knows who the Azanian People’s Organisation is?
I wonder if Mauron knows who the Pan Africanist Congress is?
More BLACK opinions for Mauron to digest:
"Most of those interviewed agreed with the stance taken by President Thabo M’beki and Nelson Mandela, who have both criticised the Bush administration’s war plans"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../safr-
f18.shtml
Here's another BLACK opinion for Mauron to suck on:
""What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust." And that wasn't all. He attacked America for its record on human rights and for dropping atomic bombs on Japan World War II. "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care." [...] "Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?" he asked. "All that (Mr. Bush) wants is Iraqi oil," he said. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain538607.shtml
Wanna guess who THAT is, Mauron?
[mauron] "Truth be told,they thought you were arrogant pricks."
Truth be told, Mauron had no idea what can of worms he was opening with that statement.
Read Mandela, above.
Maybe Mauron wants to hear some more BLACK opinions on the illegal, immoral and bloody US invasion of Iraq?
Since BLACK opinion is so important to Mauron, that is.
I know what it's like to live under a tyrant. I grew up under one. I know what it's like to watch every word and facial expression. Sometimes it didn't matter. I'd get my ass kicked for the most trifling thing. We all did. He put me in the hospital several times. He laughed in the cops faces after beating and raping my mother. Back then,the home was a man's castle,and women and children mere possessions. At 14,I pistol whipped the son of a bitch with one of his many guns. Couldn't pull the trigger though. So I left,and never looked back. You see,my mother thought he loved her. Like Iraqis nostalgic for Saddam,she had been manipulated and terrified into submission. Trust me,living under a tyrant is no life Bruno. It's a living death.
I wish we could free everyone living under a despot. I wish the U.S. would answer the pleas of Zimbabwen's and intervene in the current crisis. Nobody deserves to live in fear.
OK, listen, Maury, I can hear where you are coming from.
Fair enough.
But what you have to understand is that the American intervention in Iraq was not motivated for the welfare of Iraqis, and that it was always going to end up badly. I can concede that America never wanted this mess, and that America would most likely been quite happy with the glorious paradise that it had promised Iraqis, and that it would have preferred an intact satellite state to a fragmented mess of warring parties.
However, given the fundamental selfish nature of US foreign policy, I and many others foresaw a disaster (although to be frank, never in my worst nightmares did I imagine THIS scale of carnage), because the AMERICAN VISION FOR IRAQ is simply NOT WANTED by Iraqis. It just isn't. I'm sure most Iraqis WERE glad Hussein was gone. That does NOT mean that Iraqis want to live under an American tyranny instead of Hussein's tyranny. And such a tyranny is guaranteed because they reject your control. Iraqis have to develop their own solutions. Iraqis will never manage to develop their own solutions for as long as America is there pushing its own agenda.
To be honest Bruno,I think Bush had it in for Saddam because of Saddam's assassination plot against Bush Sr. I think he was itching to take out Saddam before he ever became President. 9/11 gave him the political muscle to make it happen.
But,I'm not sorry Saddam is gone. I think Iraqis deserve freedom as much as anyone. I don't know if Iraqis would want an invasion if they had it all to do over again. I know I would if I were an Iraqi. Give me liberty or give me death. I wouldn't last a week under a fascist dictator. Wouldn't want to either.
Bruno, your *ss kicking is ready at Zeyad's. I also pulled it out into an IBC post:
http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot....t-
petraeus.html
OK, it's mostly for An Italian, but hey, you signed up too...
I'm sure Germans wished they were able to overthrow Hitler in 1940.
Only one who doesn't live in Germany or has no clue of Germans can say this.
Germans were amazed in 1940 because of "Blitzkrieg Frankreich".
Here you can follow this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=e...feature=related
"We still have BOZOs who still wanna relive saddam days. We still have people who believed in Saddam's ideas and theories."
This is true.
gilgamesh, when do you think a majority of Germans believed that Hitler was bad for Germany?
"Give me liberty or give me death."
Me too. Most Iraqis I know chose liberty by escaping Iraq in the 80s and 90s. Many Iraqis chose death by confronting Saddam inside Iraq. It amazes me how many people prefer to live silently under tyranny rather than confront the tyrant.
"If history can take me back, I will kiss the statue of Saddam Hussein which I helped pull down,"
Yuck, but this is to be expected, given the mass murder and mayhem of the last 5 years. It is exactly what the Ba3thi bozos and their quarter brained allies wanted to achieve.
"It amazes me how many people prefer to live silently under tyranny rather than confront the tyrant." -Mojo
We wouldn't have tyrants otherwise.
"It is exactly what the Ba3thi bozos and their quarter brained allies wanted to achieve." -Mojo
Saddam promised he would take Iraq down with him, right?
"Saddam promised he would take Iraq down with him, right?"
Yes, and all Iraqis knew before the liberation he and his hardcore supporters would try, if deposed.
"Yuck, but this is to be expected, given the mass murder and mayhem of the last 5 years. It is exactly what the Ba3thi bozos and their quarter brained allies wanted to achieve." -Mojo
If you had asked me 5 years ago if Iraq would be better or worse now, I would have said "worse". But if you had asked me what it would be like in 10 years, I would have said "much better".
I still think that's true.
"Saddam's terror apparatus was/is a well established fact Burno. The population was terrified of Sadman. Even his closest advisors were terrified of the man. There's nothing arrogant in saying Iraqis lived in fear. It happened."--Maury
Saddam was fearful man, which is why he was found cowering in a hole in the ground when captured by U.S. forces.
Have you ever thought that if countries' leaders such as ours had never CIA trained and supported the man and armed him, he would have been able to continue terrifying his people?
"Have you ever thought that if countries' leaders such as ours had never CIA trained and supported the man and armed him, he would have been able to continue terrifying his people?"
-Marion
Please Marion, tells us all again about how Saddam's Iraq was all our fault. Tells us again about the metaphorical train, the lists, the maps...
Funny how the people most opposed to removing Saddam from power are exactly the ones who keep trying to prove America put Saddam into power.
Some other frightening news from the Middle East...
I just read in the Washington Post that Jimmy Carter plans on meeting with Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas in Damascus. Talk about a major symbolic victory for terrorism.
So now, former American President's are awarding mass murderers by recognizing them as legitimate orgs. While he's at it, why doesn't Carter make a stop in Pakistan to meet with Taliban leader Mullah Omar? In the end, there's not much of a difference. Both terror groups have hijacked the religion of Islam and both strap their followers up in explosives to blow up innocent people, as we saw in Afghanistan today and in south Israel yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...id=sec-
politics
Marion thinks we should recognize whatever government gets voted into office C.H.. Wasn't Hitler elected once? We'll recognize Hamas when Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist. That's probably what Carter hopes to pull off. Hopefully,they won't take him hostage. Reagan isn't around to get him set loose this time.
"Funny how the people most opposed to removing Saddam from power are exactly the ones who keep trying to prove America put Saddam into power."--K
I have never been opposed to removing Saddam from power K. What I have been opposed to is our U.S. invasion to remove Saddam and our U.S. military occupation of Iraq which I knew was a major mistake from the beginning as well as our support of Saddam prior to declaring him an enemy.
"Saddam promised he would take Iraq down with him, right?"--K
"Yes, and all Iraqis knew before the liberation he and his hardcore supporters would try, if deposed."--Mojo
Did anyone bother to read Scott Ritter's article I posted on Mojo's previous blog entry," "Iraqi people dont deserve to live in peace..."?
Now if Saddam's hardcore supporters are behind the creation of much of the chaos we are witnessing today as Scott Ritter is claiming, why is our fight in Iraq being waged primarily against Al Qaeda, against resistance movements such as Sadr's and other Sunni groups, and why are we placing so much blame of the blame of the chaos on Iran?
Sounds to me like we have been going in all different directions, shooting up anyone who gets in our way, with no real definite target because we haven't yet figured out who is the real enemy in Iraq.
"I just read in the Washington Post that Jimmy Carter plans on meeting with Khaled Meshaal, the leader of Hamas in Damascus. Talk about a major symbolic victory for terrorism."--C.H.
I disagree that former President Jimmy Carter's meeting Khaled Meshaal is a major symbolic victory for terrorism. And I applaud the former President for his courage and foresight.
Honest dialog is a necessary option in putting an end to this so-called War on Terror.
"It amazes me how many people prefer to live silently under tyranny rather than confront the tyrant."
It's one thing to risk your own life,but Iraqis were risking the entire family for just cracking the wrong joke. And it wasn't just the fear of your family being imprisoned,or executed. Your wife and daughters could just as likely be sexually assaulted and released. An even worse fate. Saddam used Iraqi culture to his maximum advantage.
Marion, the Ba3thists initially allied themselves with Al Qaeda - they invited and sheltered Al Qaeda to help them cause chaos in 2004 and 2005. They ignited the civil war by blowing up Shia neighborhoods and murdering any Iraqi who worked for the new govt. Sadrists and Badr responded by mass murdering Sunni Arabs in 2006. Many Sadrists are also responsible for killing US soldiers. The Iranian regime is full of hypocrites - they are anti American, but at the same time they support Maliki's govt and are quite happy about the overthrow of Saddam's regime. It is still not clear to what extent Iran's role in the insurgency has been. Iran supports the Iraqi govt, but they help blow up US soldiers. Ahmedinejad condemns the US, but he met with the US "puppet govt" in Baghdad recently and expressed his support for them. Iran has helped Sadrists, but they condemn their recent attacks on the Green Zone. Some people claim that Iran has even supported Al Qaeda, which has never made sense to me.
It's a complicated situation, Marion. Although people have claimed that the US is trying to divide and destroy Iraq, it seems to me the US is the only party in Iraq that's tried hard to keep Iraq united. It is the US that created the Awakening groups. It is the US that doesn't differentiate between Sunna and Shia - the US goes after anybody who causes trouble. The Sadrist isn't just a "resistance" movement - don't forget that until recently the Sadrists were part of the Iraqi govt - the Sadrists also want to turn Iraq into an Islamic society. That's why they are anti-American.
"It's one thing to risk your own life,but Iraqis were risking the entire family for just cracking the wrong joke."
Maury, it seems you know more about Iraq under Saddam than many Arabs do.
"Now if Saddam's hardcore supporters are behind the creation of much of the chaos we are witnessing today as Scott Ritter is claiming, why is our fight in Iraq being waged primarily against Al Qaeda,"
Saddam's hardcore supporters made an alliance with the devil. They'd probably still be aligned with Al Qaida if Zarqawi had stuck to killing Shiites.
"against resistance movements such as Sadr's and other Sunni groups"
Groups that violently resist the freely elected government of Iraq Marion. If Muqwaq disarms his private army,and sticks to peaceful politics,I doubt anyone will give him a second thought.
"and why are we placing so much blame of the blame of the chaos on Iran?"
Because we keep seizing Iranian army munitions from Muqwaq and associates. Many of the weapons have serial numbers showing they were manufactured in the last year. Google it and see the evidence for yourself Marion.
"with no real definite target because we haven't yet figured out who is the real enemy in Iraq."
The "real enemy" is insecurity. Our job is to empower the Iraqi government,and the Iraqi people in the process. Anyone using violence to acheive the opposite result is fair game.
"Marion thinks we should recognize whatever government gets voted into office C.H.. Wasn't Hitler elected once? We'll recognize Hamas when Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist. That's probably what Carter hopes to pull off. Hopefully,they won't take him hostage. Reagan isn't around to get him set loose this time."--Maury
MY RESPONSE:
It is quite funny how you compare the election of resistance group Hamas by the militarily OCCUPIED Palestinian people to represent them, to the election of Hitler by the German people to represent them Maury.
I would think that the election of Nazi-like leaders such as the "Butcher of Beirut" Ariel Sharon or war-mongering George Bush(who actually called Ariel Sharon a man of peace and whose banker grandfather was connected to Hitler), who head the most or one of the most powerfully equipped militaries in the world, and who have been recognized worldwide would be a much better comparison.
And how about if the elected by their people government of Israel recognized the Palestinian peoples' right to exist and live sovereignly in their native lands first, before you expect the elected by their people Hamas to "officially" recognize their occupiers and land expropriators?
Israel occupying and building illegal settlements on the remaining Palestinian territories has been sending a clear message that they do not recognize the Palestinians' rights to exist and live sovereignly in their native lands.
Juat out of curiosity, would Hamas' "official" recognition of Israel entail having to recognize Israel as a "Jewish" state?
"Juat out of curiosity, would Hamas' "official" recognition of Israel entail having to recognize Israel as a "Jewish" state?"
Would it be called Israel if it were any other kind of state Marion? Why can't we all take a step back and figure the best way out of this mess? There're people on both sides who will never accept a peaceful resolution,no matter the cost. They're the real enemy.
"Maury, it seems you know more about Iraq under Saddam than many Arabs do."
A lot of Arabs let passion get the best of them. Saddam played on their fears and desires. He worked the anti-American superhero role for the Arab masses,while telling Bush Sr. and Clinton he could be our bestest friend in the world if we'd just give him a chance. Nasser was for real. Saddam was a charlatan,doing whatever it took to keep himself in power,and not much else. He did have charisma though. And charismatic leaders always have believers.
Mo,
The Iranians are the people who invented chess...I don't think they actually "condemn" the attacks on the green zone, they just want to ruin U.S. credibility. If they didn't want rockets and mortars to be raining down on Baghdad, they would not be shipping weapons across the borders and supporting terror groups. They also deny they arm Hezbollah, even though anyone with eyes can see thats not true.
I think that they brokered the cease-fire in Basra because they were panicked over the thought of their surrogates fighting with the Iraqi gov't instead of U.S. forces, which they are trying to get their tentacles on. Like you, I've also heard that Iran has supported AQ, and at first that might not make much sense. Last month, I wrote a post about myt analysis on that on my blog.
The 9/11 commission suggested that Iran allowed several of the AQ fighters to pass through its borders and onto the U.S. before the attacks. We can talk about the differences between Sunni and Shia all we want, but at the end of the day, these people betray everything Islam teaches in the first place, so why would they not be willing to put aside their differences for the sake of bringing down the "Great Satan".
http://www.time.com/time/nation/
...,664967,00.html
Just my analysis...and my gut feeling. I could be wrong, and to be honest, I hope I am. The two of them (Iran and AQ) are threatening enough as it is by themselves.
Marion,
Meeting with Hamas is a painfully bad idea because Hamas does not want peace. Just look at what they did to their fellow Palestinians last year...how many hundreds of innocent Muslims and Arabs had to die just so Hamas could seize control fo the Gaza strip and "liberate" the very people they are killing in the process.
My problem with your and Maury's answers in response Mojo is that they fail to point out any of our U.S. government's obvious mistakes and hypocrisies, and prefer to point the finger of blame on anyone but the ones who in fact initiated the present dilemma in Iraq that we are in.
