Terrorism against the world, terrorism against its own.

This seem complete nonsense as I would like someone to name one American citizen or even legal resident that had been torture by our intelligent agencies instead of a few terrorist caught on foreign battlefields being very forcibility interview. At the end of those interviews no matter how unpleasant they may have been, the men had their eyes, hands, and legs and other body parts completely intact.

As far as our government oversight causing enough worry in the Muslim community that as a result it may had slow down the open expression of hate and support for terrorist acts somehow I even as a supporter of the first amendment can not cry too greatly at that result.

Now I balance the whining of such posts here with the picture of men and women jumping to their deaths from the twin towers and my concerns for those victims and possible future victims greatly outweigh my concerns about somewhat ungentle treatments of the people who plan those attacks.

Interesting piece of propaganda. That's probably around the 3 or 400th time I've heard it or minor variations thereof.



Tragic to be sure. But do the math, Bill; count the numbers just for Iraq; approaching 1 million, that's 1 with 6 zeros, 1,000,000 men, women and CHILDREN. Before the illegal invasion of Iraq, half a million CHILDREN died, denied simple medicines by a genocidal Anglo America embargo.

Rates of cancer that are rising rapidly among not only CHILDREN but all Iraqis and likely Kuwaitis and Saudis because of the WMD, Depleted uraninum scattered about the Middle East by the US.

Your sense of math is pretty good considering you're American; 2800 or so of "mine", compared to millions of others, who are only dirty, brown skinned, Muslims/commies/commie sympathizers/peasants.

That's some balance, Bill. I think it probably makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

LOL, so you are claiming terrorism is justified and correct mean of fighting wars? Killing of men women and children on aircrafts and at their places of businesses is understandable in the light of US military actions?

One can only wonder what then the men and women and children who are Muslims of the “wrong” branch of the