Do you honestly believe that the U.S. ally neighboring states leader's in Kuwait, Saudi, and Jordan are clean and innocent when it comes to what is taking place in Iraq? And that Syria and Iran are the guilty ones based on them being in opposition to the U.S. pre-emptive attack and occupation of Iraq?
Do you honestly believe that our continued and increasing military presence in Iraq and in the region, our internal meddling in other parts of the region, and our refusal to have honest dialog with those who oppose our or Israel's occupations is a formula that will bring a peaceful solution to Iraq or the wider region?
And considering the past and present hypocrisy of the so-called moderate, aligned with the U.S., Arab leaders, do you honestly believe that we are in Iraq and the region because we want to promote real, genuine Democracy and not because we want to control the oil and promote the interests of Israel first and foremost?
Ariel Sharon, the "Butcher of Beirut"; his role in allowing the Christian Arab Phalangist Militia carry out the massacre in Sabra and Chantilla refugee camps, 1,500 or so dead, in 1982 is small change to the butchery of 30,000 people by Pappa Assad in Syria that summer when his Bathist regime's elite Republican Guard, Assad's Waffen SS, crushed a Suuni uprising by destroying Syria's fourth largest city, Homma.
Marion, Israel has recognized the Palestinians right to a State, as long as that State does not mean Israel's destruction. It is just that Hammas has not recognized Israel's right to exist.
If Hammas were to take Carter hostage, they can keep that idiot for good as far as I am concerned!
Ironically, the report revealed that the jailed Iraqi leader was even extremely eager to restore relations with the United States, sending the White House several messengers (including Duelfer, the writer of the report who was a former CIA officer and UN weapons inspector) that he was ready to cooperate on all issues. For Saddam, the main enemy was Iran, and even Israel was a secondary goal, the report stated several times.
And while Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, repeatedly charged Saddam that he was responsible for funding the Palestinian uprising and paying reward for families of militants, the former Iraqi leader, according to the report, was even ready to cooperate on reaching a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. "Charles Duelfer of ISG said that between 1994 and 1998, both he and UNSCOM Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus were approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States, and that Iraq was in a position to be Washington's best friend in the region bar none," the ISG report added.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/...04/712/
re15.htm
"Meeting with Hamas is a painfully bad idea because Hamas does not want peace. Just look at what they did to their fellow Palestinians last year...how many hundreds of innocent Muslims and Arabs had to die just so Hamas could seize control fo the Gaza strip and "liberate" the very people they are killing in the process."--C.H.
I suppose you didn't read, or you prefer to ignore the facts that lead up to Hamas's takeover of Gaza C.H.?
The Gaza Bombshell
by David Rose April 2008
"After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.....":
http://www.vanityfair.com/politi...8/04/
gaza200804
"were approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States, and that Iraq was in a position to be Washington's best friend in the region bar none," the ISG report added."
Was Saddam a hypocrite Marion? We have elections every 4 years. America gets a new foreign policy with each administration. Everyone knows the next President could have the exact opposite position Bush has on just about everything. Will that make the U.S. a hypocrite? I don't think so. Saddam,on the other hand,played Arab strongman for the masses,while seeking to be a U.S. puppet behind the scenes. THAT'S a hypocrite dear. You're parroting the same crap Saddam did. An ideology that's anti this and that,and pro nothing whatsoever. People can be constructive,destructive,or just sit back and watch events flow by Marion. At least you care. I just wished you cared in a constructive way.
"Ariel Sharon, the "Butcher of Beirut"; his role in allowing the Christian Arab Phalangist Militia carry out the massacre in Sabra and Chantilla refugee camps, 1,500 or so dead, in 1982 is small change to the butchery of 30,000 people by Pappa Assad in Syria that summer when his Bathist regime's elite Republican Guard, Assad's Waffen SS, crushed a Suuni uprising by destroying Syria's fourth largest city, Homma."--Israeli and Ariel Sharon apologist David All
My response:
Ariel Sharon lead the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 all the way up to Beirut, followed by the 18 year occupation, that killed at least 20,000 civilians, not to mention uprooted entire families from their lands. And yet apologist David All prefers we look at Syria instead. If you would have been honest about what Ariel Sharon did in Lebanon to begin with, I would have more respect for you rather than try and "morally" compare it to something that took place in Syria. I don't think that the Lebanese or Palestinian people would appreciate that you have down played their suffering in respect to Ariel Sharon or Israel. And than you wonder why people don't trust our intentions in their region and prefer to trust resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah?
"Marion, Israel has recognized the Palestinians right to a State, as long as that State does not mean Israel's destruction. It is just that Hammas has not recognized Israel's right to exist.'--David All
My response:
When you continue to occupy and build illegal Jewish settlements on the "remaining" lands of those who you are insisting recognize your right to exist, you are not recognizing their rights.
"If Hammas were to take Carter hostage, they can keep that idiot for good as far as I am concerned!"--David All
My response:
Be honest David, you are wishing for it so that you can say I told you it isn't worth while talking with Hamas.
"Would it be called Israel if it were any other kind of state Marion? "--Maury
And you don't see any present or future problems or controversies with the ideals of Democracy by considering and calling Israel a "Jewish" state?
"And you don't see any present or future problems or controversies with the ideals of Democracy by considering and calling Israel a "Jewish" state?"
I think the "Jewish State" should be in Montana Marion. Just like Utah is a "Morman State". Seriously,I think every Israeli citizen,along with all their possessions,should be evacuated to Montana. They could even bring the Wailing Wall with them,if that's possible. Problem solved.
What's your solution Marion? And don't give me an ideology. Give me a constructive solution that doesn't involve the death of millions.
"Was Saddam a hypocrite Marion?'--Maury
Yes, he was a cowardly hypocrite and so is George Bush, as well as so many other past and present leaders, very few are real leaders.
"We have elections every 4 years. America gets a new foreign policy with each administration. Everyone knows the next President could have the exact opposite position Bush has on just about everything. Will that make the U.S. a hypocrite?"--Maury
My response:
If you were more honest Maury you would point to the fat that our foreign policies in the Middle East region have not changed much over the last few decades. And that our foreign policy in the region has been for the most part hypocritical.
"Saddam,on the other hand,played Arab strongman for the masses,while seeking to be a U.S. puppet behind the scenes. THAT'S a hypocrite dear."--Maury
My response:
Hypocrites tend to like to work together. Look at some of the other leaders in the region such as in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. The only problem now for them is that their hypocrisies are much more exposed to their people than were Saddam's.
"You're parroting the same crap Saddam did. An ideology that's anti this and that,and pro nothing whatsoever."--Maury
My response:
So if I am consistently anti-occupation and pro-the people making their own choices without our unhelpful interferences and selfish interests in the region, such as arming and propping up the so-called moderate friendly to our interests dictators, I am parroting Saddam and pro-nothing?
"People can be constructive,destructive,or just sit back and watch events flow by Marion. At least you care. I just wished you cared in a constructive way."'--Maury
My response:
I could say the same for you Maury. Wars and occupations are not constructive at all.
"What's your solution Marion? And don't give me an ideology. Give me a constructive solution that doesn't involve the death of millions."--Maury
I already did Maury: one state.
"Wars and occupations are not constructive at all." -Marion
But they do lead to the creation of democratic countries. That is a historical fact.
"I already did Maury: one state."
I said a contructive solution Marion....that DOESN'T involve the death of millions. Jews wouldn't survive in your one-state solution. The same people calling for their destruction would come to power at the ballot box,and that would be a wrap.
Marion wants what Hamas wants one state over all of Palestine that is free of Jews or to use the German word, Juderin!
"Have you ever thought that if countries' leaders such as ours had never CIA trained and supported the man and armed him, he would have been able to continue terrifying his people?" -Marion
"I have never been opposed to removing Saddam from power K. What I have been opposed to is our U.S. invasion to remove Saddam and our U.S. military occupation of Iraq which I knew was a major mistake from the beginning as well as our support of Saddam prior to declaring him an enemy." -Marion
I am sorry Marion, but I just don't believe you. You may not have been opposed to the (passive voice) removal of Saddam in the abstract, but you clearly didn't support any direct action that might have actually brought this about.
You claim that U.S. was "supporting" Saddam right before he was our enemy. How? To what extent? What was the support? And even if that is true, isn't that all the more reason for the U.S. to remove him? Are you saying he would have not been in power if not for the U.S.?
You say the U.S. was giving Saddam weapons. What weapons? When?
You say you would have supported the removal of Saddam. How would you have accomplished this without an invasion?
Marion, we asked Saddam's lawyer and founder of A.N.S.W.E.R., Ramsey Clark himself, a year before the war the exact same question I am asking you now: How do we remove Saddam without war? He had no good answer. So my guess is you are just like him. You "know" that "war is not the answer" as we are all so frequently reminded, but as long as you aren't the one who has to live under a tyrant my guess is that don't actually care what "the answer" really is.
You have to dicipher the code Marion and her hamas and hezbollah buddies use:
For example, when she says she is anti-occupation it means anti-Israel since to her and her terrorist friends, the existence of Israel is occupation.
Oh please, Marion, not that hit-piece work of propaganda again! I've had this argument with Abbas from Konfused Kid several times.
The guy who wrote that article seems to me like one of those isolationist, non-interventionist kooks. I'm not saying its not untrue (although it could be) but it obviously only tells one side of the story.
For one thing, when this alleged "coup" was being drafted, this is what Hamas was up to. Obviously, Israel, Fatah, and the West had reason to be VERY afraid of what those homicidal maniacs were up to.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3512014.ece
Sometimes it hurts to get hit with facts.
"Sometimes it hurts to get hit with facts."--C.H.
Yes it must have hurt for you to get hit with the facts C.H. seeing as you had to resort to labeling the author of the article I suggested reading as "The guy who wrote that article seems to me like one of those isolationist, non-interventionist kooks." simply because your initial claims concerning why Hamas took over Gaza weren't honest.
And than you had to resort to going to
the Rupert Murdock Timesonline to try and counter it.
Who is Rupert Murdoch?
"In recent years, Australian-born billionaire Rupert Murdoch has used the U.S. government's increasingly lax media regulations to consolidate his hold over the media and wider political debate in America. Consider Murdoch's empire: According to Businessweek, "his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered." But who is the real Rupert Murdoch? As this report shows, he is a far-right partisan who has used his empire explicitly to pull American political debate to the right. He is also an enabler of the oppressive tactics employed by dictatorial regimes, and a man who admits to having hidden money in tax havens. In short, there more to Rupert Murdoch than meets the eye....":
http://www.americanprogress.org/...07/
b122948.html
So are you denying the admission by Hamas that it is training in Iran and receiving weapons from the country? That's the typical response. I read your article, and it was screaming bias. Its like when you turn on NBC or CBS news and listen to the propaganda about how all hope is lost and we need to give up in Iraq...all the while, they completely ignore the stories of hope and success.
But even if you deny the article is true, and that Hamas was (and has been) plotting savage acts against innocent civilians ever since they were "elected", then maybe you'll believe it from this source if you don't want to listen to the evil Rupert Murdoch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/0.../
06mideast.html
America can't be blamed for everything. So after Hamas won the elections, do you think they were being sent to Iran to learn the true meaning of peace and how to use proper democracy? I think not.
And by the way, I'm not saying the Vanity Fair article is wrong, I'm just saying that it only tells one part of the story...just like the usual stories you hear about in the mainstream media. Perhaps they should have done a little more research into the threat Hamas posed to the stability of the Palestinian territories.
In case you didn't know, Hamas' reason for existing is to destroy Israel. No matter how often people like Jimmy Carter try and deny it, they are NOT peace seeking people.
Jimmy Carter is a fool, however well being just like Neville Chamberlin. He may also be anti-Jewish, although that is not yet clear. In any case, he should be ignored.
Oh, btw, getting back to original theme of this thread, Mojo. I, too hate anyone who loves Saddam Hussein!
I told Maury:
"Wars and occupations are not constructive at all." -Marion
An obvious war and occupation supporter by the name of K responded with:
"But they do lead to the creation of democratic countries. That is a historical fact."--K
Is that so K? Well the 40 year so-called Democratic Jewish State of Israeli's occupation of the Palestinians is one example of failure in that respect. And how about the occupation and colonization of Middle East countries by Democratic countries like France and England, did they manage to Democratize any countries in the Middle East region?
And would you say that we have "succeeded" in Democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan through our pre-emptive wars and occupations?
Well, the Occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII lead to the establishment of two strong democracies in those former totaltarian countries.
Note: The Palestinians have had and currently still have a chance to establish their own country, but they are too busy trying to finds ways to kill Israelis to do so!
2nd Note: Remember when Marion talks about ending the Occupation of Palestinian lands, she means the destruction of Israel.
"And would you say that we have "succeeded" in Democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan through our pre-emptive wars and occupations?" -Marion
Are you calling the war with Afghanistan pre-emptive?
And yes, those nations will succeed in building peaceful democratic governments, provided people like you don't sabotage them. You want us to leave. If we leave. Then, no they will probably not succeed. Afghanistan and Iraq were not the historical examples I was referring to because they are history in the making.
"But even if you deny the article is true, and that Hamas was (and has been) plotting savage acts against innocent civilians ever since they were "elected", then maybe you'll believe it from this source if you don't want to listen to the evil Rupert Murdoch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/0.../ 06mideast.html"--C.H.
My response:
Yes I went to your other source C.H. and this is what I read concerning the "allegation" that Hamas members were receiving training in Iran titled, "Israeli Says Iran Is Training Hamas Men" on March 6, 2007:
"The chief of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal security service, said Monday that the Islamic movement Hamas had sent dozens of men from Gaza to Iran for military training.
“We know that Hamas has started to dispatch people to Iran, tens, and a promise of hundreds,” the intelligence chief, Yuval Diskin, told a small group of correspondents here in a rare on-the-record briefing.
The training would last months, perhaps years, he said, adding, “I see this as the strategic danger, more than any weapons smuggled into Gaza.”
Ahmed Youssef, an adviser to Ismail Haniya, the Hamas-backed Palestinian prime minister, responded from Gaza by telephone that Hamas “has not sent anyone to Iran,” and that Mr. Diskin’s comment was “propaganda, to hurt a new government.”
Mr. Youssef said there “are attempts to send some men from the Executive Force,” a Hamas-led parallel paramilitary police force, “to Arab countries for police training.”
Mr. Diskin said that his comments were based on hard intelligence, but Mr. Youssef insisted that Egypt, which shares a border with Gaza, is very strict about Gazans traveling to Iran...."
So according to this New York Times, March 6, 2007 article, Israel is their "reliable source of information" that hundreds of Hamas members have been training in Iran?
And according to the Sunday Timesonline March 9, 2008 article, "Israel has long insisted that Iran is behind this training. Last week Yuval Diskin, the head of the Israeli internal security service Shin Bet, said as much when he claimed that Hamas had “started to dispatch people to Iran, tens and a promise of hundreds”. He provided no evidence."
This is the same Shin Bet official that made the claim a year ago to the New York Times which was denied by an actual named Hamas official.
But than the Timesonline attempted to verify this allegation with what they claimed was an anonymous Hamas commander, "Speaking on the record but withholding his identity as a target of Israeli forces, the commander, who has a sparse moustache and oiled black hair, said Hamas had been sending fighters to Iran for training in both field tactics and weapons technology since Israeli troops pulled out of the Gaza strip of Palestinian territory in 2005."
Do you think we are all naive fools C.H.?
K, thank you for your eloquent statement about Afghanistan and Iraq. You summed the situation up correctly.
"Are you calling the war with Afghanistan pre-emptive?"--K
You know at first I supported our pre-emptive attack on Afghanistan to go after Osama and AlQaeda K, but when George Bush decided to go after what he decided to call the axis of evil countries and took this so-called War on Terrorism to Iraq, and when he decided to include resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as being in the same category as Al Qaeda, I changed my mind.
Let me ask you K, did the Afghanistan people attack us on 9/11? Did the oppressive to its people Taliban attack us on 9/11? Where is Osama Bin Laden K? Why is Al Qaeda now in Iraq?
"I said a contructive solution Marion....that DOESN'T involve the death of millions. Jews wouldn't survive in your one-state solution. The same people calling for their destruction would come to power at the ballot box,and that would be a wrap.'--Maury
Than I suppose we should seriously consider your suggestion Maury and move the Israeli Jews who are largely of European and Russian decent to a state in the U.S., since according to you and the rest of the Israeli Jewish supporters, they are surrounded by people calling for their destruction. Therefore it doesn't make any sense whatsoever that you and their supporters would want for them to remain in a place where their fate will be the death of millions of them.
Who needs these kind of supporters?
gilgamesh, when do you think a majority of Germans believed that Hitler was bad for Germany?
Actually after D - Day, when they knew: between two fronts we can't stand. That was a WWI - lesson. There was this Stauffenberg, in a movie played now by actor Tom Cruise.
There were some people who thought different, but actually the Germans had at that time no consciousness something was wrong.
After WWII they thought either all lies or who cares about German crimes.
The changes came with the generation after.
"Therefore it doesn't make any sense whatsoever that you and their supporters would want for them to remain in a place where their fate will be the death of millions of them.'--Marion
Isn't this what happened during the Holocaust? Didn't the world turn their backs on Jews being slaughtered? So why would Jewish Israel's supporters purposely leave Jews in a place where they claim that they will one day be slaughtered in the millions?
Doesn't make much sense does it, unless of course the threat of the destruction of Israel is being exaggerated in order for them to be free to do as they like which is to continue occupying and annexing more and more land.
An obvious war and occupation supporter by the name of K responded with...
Are you an obious terrorism and criminality supporter, Marion? You must be, since you admitted you support HAMAS and Hezbollah, right?
Why the name calling? What is it about leftists that causes them to be so nasty, on a personal level?
"You know at first I supported our pre-emptive attack on Afghanistan to go after Osama and AlQaeda K, but when George Bush decided to go after what he decided to call the axis of evil countries and took this so-called War on Terrorism to Iraq, and when he decided to include resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as being in the same category as Al Qaeda, I changed my mind." -Marion
Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan or not? Was it pre-emptive and not in self-defense? You changed your mind after the invasion?
Isn't this what happened during the Holocaust? Didn't the world turn their backs on Jews being slaughtered? So why would Jewish Israel's supporters purposely leave Jews in a place where they claim that they will one day be slaughtered in the millions?
Marion, I don't know about you, but I think when the Jews said "never again!" after the holocaust, they meant it. They'll kill every Arab on the planet and every Muslim too, before they'd let themseleves be wiped out. And your argument for a "one state solution" is an argument to eliminate Jews in the middle east, and nothing but that. You can play all the rhetorical games you want, but anybody with any intelligence at all can see the ramifications of Israel allowing 10 million Arabs to claim citizenship.
So, do you NOT believe that Israel willl send the middle east into a nuclear armageddon if it's existence is threatened? Or do you belive it, and think that's not such a bad thing? I admit, I can't make much sense out of the "solutions" you propose. Your solutions seem more like mass suicide on a scale the world has never seen before.
Craig, I've been called a lot worse.
"I am sorry Marion, but I just don't believe you. You may not have been opposed to the (passive voice) removal of Saddam in the abstract, but you clearly didn't support any direct action that might have actually brought this about."--K
My response:
K, if waging a war to remove a brutal leader we once supported with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions is justifiable, why didn't we just use that justification for pre-emptively attacking and invading Iraq in the first place? And why didn't we leave right after we captured Saddam? Why did we choose to attack Iraq based on lies saying it was because Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction and insinuate that he had ties to 9/11 and Al Qaeda?
I would have whole heartedly supported the removal of Saddam Hussein by his people.
Mojo said today:
""Give me liberty or give me death."
Me too. Most Iraqis I know chose liberty by escaping Iraq in the 80s and 90s. Many Iraqis chose death by confronting Saddam inside Iraq. It amazes me how many people prefer to live silently under tyranny rather than confront the tyrant."--Mojo
Yet when I asked Mojo last week, why if he believes so strongly in the cause, doesn't he go to Iraq and fight along with his fellow American soldiers, he said something like what so that I can be killed by the Takfiris?
What kind of belief is this "Give me liberty or give me death"? Is running away from Saddam to get one's liberty mean "Give me liberty or give me death"? And than he has the gall to criticize those Iraqis he left behind because they see things differently and aren't falling in line with the so-called "give me liberty or give me deathd" he claims to believe in?
To be continued....
"You claim that U.S. was "supporting" Saddam right before he was our enemy. How? To what extent? What was the support?"--K
My response:
I am almost sure that you already know the answer K.
*****
"And even if that is true, isn't that all the more reason for the U.S. to remove him?"--K
My response:
First of all we have never come clean with what we did to the Iraqi people by supporting Saddam, and than what we did to the Iraqi people through sanctions followed by an invasion. Therefore in my point of view, it wasn't just for us to start a war that killed how many more thousands of innocent Iraqis to remove him.
****
"Are you saying he would have not been in power if not for the U.S.?'--K
My response:
I never implied this, but certainly we wouldn't be in the position we are in today if we didn't have a double standard foreign policy of interference and control in the region.
****
"You say the U.S. was giving Saddam weapons. What weapons? When?"--K
My response:
During Iraq's war with Iran.
SEE:
How the U.S. Helped Create Saddam Hussein
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/
...swk.us.iraq.htm
****
"You say you would have supported the removal of Saddam. How would you have accomplished this without an invasion?"--K
My response:
Through his people, who a majority of them wanted to overthrow him. And even in 1991 they were encouraged by George Bush Sr. to do so, yet he turned his back on them by not giving them any assistance or fire power to do so because he feared who would take over Iraq. And guess what the same people he feared would take over Iraq, Shias with strong ties to Iran are in power today.
****
To be continued....
"Marion, we asked Saddam's lawyer and founder of A.N.S.W.E.R., Ramsey Clark himself, a year before the war the exact same question I am asking you now: How do we remove Saddam without war? He had no good answer. So my guess is you are just like him. You "know" that "war is not the answer" as we are all so frequently reminded, but as long as you aren't the one who has to live under a tyrant my guess is that don't actually care what "the answer" really is."--K
My response:
With all of the technology available to us today, I am absolutely sure that we could have found a way to help the people of Iraq overthrow Saddam without resorting to a war followed by a military occupation K. We just didn't want to look for any other way because we wanted to occupy Iraq.
Marion,
Did the Nazis attack us Marion? Did the people of Germany attack us? Did the people of Japan attack us? Did people of Italy attack us? Did the Vichy government of France attack us? Was the invasion of Normandy a pre-emptive attack?
How did we support Saddam, Marion? What weapons did we give him?
How do we support Saudi Arabia, Marion? We sold them planes. Have they used them? How do we remove the Saudi royal family from power?
How could we have removed Saddam from power without war?
How could we have removed Osama Bin Ladin and his training camps from Afghanistan without war? How do we remove him from Pakistan without war? What would that war cause?
Why do you continue to ask me question without answering mine. Why won't you answer my questions?
I have been asking these questions for years Marion. I have been waiting for someone like you to answer them for me but every time I ask you all run away or change the subject. Why won't you answer my questions?
"We just didn't want to look for any other way because we wanted to occupy Iraq."
I wonder if there's any truth to that. How does a military occupation of Iraq benefit the US? Did Bush think it would help the US economy?
"We just didn't want to look for any other way because we wanted to occupy Iraq." -Marion
Dead wrong. People like me, Gilgamesh, Mojo, millions of people: we have been looking for other ways for decades.
You are the one ignoring history. As terrible as it is (and it is the worst way), this is they way that works.
"So, do you NOT believe that Israel willl send the middle east into a nuclear armageddon if it's existence is threatened?"--Craig
No I don't believe it Craig because they know that it would cause their own demise.
"Or do you belive it, and think that's not such a bad thing? I admit, I can't make much sense out of the "solutions" you propose. Your solutions seem more like mass suicide on a scale the world has never seen before.'--Craig
There you go resorting to using hyperbole allegations against me with no logical reasoning to do so, and yet you referred to me "to be so nasty, on a personal level? " because I said "An obvious war and occupation supporter by the name of K responded with..." after he supported the use of war and occupation to establish Democracy.
And what was your further response Craig?
"Are you an obious terrorism and criminality supporter, Marion? You must be, since you admitted you support HAMAS and Hezbollah, right?
Why the name calling? What is it about leftists that causes them to be so nasty, on a personal level? "--Craig
Maybe you should ask yourself that question Craig since you have a habit of resorting to hyperbole allegations simply because you cannot argue based on the facts.
I happen to support the people's resistance movements to occupation and invasions Craig, and not "illegal" criminal wars, occupations, and invasions that have resorted to the use of "Shock and Awe" terrorism like you.
"With all of the technology available to us today, I am absolutely sure that we could have found a way to help the people of Iraq overthrow Saddam without resorting to a war followed by a military occupation K."
How Marion,by sending them weapons through the internet? E-bombs? Please tell us which button could have been pushed that would have allowed the Iraqi people to free themselves....since you're absolutely sure it was possible.
"No I don't believe it Craig because they know that it would cause their own demise."
You're not comprehending Marion. Their demise is already assured. They've been demiserated. Past tense. Now,what what keep them from going nuclear on the people they hold responsible?
The one state solution is best solution, and despite the exaggeratedly and hyperbole emotional arguments presented here, it does not mean the extermination of the Jews, but it will mean the eventual end of what is a Zionist Jewish State of Israel.
Marion,
You just don't get it, do you?
You link to the Vanity Fair conspiracy article and expect me to take it as fact, no matter what...after all, if a report comes out that furthers the propaganda that America is the problem in the world and that thugs like Hamas are victims instead of the thugs and murderers we "portray" them as, it seems it always taken as fact and nothing less by you people.
I link to an article as well, an article that when put together with yours, seems to make a lot of sense, am I right?
It's called "Cause and Effect"
Here's another study you might find interesting. It's about Iran's role in training and financially supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. It also goes on to suggest that Iran has become a "uniting force" between Sunni and Shiite extremists, as I talked about earlier.
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?...details&
id=5167
What's next, are you going to deny that the Iranian revolutionaries are not funding Hezbollah as well, the very group that Hamas has modeled itself after? If it wasn't for Iran, Hezbollah would not exist.
Here's another article about Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and its relationship to terror groups Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite fighters in Iraq. Its actually very interesting to see how much influence they have gained inside of Iran, and that could be one reason for the continuing support of extremist groups.
http://www.npr.org/templates/
sto...storyId=9371072
Anyone with eyes can see what's going on here. I suggest you open yours up.
I said:
"No I don't believe it Craig because they know that it would cause their own demise."--Marion
"You're not comprehending Marion. Their demise is already assured. They've been demiserated. Past tense. Now,what what keep them from going nuclear on the people they hold responsible?"--Maury
And Craig said to me he can't make much sense out of the "solutions" I propose. And that my solutions seem more like mass suicide on a scale the world has never seen before?
You had better start getting those Jews over here in a state of their own if you actually believe your own mass suicide rhetoric Maury.
Does our " C.H. | Homepage | 04.10.08 - 11:11 pm | " post mean you think we should be attacking, invading, and occupying Iran now C.H.?
And yet I am being painted as the warmonger because I support the people's resistance?
Good night, I have had my fill of these war mongering and occupation defensive posts.
"The one state solution is best solution"
Let me re-phrase. Give us a constructive solution that hasn't been ruled out by one side or the other. I think "over our dead bodies" is Israels response to one-state,or even Right of Return.
Sheesh. She left without answering a single one of K's questions. And he asked so nicely too...
A U.S. invasion of Iran would not be a good thing, I'll give you that, Marion.
However, this is how the Iranians should be confronted.
http://www.kentimmerman.com/news...8fr-
mullahs.htm
Good night, I have had my fill of these war mongering and occupation defensive posts.
Not enough pro-terrorism and ethnic/sectarian cleanisng comments to please you, eh? That *is* what you support, underneath all the noble talk about "resistance", isn't it?
Am I out of line when I call it like I see it, Marion? Are you the only one who is allowed to speculate about the motivations of your opponents?
Would you still support demographic warfare, if Lebanon opened the gates of citizenship to all Arab Christians in the ME? Or, worse (from your perspective) - if Lebanon offerred full citizenship to all Sunni Palestinians? And any other Sunni extremist who wanted to resettle there?
You might say yes. You might actually believe that would be an acceptable thing for the government of Lebanon to do. But would you still believe it, if Lebanon's Shia were ethnically cleansed out of existence? I mean, seriously, where would they go? Who would take them in? They'd either be living in the soon-to-be-vacant Palestinian camps, or they'd be dead. I suspect they'd be dead, myself, because we aren't talking about Israelis or Americans pushing them out. We're talking about Arabs pushing them out, and we all know how Arabs play that game. Would domegraphic warfare still be OK with you then, Marion?
And Craig said to me he can't make much sense out of the "solutions" I propose. And that my solutions seem more like mass suicide on a scale the world has never seen before?
Marion, what part of what Maury and I are trying to tell you is going over your head? If Jews in Israel come to believe that they are on the verge of being exterminated as a people, what do you think they will do? Surrender? They said never again. Never again will they put themselves at the mercy of an enemy who seeks their annihilation. Do you belive that, or not? Because you seem to be claiming that Israeli Jews should eb willing to do just that, with your "one state" argument.
"Good night, I have had my fill of these war mongering and occupation defensive posts." -Marion
Great, its about time for Bruno's shift anyway. Maybe he'll answer some of my questions by the time I wake up. Yeah right.
Goodnight.
K said,"As terrible as it is (and it is the worst way), this is they way that works."
Yeah, it's working great K
Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’
Bush has now accepted Petraeus’s recommendation, “leaving open the possibility that about 140,000 U.S. servicemen and women will still be in the war zone when the next president takes office.”
But there is one important decision-maker that Petraeus and Bush don’t seem to be listening to: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The AP reports that Maliki told Bush yesterday that he “disagrees” with Petraeus’s recommendation “citing the growing capabilities of Iraq’s own security forces”:
The prime minister told Bush during a 20-minute telephone conversation on Wednesday that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to a senior government adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the confidential details.
Bush has consistently expressed confidence in Maliki’s leadership and judgement saying he had seen “the strength of his character,” that he is a “strong leader,” and a “good guy” with “deep determination.”
If Bush has so much confidence in Maliki’s character and leadership abilities, then perhaps he should take his advice.
[mojo] "The Iranian regime is full of hypocrites - they are anti American, but at the same time they support Maliki's govt"
LOL, can I reverse that argument and say the Americans are hypocrites because they support Maliki and oppose Iran?
[mojo] "Some people claim that Iran has even supported Al Qaeda, which has never made sense to me."
I think, frankly, that that is bullshit. That's a stretch too far. Support for Iraqi groups, like Sadr and certainly Badr is more believable, but I question the extent of such support, especially for the Sadrists. One could imagine a modern state like Iran could do a bit better in arming militias than recent events suggest. Personally I believe that Iraqis are way smart enough to make their own IED's.
[mojo] "Although people have claimed that the US is trying to divide and destroy Iraq, it seems to me the US is the only party in Iraq that's tried hard to keep Iraq united."
I disagree. At the moment, the US is the one whose senate voted for partition of Iraq. Their allies Maliki and Badr have often been linked to the idea of a shia superstate in the south of Iraq. The Kurds, other US allies, also want partition. The ENEMIES of the US, the evil Resistance and the evil Al Sadr, are the ones with an interest in a united Iraq.
[mojo] "the Sadrists also want to turn Iraq into an Islamic society."
And you're suggesting by implication that the BADR BRIGADE, the Armed wing of the ultra-religious Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq - the current American favourites in Iraq - DOES NOT want an Islamic society? I suggest that you speak to your dad on this matter, if that's what you think.
[k] "Great, its about time for Bruno's shift anyway. Maybe he'll answer some of my questions by the time I wake up. Yeah right."
If you can explain the relevance of your questions, I will.
gilgamesh X | 04.10.08 - 9:47 pm | #
Gilgamesh is correct that Hitler was quite popular until 1943.
Marion, America has tried to help the Iraqi resistance (which Bruno and Advocate detest) overthrow Saddam since 1991. The effort did not succeed in helping overthrow Saddam.
America's efforts helped accelerate an Iraqi civil war that has been very destructive since 1991 (many would say the civil war began in 1980.)
Your policy, Marion would have led to indefinite civil war and suffering for Iraqis, as Saddam and then his sons continued their genocide against Iraqis.
BTW, had my council been followed, Iraq probably would have had indefinite civil war and suffering. Saddam would have likely stayed on in power for a long time. Given what our (my and your) policy would have resulted in, a little humility from people like you and I might be in order.
"I think, frankly, that that is bullshit. That's a stretch too far. Support for Iraqi groups, like Sadr and certainly Badr is more believable, but I question the extent of such support, especially for the Sadrists. One could imagine a modern state like Iran could do a bit better in arming militias than recent events suggest. Personally I believe that Iraqis are way smart enough to make their own IED's." -Bruno
I agree with Bruno, Mojo. I don't think the government of Iran would ever knowingly directly assist Al Qaeda. I think its hilarious that Israel accuses Iran of funding Al Qaeda while Iran accuses Israel when its pretty clear that both have very little reason to do so.
Bruno, Iran is accused of providing EFPs and rockets to Iraq, not IEDs. EFPs are much smaller and deadlier than some crude IED and cannot be thrown together out of any ol' ordinance lying around the muhafadhat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...8/20/
wirq20.xml
Gosh, Bruno wouldn't answer my questions either.
What a surprise.
"Great, its about time for Bruno's shift anyway. Maybe he'll answer some of my questions by the time I wake up. Yeah right.'--K
My response:
K you act as if we never answer any of your questions yet how many of my questions have you bothered to answer?
I think I have done a much better job of answering your questions than you have done in answering my questions addressed to you. You can always go back, review, and see for yourself if you can be honest and objective enough in this regards.
You know what I think? I think you just don't like my answers, therefore you don;' consider them as answers. And of course you have always got your think alike pro-war and occupation cyber buddies here to back you up.
"Maliki Disagrees With Petraeus’s ‘Pause,’ Says ‘U.S. Troops Should Be Pulled Out’"-- Occupation is the problem
Whether Maliki actually meant what he said to Bush is a question left unanswered, but considering the Iraqi people's desires of no more foreign occupation, he had to say this to Bush in order to keep some credibility in the eyes of his people.
I have heard that the recent Senate hearings over Iraq were the last of the news events reported on in the U.S. sponsored Al Hurra news channel. I am wondering why such an important news event would be left for last?
"Bruno, Iran is accused of providing EFPs and rockets to Iraq, not IEDs. EFPs are much smaller and deadlier than some crude IED and cannot be thrown together out of any ol' ordinance lying around the muhafadhat.'--K
And who exactly has been doing the accusing K?
From your source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...8/20/ wirq20.xml
"Iranians working for the NCRI pinpointed the facilities at three industrial sections called Sattari, Sayad Shirazi and Shiroodi.....Alireza Jafarzadeh, a former spokesman for the NCRI who in 2002 revealed the existence of two Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak, said the devices were smuggled to Iraq via Iran's Shalamcheh border region."
Who is Alireza Jafarzadeh?
He is the former spokesmen for (NCRI) Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK).
SEE:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/par...ld/para/
mek.htm
What is the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK)?
SEE:
Council of Foreign Relations
Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (Iranian rebels)
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/
and
Frontline's "Showdown with Iran"
The Mujahadeen-e Khalq (MEK):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr...themes/
mek.html
And Islamophobic Neocon Daniel Pipes of all people has defended them.
"I think I have done a much better job of answering your questions than you have done in answering my questions addressed to you. You can always go back, review, and see for yourself if you can be honest and objective enough in this regards." -Marion
No, really you have not. You did answer my question about providing weapons to Saddam. I had to find the "answer" myself in your link that tanks and (non-military) helicopters may have been transfered to Iraq through Egypt but I didn't find that very convincing that the U.S. deliberately sold weapons to Saddam.
I have this charge before, so I would not be surprised if it were true, but so far I haven't seen good proof.
You still did not answer how we should have removed Saddam (and the Ba'ath party too!) from power without war. You told us that someone should have found a way. If you are serious that you are against war, than you should tell us a way. Why rely on others to find peace? This war is five years old and you still have not thought of an alternative? Technology? Marion, I am a scientist. I know all about technology. There is no technology that creates democracy out of a vacuum. Only a democratic army on the ground routing out the enemies of democracy can free Iraq from the tyrants of the past. Please prove me wrong because I want to be wrong! I want to know a better way!
If you think I am nonobjective, you are wrong. I can be convinced on a seconds notice provided you actually convince me I have a false view of history. The problem is that you have not done that. And if you fail to address the issues I bring up you have no chance.
I want to understand, why was invading Nazi Germany and Vichy France moral? Or was it not? But invading Afghanistan was not moral?
Why do you think Iraq will not become a peaceful democratic nation if the U.S. stays until Iraq is stable and safe?
Can the U.S. bring liberal democracy to Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia? Should we? How?
It doesn't matter who is doing the accusing if EFPs are really being used in Iraq then they must come from somewhere, right?
Do you have an alternative theory of where they come from? Or is the very existence of factory made EFPs a myth in your opinion?
"Can the U.S. bring liberal democracy to Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia? Should we? How?"
She's "absolutely sure" we have the technology to enable those people to free themselves K. I'm pretty sure Marion is Annie from 24 Steps to Nowhere. Or at least her mental twin.
"I'm pretty sure Marion is Annie from 24 Steps to Nowhere." -Maury
Unlike Annie, Marion can read, write and think far beyond a third grade level, Maury, so I have to disagree with you. They are not the same person.
Marion's question: "Have you ever thought that if countries' leaders such as ours had never CIA trained and supported the man and armed him, he would have been able to continue terrifying his people?"
My answer: Saddam was not "created" by the CIA, and yes Saddam could very well have continued terrifying his people. Further, if it had not been for the U.S. intervention, Saddam would control Kuwait, possibly Saudi Arabia and may have destroyed Israel. He would quite possibly be the wealthiest most powerful man on Earth. He would have completely exterminated the Kurds and Jews by now. Unchecked, he would have acquired WMD and we would have no way to stop him.
Marion's question: "Why are we placing so much blame of the blame of the chaos on Iran?"
My answer: I don't think that much blame is being placed on Iran other than providing EFPs and inciting violence through Sadr et al. Iran does not want the U.S. to stay and stabilize Iraq because they know what I know: that when the U.S. occupies a country and defeats the enemies of democracy, that country will become democratic. The Iranian regime correctly realizes that this will lead to the nonviolent democratization of Iran which will put the current rulers out of work.
Marion's question: "Do you honestly believe that the U.S. ally neighboring states leader's in Kuwait, Saudi, and Jordan are clean and innocent when it comes to what is taking place in Iraq? And that Syria and Iran are the guilty ones based on them being in opposition to the U.S. pre-emptive attack and occupation of Iraq?"
My answer: No, I suspect all dictators in the region are trying to sabotage the democratization of Iraq. However, clearly Syria and Iran are doing so far more openly and thoroughly than our so-called allies.
Marion's question: "Do you honestly believe that our continued and increasing military presence in Iraq and in the region, our internal meddling in other parts of the region, and our refusal to have honest dialog with those who oppose our or Israel's occupations is a formula that will bring a peaceful solution to Iraq or the wider region?"
My answer: Yes.
Marion's question: "And considering the past and present hypocrisy of the so-called moderate, aligned with the U.S., Arab leaders, do you honestly believe that we are in Iraq and the region because we want to promote real, genuine Democracy and not because we want to control the oil and promote the interests of Israel first and foremost?"
My answer: Yes! ABSOLUTELY! I definitely want Iraq to be a democracy. Are we doing this mostly in self interest? Yes. BUT THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF IRAQ IS IN OUR SELF INTEREST!
Marion's question: "And than you wonder why people don't trust our intentions in their region and prefer to trust resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah?"
My answer: No. I don't wonder at all. The dictators, terrorists, cold-warrior communists and people like you have been lying to the people of the Middle East about America's intentions for decades. This is perhaps our biggest problem.
Marion's question: "And you don't see any present or future problems or controversies with the ideals of Democracy by considering and calling Israel a "Jewish" state?"
My answer: No I suppose that doesn't sound very democratic. So... Death to Israel?
Marion's question: "So if I am consistently anti-occupation and pro-the people making their own choices without our unhelpful interferences and selfish interests in the region, such as arming and propping up the so-called moderate friendly to our interests dictators, I am parroting Saddam and pro-nothing?
"
My answer: Yes.
Marion's question: "And would you say that we have "succeeded" in Democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan through our pre-emptive wars and occupations?"
My answer: I said before, yes we will succeed if we don't give up! We are so close.
Marion's question: "Do you think we are all naive fools?"
My answer: Uh... no comment.
Marion's question: "Let me ask you K, did the Afghanistan people attack us on 9/11? Did the oppressive to its people Taliban attack us on 9/11? Where is Osama Bin Laden K? Why is Al Qaeda now in Iraq?"
My answer: No, the people of Afghanistan did not attack us nor are we at war with them. They were victims of the Taliban who yes, did attack us using their terrorist military arm, Al Qaeda! I don't know where Osama is. Do you? Please tell somebody so we can kill that fucker.
Marion's question: "K, if waging a war to remove a brutal leader we once supported with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions is justifiable, why didn't we just use that justification for pre-emptively attacking and invading Iraq in the first place? And why didn't we leave right after we captured Saddam? Why did we choose to attack Iraq based on lies saying it was because Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction and insinuate that he had ties to 9/11 and Al Qaeda?"
My answer: We cannot just invade every country with a dictator. And I never supported Saddam or any dictator so I am not the hypocrite here. Your hero Scott Ritter was the only one who convinced me that Saddam had any WMD left, not Bush. He gave a talk I attended before the war. I suspect people believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 because that was what they wanted to believe. I for one was never convinced. I am sorry you felt lied to. Does that mean the Iraqis don't deserve democracy? Because of our politicians lie? We did not leave after we captured Saddam because when you remove a dictator, you get chaos and violence as different non-democratic groups grapple for power. We need to stay to fulfill our promise to establish a sable democracy in Iraq and defeat AL Qaeda. This is what most Iraqis want. We don't need to abandon them again like we did in 1991.
Marion's question: "What kind of belief is this "Give me liberty or give me death"? Is running away from Saddam to get one's liberty mean "Give me liberty or give me death"? And than he has the gall to criticize those Iraqis he left behind because they see things differently and aren't falling in line with the so-called "give me liberty or give me deathd" he claims to believe in?"
My answer: Mojo's family won liberty for themselves by coming to a free country. Mojo is now defending the liberty of his fellow Iraqis by standing behind the most powerful democratic force in the world: the United States military. Nothing will bring democracy to Iraq faster or more effectively. History is clear on this.
Marion's question: "And yet I am being painted as the warmonger because I support the people's resistance?"
My answer: If you encourage war, you are a warmonger, right? If you defend people who fight a democratic country on the side opposed to democracy than you are a warmonger because democracy leads to real peace. Whether you know it or not you are encouraging more war. If you truly believed in peace and non-violance than you would be using your cultural understanding of the region to get the "people's resistance" to surrender. That is the way of the peacemonger.
Marion's question: "K you act as if we never answer any of your questions yet how many of my questions have you bothered to answer?"
My answer: I have now answered all of your questions on this thread now Marion. Will you answer some more of mine?
Marion's question: "You know what I think? I think you just don't like my answers, therefore you don;' consider them as answers. "
Fair enough.
K:Saddam was not "created" by the CIA, and yes Saddam could very well have continued terrifying his people. Further, if it had not been for the U.S. intervention, Saddam would control Kuwait, possibly Saudi Arabia and may have destroyed Israel. He would quite possibly be the wealthiest most powerful man on Earth. He would have completely exterminated the Kurds and Jews by now. Unchecked, he would have acquired WMD and we would have no way to stop him.
Mojo is now defending the liberty of his fellow Iraqis by standing behind the most powerful democratic force in the world: the United States military.
What utter fucking nonsense
Marion, save your breath these merkin tools are hopeless hypocrite warmongers completely brainwashed by american propaganda.
"What utter fucking nonsense" -OITP
Why is it nonsense? What part do you not understand?
"Marion, save your breath these merkin tools are hopeless hypocrite warmongers completely brainwashed by american propaganda." -OITP
Why do you think I am "brainwashed"? What am I misinformed about? I am glad Marion and Bruno take time to talk to me. Of course you don't want her to talk to me because then we might come to an understanding and that is your worst fear. Most people like you are too ignorant about history to debate and discuss the facts. That is why you resort to insults and isolationism. But maybe I am wrong. If you think I am mistaken about something in particular please tell me.
Or just close your eyes, cover your ears and scream!
K:What part do you not understand?
Uh, I don't understand how a freethinking adult can be so duped and propagandized. : )
K,
Ask Mojo how the Ba'ath came to power "using an american locomotive."
"Ask Mojo how the Ba'ath came to power "using an [American] locomotive." -Anonymous "freethinking adult"
I have already had the "train" discussion with Mojo a long time ago. I informed him that I just don't trust a Ba'ath party member's word about their history because they have proven over and over that they lie to deceive their own people and the world: "no tanks in Baghdad", "100% for Saddam", etc.
I also told Mojo that even if the CIA "created" Saddam purely out of the mud itself, it still doesn't matter, because that would have been something the American people had no knowledge of or control over. It would be an effect without a cause. All I can say for sure is that I did not create Saddam. You are not talking to someone who ever supported Saddam in any way. The people of Iraq deserve to be free no matter how Saddam came to power. If it was America's fault somehow, all the more reason America needs to fix it. Okay?
You say I am brainwashed? But I do not believe that the CIA did not "create" Saddam because they said so (which they do) but because I have seen no good evidence for it. I know about the coups. I know about "the train". I know about "the list". Perhaps that helped, but Saddam would have existed with or without the CIA. If you have good evidence that Saddam would have been a good little farm boy if only it had not been for evil Americans then please show it. Maybe if it is convincing I will change my mind. Otherwise, just keep calling me brainwashed and propagandized and shove off.
War turns Republics into dictatorships. The logic is actually quite simple. The Constitution says that the Congress is responsible for declaring war. But in 2002 Congress turned that responsibility over to Bush, gutting the constitution and allowing the American Right to start referring to him not as president but as 'commander in chief' (that is a function of the civilian presidency, not a title.)
Now Bush has now turned over the decision-making about the course of the Iraq War to Gen. David Petraeus.
So Congress abdicated to Bush. Bush has abdicated to the generals in the field.
That is not a Republic. That is a military dictatorship achieved not by coup but by moral laziness.
DJ: "The Constitution says that the Congress is responsible for declaring war. But in 2002 Congress turned that responsibility over to Bush"
The last congressionally declared war was WWII. Where were you 1946-2002?
DJ: "Now Bush has now turned over the decision-making about the course of the Iraq War to Gen. David Petraeus."
He gets suggestions for decision-making from his top general in the field. That's worked out pretty well in Petraeus' case. Would you really rather have Bush ignore his generals?
_
RhusLancia:Would you really rather have Bush ignore his generals?
That is EXACTLY what Bush does unless they tow the party line.He wants yesmen.Want proof? Check out this. Bush blew this guy off.
http://www.northstarwriters.com/...s.com/
ct089.htm
It's Occupation, Not War
By Charley Reese
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ended some years ago. In Iraq, the war ended with the fall of Saddam Hussein's government; in Afghanistan, with the fall of the Taliban government. What's been happening since is occupation and resistance to occupation.
http://
www.informationclearingho...rticle19721.htm
From DJ's charming link: "Those who want to continue the occupation paint a horrific picture of what they claim will happen if we withdraw – a massive civil war, genocide or a regional war. There is no hard evidence to support any of those suppositions. But even if they happen, they need not concern us. Lots of factions in different parts of the world decide to kill each other from time to time, and we don't interfere. As long as there are no Americans to get caught in the crossfire, let the Iraqis have their civil war if that's what they want."
Just sickening.
What is sickening is how much you truly don't care when it happens in Afghanistan,Africa etc. You have some psuedo-narrative of altruism regarding Iraq that you don't have elsewhere. You don't give a hoot when it happens by the millions in the Congo nor do most Americans.
That America "cares" about Iraq and Iraqis is ridiculous. Americans want out.
DJ, so America is supposed to be the world police?
_
It's a good thing we have DJ around to tell us how we feel,and who we care about. Dr. Phil just ain't cutting the mustard lately.
DJ means well. Lets be polite to her. She is no "Advocate," Layla, or even Bruno.
DJ, thanks for bringing up the Congo, a cause dear to my heart. I think it is a disgrace that the entire world is ignoring the tragedy of the Congo.
DJ is also right that many Americans--Doves and Hawks alike--want to get out of Iraq regardless of the consequences for Iraqis. They simply want out.
DJ, I can't speak for all Americans, but I can speak for one American, myself. I care about Iraqis. And I am not the only one. Mojo, K, Maury, Rhus, and many other Americans also care about Iraqis. We all need to keep advocating for the Iraqis.
Some times it helps to read what the resistance thinks of Sadr:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
src=hsr#129244
The resistance has consistently attacked Sadr since 2003. This is one reason I think it is important to try to reach out to Sadr.
anand,I've read the government is moving to take away Sadr's control of food rations in Sadr City and elsewhere. You gotta wonder how popular he'll be when he loses that. Also,I've read that Iran has an arrest warrant charging him with 7 murders. It doesn't ring true,since he's in Iran,and they could arrest him anytime they chose. Still,I think his best times are behind him. All downhill from here.
It's a good thing we have DJ around to tell us how we feel,and who we care about. Dr. Phil just ain't cutting the mustard lately.
Maury, if you and the other murkins are so concerned about Iraq why don't you guys ever bring up the 5 million orphaned, the 1 million widowed, the millions and millions made refugees, the lack of water,electricity, and safety(all things that,under international law, an occupier is supposed to provide), the hideous condition for women and children in Iraq etc.? Sure you might find an old piece you posted on an orphan or something but the horrific state of Iraqis that was unleashed by the occupation is not what you guys post about. You are apologists for the occupation and that is what you mainly post about, oh yeah, that and the fucking oil laws of course. Yeah you really love those Iraqis alright.
You may have fooled yourself but don't fool me.
DJ,
If you really care about the people of Africa so much why do you only post bad news about America and how evil she is?
I've never seen you mention Congo before. I've never seen you post about Sudan or Chad. You haven't said anything about Zimbabwe. I've never heard you object to any of the dictatorships and the poverty and wars they bring to Africa. I use to live in Africa and I love her. But you don't care at all, no matter what Anand says. Nor do you have any real solutions, just complaints. I want to help empower democracy all across Africa. What do you want? You just want America to hide and pretend the world is fine.
Ask Mojo if Americans ever do anything for Africa? His friend is giving up two years of his life to go work in Burkina Faso and help the people there. He is there right now with the aid and support of the U.S. government. Do you ever read his story? But, he can only be there because the government of Burkina Faso allows the U.S. to put Peace Corp volunteers there. You mentioned the orphaned and widowed of Iraq? Yes, that is why Iraq needs the U.S. military and not the Peace Corps; to help protect Iraqis. The Peace Corps cannot protect people from terrorists and would just be killed (just like the U.N was targeted) by the same murderers killing Iraqis.
Of course, we all know if you ever did mention anything outside Iraq or Afghanistan, it would only be if you thought something bad was America's fault.
You may have fooled yourself but don't fool me.
I and Datta both mentioned the nightmare of the Congo.(Ask Anand,I was appalled that no one thought it worth a response time and time again on this blog).
What do you mean you "mentioned" Congo? Oh, stop the presses! DJ "mentioned" something bad in the world without pinning it on the evil Merkins!
Back when you "mentioned" Congo, did you have any suggestions for how to prevent the horrible bloodshed that we found in the Congo from happening again? Did you point out how the war killed ten times the number of people killed by Ba'ath/Al Qaeda war against the Iraqis? Did you provide any insight into what cause the Congo wars? Did you mention how war, genocide and mass rape was unilaterally triggered by dictatorship? Did you discuss a plan to combat dictatorship in the region? Did you point out how the world's lack of involvement in Congo reveals the profound immorality of the isolationist policies of so many of the world's wealthiest nations? Did you discuss any idea how the U.S. could help?
"Did you discuss any idea how the U.S. could help?"
If we did try to help,we'd have to suffer through hundreds of linked articles by DJ....on ending the horribly unjust occupation of Congo.
DJ and Datta are both passionate about the Congo catastrophe.
DJ, please remember that few of us read all the comments here. Mojo doesn't read many of them.
Most of us probably haven't seen most of your comments. This is why there hasn't been enough of a response.
I think we all love Congolese, and must therefore work together to help them as best we can. Let us try not to impugn the motives of others. {DJ you are not the only one here who loves Iraqis. Please do not imply otherwise.}
K asks you a valid point. What are your ideas for how best to help the Congolese? What do you think China should do?
If PM Maliki appointed you oil minister, how would you run the Iraqi oil ministry?
DJ, the primary responsibility to serve the Iraqi people rests with the Iraqi people themselves and their elected government. For better or for ill, sovereignty transfered to the GoI in June, 2004.
Maury, Congo is occupied by almost 20 K UN occupation troops. In addition many neighbors have forces in the Congo. I back a larger and more capable UN occupation force for the Congo.
A very good point, Anand. My greatest fear is that a early withdrawal from Iraq will lead to another Congo or rwanda.
We need to do whatever it takes to defeat the insurgency in Iraq, and the world needs to do the same in Congo, Somalia, and Darfur.
Inaction should never be an option.
CH, if you would like to meet up some time. Please e-mail Mojo. He can connect us.
Do you know when Mojo will be back? He seems like he's been pretty busy lately.
"Maury, Congo is occupied by almost 20 K UN occupation troops."
And nary an American anand. You know DJ will be posting her links the minute we contribute even a dogcatcher to the mission.
Maury, the largest contributor to the Congo occupation force is the Indian army.
The Indian airforce provides logistics and tactical air support to the UN occupation troops.
DJ, do you blame the occupation troops in Congo for Congo's troubles?
BTW, America backs the Congo occupation. We voted for it in the UNSC. Africa Com provides substantial logistical and other support for the Congo occupation.
DJ, how effective do you think the Cuban occupation of Angola and Ethiopia was? Did you back or oppose the Cuban invasion of those countries?
I back the international occupation of countries were the governments abuse their people.
DJ, the UN Security Council has unanimosly endorsed the multinational force mission in Iraq many times since July, 2003. Not a single country has voted against the occupation of Iraq.
Do you think the UN and every UNSC member nation has made a mistake? If so, why?
If the Iraqi people voted for the occupation of their country by foreigners, would that affect your views of the UN requested and endorsed Iraqi occupation force?
It's far from clear which of these positions is more politically palatable. The question really is whether Americans think it's more important to get out of Iraq or to succeed in Iraq.
And that is "a very hard question to answer," says Andrew Kohut, a veteran pollster and president of the Pew Research Center. Recent Pew polling, Mr. Kohut says, has shown an almost even split on the question of whether Americans want to keep troops in Iraq until it is stable or to bring them home as soon as possible. That represents a shift in recent months away from those wanting an immediate withdrawal.
http://online.wsj.com/public/
art...ff_main_tff_top
The U.S. pays for 27% of the cost of the UN Congo mission anand. If we were to send troops anywhere in Africa,I'd rather they make a pitstop in Zimbabwe. Someone needs to enforce the results of the latest election. Mugabe is such a thug.
DJ, why does America with only a fifth of global income put of 27% of the cost of the UN occupation army in Congo? Why isn't the rest of the world stepping up to the plate?
Under Clinton, Africa got 600 million in aid, excluding Egypt. The number today is $6 billion. It isn't nearly enough for my tastes, but I give Pres Bush credit. I also praise Pres Bush for creating Africom under 4 star General William E. (Kip) Ward.
http://www.africom.mil/ward.asp
The world needs to start contributing towards solving Africa's many challenges. My hope is that the ANA (Afghan National Army), IA, and the armies of many other countries also contribute to Africa.
Marion,
You're back! Did you have a chance to read my answers to your questions? Did you have time to think about my questions?
"You're back! Did you have a chance to read my answers to your questions? Did you have time to think about my questions?"--K
Actually no I did not K, I had a very busy weekend, followed by a couple of weekdays.
I have noticed that there wasn't much activity here while I was gone, why is that? Is it too boring discussing the support of war and occupation amongst war and occupation supporters?
By the way in my local newspapers here there was a couple of fairly good commentaries written concerning Iraq, see:
The commander will go, war will go on
BY MITCH ALBOM April 13, 2008
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.d...NEWS07/
80415032
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Eugene Robinson
Iraq debate gets surreal
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs...ATION/
804150409
Insha Allah, I will take a look at your answers to my questions K.
"I have noticed that there wasn't much activity here while I was gone, why is that?" -Marion
We're all just holding our breath in anticipation of your priceless insight.
"Only a democratic army on the ground routing out the enemies of democracy can free Iraq from the tyrants of the past."--K
I suppose you would include Afghanistan in this formula as well?
"I want to understand, why was invading Nazi Germany and Vichy France moral? Or was it not? But invading Afghanistan was not moral?"--K
When we invade and occupy a country, claiming to go after the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, Al Qaeda and its leader Osama, who apparently has been next door Pakistan for years now. Yet in the meantime, we go after the Taliban which we once considered as a legitimate representative of their people because we wanted to run an oil pipeline through their country, killing many innocent Afghan civilians in the process. Then we get caught doing the following:
Coalition chopper drops weapons to Taliban
http://www.presstv.ir/
detail.asp...ionid=351020403
Afghan MP: US coalition feeds Taliban
http://www.presstv.ir/
detail.asp...ionid=351020403
Also keeping in mind that the growing of opium in Afghanistan has skyrocketed, that we have failed to capture Osama or "wipe out" Al Qaeda in the region, and that we had started another war and occupation in Iraq after which Al Qaeda has managed to slip in and spread its wings, I would say looking back at history in the short term, that our invasion of Afghanistan was wrong because it was not for the right reasons and therefore not moral.
"Why do you think Iraq will not become a peaceful democratic nation if the U.S. stays until Iraq is stable and safe?"--K
Because again we are not there for the right reasons to begin with(we are there primarily to control the oil) and as long as we keep occupying Iraq our very presence and interference there will continue dividing its people rather than uniting them.
"Can the U.S. bring liberal democracy to Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia? Should we? How?"--K
No I do not believe so. Democracy has to come through and by the people not by war and occupation.
And thus far, we haven't been able to convince our so-called "moderate" allies in the region such as Saudi, Egypt, and Jordan,(two of which we give U.S. aid to in order to guarantee some kind of peace treaties with Israel) of bringing so-called liberal democracy to their people basically because we support these dictators and not the people of the region.
Now we have taken on trying to bring so-called liberal Democracy by force to Afghanistan and Iraq, while threatening the anti-occupation governments of Syria and Iran, all the while ignoring what the people of the region are thinking and saying. And yet, we expect the people of the region to understand and support our plans for liberal Democracy in their region based on our so-called interests? Good luck because your task is impossible.
If we truly cared about the people in the region we would rightly pressure our so-called allies in the region to Democratize first and foremost, and we would rightly pressure our other ally who we have blindly supported in the region Israel to end their illegal occupations in the remaining Palestinian territories, Shebaa Farms, and Golan Height. And we would rightly pressure them to oppressing the Palestinians, and aggressively attacking them and the Lebanese people by withholding our military support.
"Yet in the meantime, we go after the Taliban which we once considered as a legitimate representative of their people because we wanted to run an oil pipeline through their country, killing many innocent Afghan civilians in the process. Then we get caught doing the following" -Marion
I NEVER considered the Taliban as a legitimate representative of the people of Afghanistan! Maybe you did! As for "we", the U.S. supported the Northern Alliance which was very actively fighting the Taliban long before September 2001.
My last sentence should have read:
And we would rightly pressure them to stop oppressing the Palestinians, and aggressively attacking them and the Lebanese people by withholding our military support.
K,
You have claimed that I do not answer your questions, and when I am answering your questions what do you do?
You interrupt in the middle of my answering them with outrageous allegations against me, defense of yourself(as if I was attacking you), and even more questions. And your buddies here will probably come to defend you as well and bombard me with allegations and even more questions so that you can claim later on that I do not answer your questions?
"You interrupt in the middle of my answering them with outrageous allegations against me, defense of yourself(as if I was attacking you), and even more questions." -Marion
Outrageous allegations? What are you talking about? And I have never heard co-posting on haloscan as interrupting. I think you are taking things a bit too far there. Just read my comments and replies on your own time. I am in no hurry but I happen to be here so I will post. No big deal. And I haven't asked you any new questions yet.
SEE:
Context of 'December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas'
http://cooperativeresearch.org/
c...20497texasvisit
Thursday, December 4, 1997 Published at 19:27 GMT
World: West Asia
Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world..._asia/
37021.stm
From Michael Moore's Factual Back-Up for Fahrenheit 9/11: Section Five:
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan.”
* “A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.” “Taleban in Texas for Talks on Gas Pipeline,” BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.)
* “The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the NASA space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. The Taliban, which controls two-thirds of Afghanistan and is still fighting for the last third, was also given an insight into how the other half lives. The men, who are accustomed to life without heating, electricity or running water, were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marvelled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms. After a meal of specially prepared halal meat, rice and Coca-Cola, the hardline fundamentalists - who have banned women from working and girls from going to school - asked Mr. Miller about his Christmas tree.” Caroline Lees, “Oil Barons Court Taliban in Texas,” The Telegraph (London), December 14, 1997.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: “And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney, Halliburton.”
* On October 27, 1997, both Unocal and Halliburton issued press releases about their energy work in Turkmenistan. “Halliburton Energy Services has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years.” Press Release, “Halliburton Alliance Awarded Integrated Service Contract Offshore Caspian Sea In Turkmenistan,” October 27, 1997. http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/
1997/hesnws_102797.jsp; “ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan, Oct. 27, 1997 - Six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) in formal signing ceremonies here Saturday.” Press Release, “Consortium Formed to Build Central Asia Gas Pipeline,” October 27, 1997.
FAHRENHEIT 9/11: Enron stood to benefit from the pipeline.
* Dr. Zaher Wahab of Afghanistan, a professor in the US speaking at International Human Rights Day event, “explained that Delta, Unocal as well as Russian, Pakistani and Japanese oil and gas compa
[The Independent] New US envoy to Kabul lobbied for Taliban
oil rights
Globalvision News Network
February 27, 2002
The Taliban and Texas: An Oily Relationship
By Keiler Hook
AMSTERDAM -- "The significance of Afghanistan from an energy standpoint stems
from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and
natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This significance
has not lessened since 9/11; on the contrary, its significance has deepened.
In the 1990s plans were being made by Unocal, a huge energy resource and
project development company to develop the Central Asian pipeline. Unocal
had
discussions with the Taliban. Several Taliban were even invited to Texas,
the
home of Unocal, as reported in December 1997 in the British newspaper, the
Telegraph. The Taliban and the Texans were working on what was potentially a
two billion-dollar contract.
At the same time documents show that the United States was also consulting
with the Taliban about the proposed pipeline. Our government knew that the
Taliban was harboring Osama bin Laden whom in early 1996 had been thrown out
of Sudan at the insistence of the US government. Bin Laden had declared war
on the United States in 1996 and had admitted to carrying out attacks
against
US military personnel in Somalia and Yemen.....":
http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/vred...002/
000386.html
"No I do not believe so. Democracy has to come through and by the people not by war and occupation." -Marion
This is just wrong. This is empirically proven bullshit! It is that simple. It's just wrong. There are so many examples in history. How many times do we have to repeat this? . . .
Japan, Germany, South Korea, The American South West, Puerto Rico . . .
The list goes on!
This is history? Is war and "occupation" required to create democracy? No. Non-violent, grass-roots reform is the best way and it has worked in many cases. And I believe it will work in Iran.
But sometimes, the free people of the world need to stand up and fight for each other. There are tyrants so terrible that the free and powerful have an obligation to help the oppressed.
"Outrageous allegations?"--K
"I NEVER considered the Taliban as a legitimate representative of the people of Afghanistan! Maybe you did! "--K
When I said,"we once considered as a legitimate representative of their people because we wanted to run an oil pipeline through their country" I meant our government recognized them. When I say we I mean our countries government who supposedly represents us K, and I don't mean "we" as individuals. I think that you should understand that.
"We" are considered as a Democracy for and by the people(unlike the people living under dictatorships), who elect their government that is supposedly following the lead of a majority of its people. Now "we" as individual U.S. citizens may not agree that they are serving us but "we" must know that they are doing it in "our name" even if we as individuals don't support it.
Zalmay Khalilzad and the Bush Agenda
by Jennifer Van Bergen
t r u t h o u t | January 13, 2001 -
"The appointment by the Bush Administration of Zalmay Khalilzad as special envoy to Afghanistan which was announced on December 31, 2001, only nine days after the U.S.-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul, seems timely and logical. Khalilzad, a U.S. citizen born in Afghanistan with extensive knowledge of the region and experience, appears to be the right person for the job.
Khalilzad's presence, however, is the fruit of an older agenda, one that reaches back at least to the Reagan era, and Khalilzad has more connections to that agenda than meets the eye.
Simply put, Khalilzad's appointment means oil. Oil for the United States. Oil for Unocal, a U.S. company long criticized for doing business in countries with repressive governments and rumored to have close ties to the Department of State and the intelligence community.
Zalmay Khalilzad was an advisor for Unocal. In the mid 1990s, while working for the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Khalilzad conducted risk analyses for Unocal at the time it had signed letters of approval from the Taliban. The analyses were for a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project which would have extended from Turkmenistan to Pakistan. In December 1997, Khalilzad joined Unocal officials at a reception for an invited Taliban delegation to Texas.....":
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/
....Zalmay.Oil.htm
That's just a word game, Marion. I think it is wrong to use "we" to make a claim about what a few in the U.S. might want. To me, "we" means what "what most Americans want" as in "We the people". For example: "We" want democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Michael Klare, Oil Rules!
"t's strange that the business and geopolitics of energy takes up so little space on American front pages -- or that we could conduct an oil war in Iraq with hardly a mention of the words "oil" and "war" in the same paragraph in those same papers over the years. Strange indeed. And yet, oil rules our world and energy lies behind so many of the headlines that might seem to be about other matters entirely.
Take the food riots now spreading across the planet because the prices of staples are soaring, while stocks of basics are falling. In the last year, wheat (think flour) has risen by 130%, rice by 74%, soya by 87%, and corn by 31%, while there are now only eight to 12 weeks of cereal stocks left globally. Governments across the planetary map are shuddering. This is a fast growing horror story and, though the cry in the streets of Cairo and Port au Prince might be for bread, this, too, turns out to be a tale largely ruled by energy: Too many acres turned over to corn (and sugar cane) for the creation of biofuels; a historic drought in Australia and other climate-change-induced extreme! s of weather -- a result of the burning of fossil fuels -- that have affected crop yields; and many new middle-class consumers, in China and elsewhere, coming on line, with a growing desire for meat, the production of which is heavily petroleum based. ...."
The End of the World as You Know It
…and the Rise of the New Energy World Order
By Michael T. Klare
"Oil at $110 a barrel. Gasoline at $3.35 (or more) per gallon. Diesel fuel at $4 per gallon. Independent truckers forced off the road. Home heating oil rising to unconscionable price levels. Jet fuel so expensive that three low-cost airlines stopped flying in the past few weeks. This is just a taste of the latest energy news, signaling a profound change in how all of us, in this country and around the world, are going to live -- trends that, so far as anyone can predict, will only become more pronounced as energy supplies dwindle and the global struggle over their allocation intensifies....":
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/
...lare_oil_rules_
"That's just a word game, Marion. I think it is wrong to use "we" to make a claim about what a few in the U.S. might want. To me, "we" means what "what most Americans want" as in "We the people". For example: "We" want democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan."--K
"We the people" want our troops out of Iraq. The polls have consistently shown this as a fact.
Aren't you the one, after I said this same thing a week or so ago, who claimed something like our government doesn't follow the changing whims of its people?
Only if those changing whims coincide with our government's plans do they listen and follow?
See how you managed to take me off course of answering all your previous questions K? As if I have the time to go on and on with you, while you claim I never answer any of your questions?
Apparently we, as in our government who supposedly represents, turned our backs on the Norhern Alliance in Afghanistan just like they turned our backs on the Shias of Iraq:
Behind the rise of the Taliban
Geoff Metcalf interviews Afghanistan expert Henry Kriegel:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/qa/2...m/qa/
24718.html
An excerpt:
"A: The Taliban is comprised of Afghans who originally grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan and were taught this fiery brand of fundamentalist Islam in what they call Madrases or fundamentalist Islamic schools. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and the Nagil Bila communist regime fell, unfortunately Afghanistan turned to chaos and anarchy in most of the country not occupied by the Northern Alliance. The Taliban were supported by Arab money. They were supported by the Pakistani intelligence services that helped train them, and apparently some of their officers fought with them also.
Q: OK. Slow down a moment. These rebels in the north who you say are supposed to be the "legitimate" rulers – how did the Taliban kick them out?
A: That's where Commander Massoud had been based during the entire Soviet war. He was from the Panjur Valley in the northeastern province of Afghanistan. Commander Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance, and actually the glue that has been holding the alliance together, was ruthlessly murdered one day by Arab terrorists posing as journalists before the attacks on the U.S.
Q: What, if any, connection would there be between Massoud and the Sept. 11 attacks? Why time the hit before 9-11?
A: Because Massoud has been fighting to liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban and has been fighting against bin Laden for these past four or five years, and bin Laden wanted to put out his enemy before he could retaliate.
Q: How come most people never heard about this for almost a week after it happened?
A: Because we are so focused on the tragedy here in the United States and because the U.S. had long ago withdrawn its interest from Afghanistan. I don't think people really cared all that much. It was a brief three-paragraph news report on CNN.com that enabled me to confirm his death. But there was no analysis provided.
Q: To me, killing the leader of the Northern Alliance would be part of "preparing the battlefield."
A: Absolutely! The deal is that Massoud's people had been working closely with the French Doctors Without Borders group, the U.S.-based International Medical Corps and the British Afghan Aid. He had proven he did not harbor the resentment and hatred toward the West as do the Taliban. He has proven that he [was] a humane and compassionate leader of his people, that he treated war prisoners well, that he provided schools for the people in his province, that he provided a medical infrastructure for them. He proved he was the genuine article. Yet we left him high and dry. In fact, Massoud was practically begging before the European Union this past spring for assistance so he could overthrow the Taliban. But we left him hanging.
Q: I need you to clear something up for me. I'm under the impression the last time we were playing around in that neck of the woods, the Russians were there involved in a big ground war. They were going after the freedom fighters in the north. We
Another excerpt:
"Q: The people we were helping – did they metamorphose into the Taliban? Or did the Taliban do what the rebels did to exploit an opportunity to fill a vacuum?
A: The Taliban exploited an opportunity. The Taliban were kids basically growing up in refugee camps – orphans, victims of the war left to be taught this fundamentalist radical Islam which the majority of Afghans do not adhere to. We did arm the Mujahedin. We did eventually send them good weapons. We sent them Stingers. The weapons flowed through the Pakistani Intelligence services who on the whole favored the fundamentalist groups to the neglect of Massoud. Massoud relied on getting his arms initially from intercepting Soviet convoys of supplies along the Sowlang Highway. He later got supplies through his alliances with other Afghan groups. But he was not receiving direct support from the U.S. through Pakistan.
Q: Here's the Catch-22 that I'm hearing from a lot of people all over the country. We supported Saddam Hussein because he was supposed to be a buffer against Iran, and Iran was a big Middle East threat. We funneled all this stuff into Saddam, and then we even indicated to him if he wanted Kuwait, we didn't care. Then suddenly, he's the enemy. In Afghanistan, we're helping these freedom fighters and all of sudden, in the American view, they turn into the Taliban, and now they're a new bad guy."
My first excerpt was cut off, This is the complete excerpt:
Q: I need you to clear something up for me. I'm under the impression the last time we were playing around in that neck of the woods, the Russians were there involved in a big ground war. They were going after the freedom fighters in the north. We went over and kind of helped the Mujahedin, and we gave them a bunch of stinger missiles and some logistical support. Then we turned our backs on them and walked away.
A: Right.
I am not sure how Unocal, a company which does not represent me (or anyone other than their share holders) making a deal with the Taliban (which was in control of Afghanistan) means that anyone here in the U.S. thought that the Taliban was "the legitimate representative of the people of Afghanistan". I'm pretty sure everyone knew they were harboring terrorists, and were an anti-American totalitarian regime. I have read your links and quotes and none of them convince me otherwise.
And I heard all these arguments back at the time of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. There's noting new here. I still think the Taliban were complicit in attacking the U.S., and I still think the people of Afghanistan deserve to be free and have a representative form of government.
"we once considered as a legitimate representative of their people because we wanted to run an oil pipeline through their country"
That's funny. Karzai has been talking up a pipeline since he became President,and can't generate any interest. Leftards keep chomping on that old bone though.
It should be obvious that if we, as in our government who is supposed to be representing us, truly wanted Democracy in the region, we could easily support the people in the region, as opposed to the so-called moderate leaders who are not representing their people's will, in bringing Democracy forth. But the problem lies in that we, as in our government who is supposed to be representing us, do not trust the people of the region that they will bring forth Democracies that will be friendly to our interests in their region.
"and then we even indicated to him if he wanted Kuwait, we didn't care."
Another Leftard bone. Here's what really happened.
http://drugaddict.livejournal.co...om/
3287952.html
"And I heard all these arguments back at the time of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. There's noting new here. I still think the Taliban were complicit in attacking the U.S., and I still think the people of Afghanistan deserve to be free and have a representative form of government."--K
The Taliban did ask for evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 in which we, as in our government who is supposed to be representing us, never bothered to produce for them.
We do not disagree that "the people of Afghanistan deserve to be free and have a representative form of government", we just disagree as to how we can make that happen and to whose interests in the region should their representative government should be serving. War and occupation which harms the people more than it helps them is not the solution, supporting the people of the region through non-violent means is the only solution.
"'We the people' want our troops out of Iraq. The polls have consistently shown this as a fact." -Marion
Links? Proof? If you mean immediate withdrawal I think you are wrong.
"Aren't you the one, after I said this same thing a week or so ago, who claimed something like our government doesn't follow the changing whims of its people?" -Marion
Yes, I did say that. The government (even a democracy) doesn't always instantly do what "we" want. The very document initiated with that phrase "We the people" says so. You have a better constitution in mind?
"Apparently we, as in our government who supposedly represents, turned our backs on the Norhern Alliance in Afghanistan just like they turned our backs on the Shias of Iraq:" -Marion
Turning our backs on the Iraqi people in 1991 was a moral and strategic mistake. Not supporting the Northern Alliance more after the Soviet defeat was a moral and strategic mistake.
And yet that is exactly what you want to do now to both Iraq and Afghanistan! You demand that we abandon our allies who are trying to build a democracy in their last hour of need.
There is only one word for that in my book: H Y P O C R I S Y!
Marion, I have to go. I hope we can continue later. Perhaps we will come to an understanding.
"Turning our backs on the Iraqi people in 1991 was a moral and strategic mistake. Not supporting the Northern Alliance more after the Soviet defeat was a moral and strategic mistake.
"And yet that is exactly what you want to do now to both Iraq and Afghanistan!"--K
Rather than supporting the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in overthrowing their own governments. We have now overthrown their leaders by war, invasion, and occupation. And we have helped the people install, through so-called free elections under military occupation, allies who we want to be friendly to our interests, as opposed to allies who are friendly to their people's interests.
"You demand that we abandon our allies who are trying to build a democracy in their last hour of need."--K
I demand that we end the war and occupation of these countries because it is turning the people of these countries against us, and not that we abandon the people building a democracy. But we need to respect their opinions and what they see as being in their interests.
Otherwise our support for Democracy in the region is as you said, "There is only one word for that in my book: H Y P O C R I S Y!".
Yes, Insha Allah we will continue this at a later time. I have spent too much time here already.
By the way, I wanted to tell DJ, I know what you mean about wasting your time with the pro-war and occupation people, but I am not participating here for the sake of changing their minds. I am participating here on behalf of the voices of the people conveniently being ignored in the Middle East region due to our, as in our government who is supposedly representing us, selfish interests in their region.
Marion,you condemn the U.S. for supporting dictatorships in the region. But,when we spend a couple trillion and stretch our military to the limit supporting democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq,you condemn the U.S. even more. From what I can gather,you think the U.S. should support Hamas,and nobody else.
That's what I call a HYPOCRITE too.
Before I sign off a couple of other articles as food for thought:
Exclusive: Saddam Was key in early CIA plot
04/11/03
UPI: Richard Sale
See Also:IRAQ-GATE How The United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein
http://
www.informationclearingho...article2849.htm
Does anyone else get the feeling that Marion would still oppose every U.S. foreign policy,even if Obama got elected and did a 180 on every U.S. foreign policy?
So deep and principled....LOL.
"Marion,you condemn the U.S. for supporting dictatorships in the region. But,when we spend a couple trillion and stretch our military to the limit supporting democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq,you condemn the U.S. even more.'--Maury
Our military should not be supporting their so-called Democracies Maury, The people should be. Are these government's representing the will of their people Maury, I think we would disagree on whether they are or not.
"From what I can gather,you think the U.S. should support Hamas,and nobody else."--Maury
What is that supposed to mean? You should be gathering that I think our government should be supporting the people of the region and not militarily supporting their governments who are not representing their people. We demanded that the Palestinian people hold elections, and they voted for Hamas despite our wishes that they vote for Fatah and despite them having been under a forty year Israeli occupation, which tells me that in this instance the people voted their conscience and therefore their choice. We should have respected it.
"That's what I call a HYPOCRITE too."--Maury
There is nothing hypocritical about supporting Democracy by supporting the people's choices.
Seeing one's own reflection in the mirror can be difficult sometimes Maury.
"Does anyone else get the feeling that Marion would still oppose every U.S. foreign policy,even if Obama got elected and did a 180 on every U.S. foreign policy?
So deep and principled....LOL.'--Maury
How deep and principled is it of you Maury to predict what I would do "if Obama got elected and did a 180 on every U.S. foreign policy"?
Let me answer that for you Maury, not very deep or principled.
"How deep and principled is it of you Maury to predict what I would do"
It doesn't take a rocket scientist Marion. You'll be against whatever the U.S. does....period. A wind-up toy has more imagination.
Marion: "There is nothing hypocritical about supporting Democracy by supporting the people's choices."
Tyrants, dictators, and criminals retain power by removing the peoples' ability to choose. Free elections in Iraq or Afghanistan would be impossible without our efforts to back them, at least in the near future.
_
"Tyrants, dictators, and criminals retain power by removing the peoples' ability to choose. Free elections in Iraq or Afghanistan would be impossible without our efforts to back them, at least in the near future.'-- RhusLancia
Many of those "Tyrants, dictators, and criminals" we, as in our government that is representing us and is supposed to be serving us, are continuing to support as the so-called moderates in the region. So "Tyrants, dictators, and criminals" are okay as long as they are serving our interests in the region.
Why don't you just openly admit RhusLancia that you support war and occupation in the name of Democracy to establish Democracies which are in U.S. interests in the region. And that you do not support Democracy in the interests of the people of the region unless it is also in U.S. interests first and foremost. Than I would think you are being much more honest.
Me? I support democracy in Iraq. After decades of terrible wars and suffering, I think it's in the interest of Iraqis to have something better than the thief Saddam and his criminal regime. Don't you agree?
_
Marion, if the US helped bring Saddam to power and supported him in the 80s, does that mean that the US should not have removed him in 2003?
Mojo, I already asked her that.
Static.
Maybe you'll have more luck.
Mojo,the U.S. was wrong in the 80's,and was wrong in 2003. Pick any year since time began,and the U.S. was wrong. Always was,and always will be. That's Marion's ideology in a nutshell. Anything that interferes with said ideology is a Zionist plot.
"The Taliban did ask for evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 in which [our government] never bothered to produce for them." -Marion
This doesn't even make sense. Who cares if the Taliban got "evidence"? It's the rest of the world that matters . . .
. . . oh . . . wait . . . oh, I get it . . . you're a TRUTHER! Oh that's rich! It explains everything! You must not believe Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11!
Is Maury right about you? Do you blame Bush or the Zionists?
Marion, you confuse me.
"Rather than supporting the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in overthrowing their own governments. We have now overthrown their leaders by war, invasion, and occupation. And we have helped the people install, through so-called free elections under military occupation, allies who we want to be friendly to our interests, as opposed to allies who are friendly to their people's interests."
I can't understand what you are saying. The Northern Alliance was fighting the Taliban for many years. Only three countries recognized the Taliban. The rest, including the UN, recognized the Northern Alliance as the sole legitimate Afghan government.
The Northern alliance received substantial assistance from the world to overthrow the Taliban. China announced on 9.12.01, that it would join with Iran, India, Russia and the Stans to help the Northern alliance overthrow the Taliban.
The UN conducts Afghan elections. The UN representative in Afghanistan coordinates international aid and political involvement by the international community in Afghanistan.
The UN, NATO, and international community are quite popular among most Afghans according to every poll that I have read.
Marion, the Taliban hates Shia. They always have. You remember Mazar in 1998. You remember what mayor who Osama and Mullah Omar placed in power in Mazar said in his first radio address. Please side with your Afghan brothers and sisters in their war against the forces of darkness.
You remember Osama’s massacre of Shia in Gilgit, Kashmir, in 1988. Please stand by your fellow muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq who are fighting AQ linked networks with everything they have got.
KSA, extremist Pakistanis, and non Iraqi Sunni Arab extremists have been doing terrible things to Afghans and Iraqis. Please don’t abandon the Iraqis and Afghans.
Marion, you know full well that Iran initially pushed for Karzai to become Afghanistan’s first post Taliban PM. The Afghan and Iraqi governments are close allies of Khamenei and Nasrallah. Maliki has been a close personal friend of Nasrallah for many years.
You have trusted the wisdom and judgment of Nasrallah and Khamenei on so many other issues for so long. Please consider trusting them on Iraq and Afghanistan too. They are publicly big supporters of both the Iraqi and Afghan governments.
"The Taliban did ask for evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 in which [our government] never bothered to produce for them." -Marion
Oh my God. Oh my God. Marion, please tell me you didn't mean that. Russia, Iran and India have said for many years that realms and realms of evidence have been provided to the Taliban regarding the terrorist activities of the great muslim killer Osama Bin Laden and his International Islamic Front followers/allies. It didn't make any difference. Mullah Omar was a terrorist.
You probably know this . . . but for other readers of this blog, in 1998 OBL's forces (and their Pakistani Kashmiri militant allies) siezed Mazar e Sharif in 1998 from the Northern alliance. They imposed a clerical mayor on the city as soon as they siezed it. This "mayor's" first act was to go on the radio, and almost literally his first words were:
"All Shia must convert to Sunni Islam immediately. Any who refuse must be killed. All exits from the city must be blocked. No one must bury the body of any Shiite."
As Marion (and any Iranian, Afghan, Pakistani Shia) knows, this is well documented.
Marion, your words make me doubt you are Shia. Are you a sunni arab?
Let me end with the following anecdote. The Afghan resistance (Northern Alliance) had a battle cry before every battle in the 1990s and early 2000s. It was:
- Death to Pakistan
- Death to the Arabs
- Death to Osama Bin Laden
- Death to the Taliban
The "Taliban" was a front for the harsh occupation of Afghanistan by extremist Salafi Pakistani and Arab nutjobs. They were viscerally hated by the vast majority of Afghans as foreign quislings. Most Afghans cheered wildly as the Afghan resistance (tribal groupings and Northern Alliance) drove the Taliban out of one town after another in late 2001.
"Marion, if the US helped bring Saddam to power and supported him in the 80s, does that mean that the US should not have removed him in 2003?"--Mojo
Mojo,
You should be asking yourself this ridiculous question. If I were an Iraqi, quite frankly I wouldn't trust you with my life.
If the U.S. helped bring Saddam to power and supported him in the 80s, turned its back on the Iraqi people throughout the 90s by placing them under severe sanctions that lead to wide spread suffering and the death of how many Iraqis, followed by making the decision based on lies to take out Saddam through a pre-emptive attack followed by an occupation which again has lead to the suffering and death of how many Iraqis, why would you trust U.S. intentions that they are just trying to right a wrong?
I would trust our U.S. government more if they were more honest about what they did in the first place, what they have been doing, and about what they are doing now.
If our government were honest about wanting to right their wrongs they would have been doing things much differently. They would never have made the people of Iraq to go through what they have and to suffer so much.
"You have trusted the wisdom and judgment of Nasrallah and Khamenei on so many other issues for so long."--anand
****
Just because I have some trust for the judgment of Sayed Nasrallah and Sayed Khameini, although Sayed Khameini is not my marja, Sayed Seestani is, doesn't mean I blindly trust them or that I don't try and think for my self anand.I believe we should all be thinking for ourselves as much as possible and within our realms of knowledge which of course we should always be willing to expand upon.
"although Sayed Khameini is not my marja, Sayed Seestani is"
Then you're aware that the Mahdi Army has repeatedly violated Sistani's fatwa commanding Shia to cooperate with the occupation,right Marion? Of course,you must be aware of his support for the Iraqi government you so despise. I'm sure you know his stance on clerics like Khameini running the government.
Is there anything Sistani says,does,or approves of that you agree with Marion? I mean,he is your Marja,right?
anand you can doubt my being a Shia all you want, it has no effect on me or how I think or approach things. It isn't as if all Shia are clones of one another.
Now if much evidence had been offered to the Taliban concerning Al Qaeda's past actions, what would have been the harm in supplying the evidence to them of the links between Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks? Have even the American people through an impartial investigation followed by a impartial trial been supplied the clear evidence linking Al Qaeda to 9/11? From day one Al Qaeda was found guilty. The 9/11 widows who forced our government to form a commission, which by the way wasn't impartial, were not satisfied with many of the answers or non-answers they received in this report. And I as a Muslim, considering what has unfolded since 9/11 in regards to how Muslims are often treated as guilty until proven innocent, should just take our government appointed 9/11 commission's word for everything regarding 9/11?
No thank you, I would rather think for myself by doing my own research through more objective and impartial sources than our government appointed commissioners.
And considering that this country of ours has accused Hezbollah of committing specific attacks around the world, that Hezbollah has never claimed to have committed and has even denied, why would I as a Shia who views Hezbollah from personal experience of living in Lebanon in a much different light, blindly trust U.S. and its so-called allies claims in regards to other matters, even if they are concerning those who consider themselves as my enemy? If I am trying to be objective and impartial, while keeping in mind many of the false allegations being made against certain Shias, I would not allow myself to blindly believe the allegations being made by the same sources even about my enemies.
Maury,
I don't need you telling me about Sayed Seestani or questioning me concerning him being my Marja. Who are you?
I will answer that: A war and occupation supporter who views everything in that same light.
I think I respect Sistani more than yourself Marion....and I'm not even a Muslim. You've only been posting here a few weeks,but that's long enough to show everyone here that Sistani hasn't taught you a thing.
"A war and occupation supporter who views everything in that same light."
I'm no Marja Marion,but there is a Marja who issued a fatwa supporting the occupation. Oh,that's right....he's YOUR Marja.
Riiiigghhhttt.....
Marion says "You should be asking yourself this ridiculous question."
Why is it a ridiculous question? If the US was responsible for helping to bring Saddam Hussein to power, shouldn't the US be responsible for taking him out? Shouldn't the US have overthrown Saddam's murderous regime in 1991, when it would have been much easier? Why is it a ridiculous question?? You should read my post "Ghosts of 1991" to understand more how I feel about this issue: http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/20...ts-of-
1991.html
Marion says "If I were an Iraqi, quite frankly I wouldn't trust you with my life."
I don't trust you either, Marion. You seem to be one of those people who'd rather see Iraqis suffer for decades under Saddam (and later his sons) than under US "occupation". There are many people, including Shia, who think like you, Marion. I estimate that at least 60% of Iraqis would laugh at you for pretending to know how all Iraqis feel about Saddam and the US. Please don't tell Iraqis how they should feel about Saddam, Marion. You, like so many Arabs and Arab Americans, seem to conflate Iraq with Palestine and the US with Israel. Iraq is not Palestine, and the US is not Israel.
Marion says "Sayed Khameini is not my marja, Sayed Seestani is"
Marion, do you know how Sayed Seestani feels about the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein?
Your spelling of Sayid Sistani is telling, Marion. Do you know any Iraqis?
I suggest reading the following about Sayed Seestani Maury and friends.
You should specially take note of page 20.
http://www.usip.org/pubs/special...ports/
sr187.pdf
Now according to this detailed report, there was no mention whatsoever of any fatwa from Seestani "commanding Shia to cooperate with the occupation,", how could he issue such a fatwa when he sees the Americans as having no moral or political legitimacy to maintain their troops in Iraq?
On the same page, you can also read about what kind of Democracy could very well be created in Iraq as opposed to what our government prefers.
"No thank you, I would rather think for myself by doing my own research through more objective and impartial sources than our government appointed commissioners." -Marion
"Four or five years ago a suspect event took place in New York, [...] A building collapsed and they said 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names" -Ahmadinejad
(Marion's objective and impartial sources)
My spelling of Seestani(or Sistani) is not that important because it is in the English language, not in the Arabic language Mojo. I also happen to use the words Holy Qur'an rather than Holy Koran, and Shia rather than Shi'ite, so does that make me questionable in your eyes as well?
My last name in the English language is spelled differently than some of my husband's cousins last name in the English language. So does that make one of our last names not legitimate?
The most important thing is that I refer to my marja as Ayatollah or Sayed, not how I choose to spell his last name in the English language.
Yes I know some Iraqis, yet I have never asked them how do they spell Seestani or Sistani in the English language which for me is very adaptable.
I never quoted Ahmadinejad as a source have I K?
Do you know how building #7 which was never hit by any airplane collapsed much the same as the other two buildings that were hit by airplanes Mr. Scientist?
By the way for being a scientist you certainly reacted to the poll results I posted yesterday in what could be seen as an emotional rather than a scientific way. LOL!
"I don't trust you either, Marion. You seem to be one of those people who'd rather see Iraqis suffer for decades under Saddam (and later his sons) than under US "occupation". There are many people, including Shia, who think like you, Marion. I estimate that at least 60% of Iraqis would laugh at you for pretending to know how all Iraqis feel about Saddam and the US. Please don't tell Iraqis how they should feel about Saddam, Marion. You, like so many Arabs and Arab Americans, seem to conflate Iraq with Palestine and the US with Israel. Iraq is not Palestine, and the US is not Israel.'--Mojo
Have I talked about how Iraqis should feel about Saddam, Mojo?
I think I have been talking more so about U.S. alliances according to questionable interests, double standard policies, unhelpful interferences, pre-emptive attacks, invasions, and occupations in the Middle East region, and how our government's intentions in the region should not be blindly trusted as being pro-Democracy and pro-the people of the region.
Marion, if you don't trust Sayeds Sistani, Khamenei, and Nasrallah regarding the current government of Iraq and Maliki, consider trusting Sayed Mojo. He too hails for the same ancient and respected family.
Substantial evidence was presented to Mullah Omar regarding OBL's pre 9/11 mideeds, including the 1998 embassy bombings, and numerous terrorist attacks against Russia, India and Iran. The overthrow of the Taliban was more than justified on those grounds.
Marion, OBL and Zawahari have publicly boasted about successfully executing 9/11 on many occasions. They frequently give speeches. I use to keep records of each of their speeches, but gave up more than 50 speeches ago. Look them up online and make up your own mind.
Why would OBL and Zawahiri lie about committing 9/11? On another note, the only part of the 9/11 report that is redacted is the portion on KSA and Pakistan. Do you think that these portions should be made public?
If I can change the topic again, you mention false accusations against Hezbollah. I presume you are referring to the 1983 car bomb in Beirut, the 1992 and 1994 attacks in Argentina, and the 1996 Saudi Arabia bombing. Who do you think committed these attacks? These were acts of war against America, France, Argentina and KSA.
"I don't trust you either, Marion. You seem to be one of those people who'd rather see Iraqis suffer for decades under Saddam (and later his sons) than under US "occupation".--Mojo
Why do Iraqi people have to suffer under one or the other Mojo? Unlike you it appears, I am against the Iraqi people suffering period. I don't care whether it be under Saddam or whether it be under U.S. occupation, suffering is suffering, and neither one is better or preferable than the other.
Marion, the ISF suffer three times the casualties of the MNF-I. Shouldn't you focus your ire on the people killing IA/IP/GoI employees/Iraqi civilians?
The ISF is involved in a fight for national survival against the forces of darkness. Please consider standing by them in their most urgent hour.
I hope that the ISF kicks out the Iraqi resistance and drives them back into Syria, Jordan, KSA, Egypt etc.
I am married into a Sayed family anand, and my late father in law, as well as two brother in laws are men of religion. One of my brother in laws is even a Mujtahed but not a Marja. His specialty is Islamic History in which he has written many books, And none of them havebeen politically involved in the countries in which they reside.
Iraqi Mojo does not appear to me to be a religious man, therefore I do not trust his judgment in regards to his position on Iraq, as much as I would someone who is religious. And this is not to say that I would blindly trust anyone if they are religious. I still try and think for myself based on my own knowledge and experiences.
"Do you know how building #7 which was never hit by any airplane collapsed much the same as the other two buildings that were hit by airplanes Mr. Scientist?" -Marion
Collapsed much the same? You mean, down? That's how buildings fall. They fall down!
You see there is this force called gravity, discovered by Newton. I will spare you the technical details, but basically it pulls heavy objects like buildings down towards the Earth.
Of course Einstein was a Jew so its possible that gravity is just a Zionist plot!
I have not made up my mind yet concerning 9/11 and Al Qaeda's involvement anand, just as I have not made up my mind on many other different issues and events. My mind continues to evolve and I tend to view most things with much skepticism, most especially from those who are trying too hard to convince me of their pro-war and occupation standpoints.
What exactly caused building #7 to collapse as it did Mr. Scientist who calls himself K?
Are you avoiding answering my legitimate question K?
Why don't you google Larry Silverstein?
Or go to:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.co...com/
cutter.html
"My mind continues to evolve..."
"Are you avoiding answering my legitimate question K?"
Marion, you're killin' me . . .
"Why do Iraqi people have to suffer under one or the other Mojo?"
Marion, if the brave Arab resistance stops mass murdering Iraqis, the US would withdraw its forces and Iraqis wouldn't have to suffer.
"Unlike you it appears, I am against the Iraqi people suffering period."
You're telling me that I am in favor of the Iraqi people suffering?? Seriously, are you stupid???
"I don't care whether it be under Saddam or whether it be under U.S. occupation, suffering is suffering, and neither one is better or preferable than the other."
Marion, do you realize that the enemies of the US have mass murdered Iraqis since 2003 in order to convince impressionable types like you that the suffering of Iraqis since 2003 is caused by the US and its "occupation" of Iraq? Their strategy seems to have worked. OMG there are so many naive people in this world, especially among Arabs. Apparently they are convinced that car bombs in Baghdad are caused by the US military. It's no wonder these same people believe 9/11 was an inside job. Yikes!
Marion, are you interested in science and math? What's your background? What's the highest level of education you reached? If you ever took a physics class, you might want to read this post: http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/20...ary-of-
911.html
"My mind continues to evolve and I tend to view most things with much skepticism, most especially from those who are trying too hard to convince me of their pro-war and occupation standpoints."
Marion, I want the war and occupation to end too. Everybody does. The war will not end if the brave "resistance" continues to mass murder Iraqis. Do you realize that CENTCOM's pre-war plan was to have just 5,000 US troops in Iraq by the end of 2006? The mass murder of Iraqis by the brave resistance compelled US officials to keep as many troops in Iraq as possible, and to add troops in order to provide security for Iraqis who are attacked by Al Qaeda and other idiots. It is these groups who prolong the war and occupation, Marion. I am against these groups. I am against the prolonging of war and occupation.
"I never quoted Ahmadinejad as a source have I K?" -Marion
Oh yes, whether you know it or not. I might as well be talking right to him. But now it is starting to sound more like your only sources are Rossie O'Donnell and Michael Moore!
Marion, I am NOT going to argue retarded conspiracy theories with a truther. And if Mojo's blog reverts into such a pre-simian state, I am leaving. You will have to study this yourself.
But, since you've been such a good sport I will leave this link. Many real scientists writing for Popular Mechanics condescended to address people like you. I hope it helps your mind to continue to evolve:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/...hs/
4213805.html
"Marion, do you realize that the enemies of the US have mass murdered Iraqis since 2003 in order to convince impressionable types like you that the suffering of Iraqis since 2003 is caused by the US and its "occupation" of Iraq?"--Mojo
As you said Mojo, the enemies of the West are murdering Iraqis. Why and how exactly did the the enemies of the West get into Iraq in order to murder the Iraqis? And why are they continuing to get into the Iraq and murder Iraqis despite our U.S. occupation of 5 years? And the West in the meantime is murdering innocent Iraqis and Afghanis in order to go after the their enemies.
So if we want the enemies of the West to stop killing Iraqis and the West to stop killing the Iraqis while allegedly going after its enemies, we need to get the West out of Iraq.
The Iraqi or the Afghani people should not be the one's suffering at the hands of the enemies of the West and the West.
"Apparently they are convinced that car bombs in Baghdad are caused by the US military. It's no wonder these same people believe 9/11 was an inside job. Yikes!"
Actually Mojo, they believe that it was done by the Jews.
My Dad returned from India a few days ago. He happened to sit next to a Salafi in the train on a long trip (whenever I go to India, I invariably sit next to a muslim Indian too . . . but rarely a Salafi . . . they aren't that common in India.)
This Salafi explained to my Dad that the Jews did 9/11. He explained everything about how the Jews did it in great detail. He further explained how the muslim saints of India were crocks, and diversions for the weak minded (most Indian muslims and many non-muslims for that matter love to visit the shrines of famous muslim saints--sufi, Shia, and nonShia.) The only path is Allah.
This co-passenger then indicated his sorrow about how Shia had been misled from the truth. The passenger complained that authentic muslims (which doesn't include many Indian muslims) weren't well treated and respected in India. To be sure he had a point. Most Indians like to follow many religions at once, and don't even understand the "one religion concept." 
Indians can appear quite disrespectful to true believers. And there is some residual anti-Muslim suspicion.
I think my Dad, who grew up in a Shia neighborhood in Delhi, messed up by describing his experience with Shia (my Dad didn’t fully understand the difference between Sunni and Shia until I explained it to him many years ago . . . most nonmuslim Indians are deeply confused by ongoing intra muslim conflict) But once my Dad figured out he was sitting next to a Salafi, he quickly began to agree with his fellow passenger. It is safer that way.
More seriously, the salafi seemed to be a kind guy. He ran a glasses store. And his prices were very good. To bad many Indians are scared to visit his neighborhood and go to his shop!!! (there are some sunni neighborhoods in Delhi that are not perceived as completely safe to visit.)
My Dad had heard that they were many Salafis in India. But all the many muslims he had interacted with in a significant way were non-salafis up to know. (I think he might have interacted with them in the past, but not realized that they were Salafis.)
Mojo, I think one takeaway is that many Salafis are good, decent people who happen to believe a few extremely nutty things. 
Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
http://www.jonesreport.com/
artic...nking_lies.html
Reply to
Popular Mechanics
re 9/11
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/
po...r_mechanics.htm
Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
"By the way for being a scientist you certainly reacted to the poll results I posted yesterday in what could be seen as an emotional rather than a scientific way." -Marion
Scientists have emotions too, Marion. And the overwhelming emotional response I am experiencing right now is laughter; uncontrolled, boisterous, vociferous, laughter!
Seriously, Marion please watch this if you can and watch it skeptically:
New Documentary on 9/11 Myths to Feature Popular Mechanics Investigation
At 9 pm on Monday evening, the History Channel will premiere its 2-hour documentary, 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction. According to its online description, the documentary “includes theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition; that a missile, not a commercial airliner, hit the Pentagon; and that members of the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks in hopes of creating a war in the Middle East.”
The preview goes on to say that each conspiracy theory “is countered by a variety of experts in the fields of engineering, intelligence and the military.” The producers interviewed two Popular Mechanics editors, and we hope we were helpful in providing some accurate information about the facts underlying many of these conspiracy theories. We haven’t yet seen the documentary and will be interested in our readers’ comments.
I think it is great that you are skeptical. I also think is good that you don't blindly follow religious leaders. Scientific thought begins with skepticism. Never believe anything without proof or evidence, be it in math, science or politics. And when there is not enough evidence, the simplest explanation tends to be the best, if it fits the limited evidence at hand.
I have never asked anyone anything otherwise.
"Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies"
"Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies"
OH MY GOD!
Marion: " have not made up my mind yet concerning 9/11 and Al Qaeda's involvement anand, just as I have not made up my mind on many other different issues and events."
Have you made up your mind on Saddam?
_
"Actually Mojo, they believe that it was done by the Jews."
Yes, and they believe that some 4,000 Jews working at the WTC called in sick on 9/11. The stupidity of such people is just mind boggling.
Interesting story about the Salafi your father met, Anand.
Marion, every 9/11 question is fully explored and answered here:
Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
_
EXCLUSIVE…9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of “Debunking 9/11 Myths”
http://www.democracynow.org/
2006...te_loose_change
Not everybody that questions 9/11 believes in the same theories about who was in fact behind 9/11.
I haven't yet made up my mind.
RhusLancia :"Have you made up your mind on Saddam?"
You mean in that he was a brutal dictator? Of course I believe he was a brutal dictator amongst many others.
Yet what I believe concerning Saddam doesn't validate what we, as in our government for and by the people, have brutally done to the Iraqi people through sanctions, war, and occupation.
DJ, what is a "murkin"?
Why do you (and Datta, Marion) criticize this community so much?
You don't know Bruno. Bruno admitted that he supports violent attacks against the Iraqi army and police, as well as the elected Iraqi government. He admits that he will support these attacks regardless of Iraqi public opinion (for the crime of accepting help from abroad--America in particular.)
He is nothing like you, Datta, or Marion. The three of you do not celebrate when IA and IP are murdered by the "resistance" the way Bruno, Advocate, and Layla do.
Bruno has also admitted longing for a global financial crisis and recession, in the hope that America will be hurt in the process. He openly longs for this even though he knows that billions of poor people around the world will be severely hurt if there is a global recession.
Bruno is bad company.
DJ, it is hard to read all the comments on this blog. Was there a point in particular from the poll that you wanted to emphasize?
DJ, please share your perspective on the latest Iraqi and Afghan opinion polls.
As far as I can gather, we have treated the three of you quite respectfully.
[Marion]I have not made up my mind yet concerning 9/11 and Al Qaeda's involvement anand"
There's a fruit loop born every day.
"There's a fruit loop born every day."--Maury
A fruit loop should know!
Commenting by HaloScan
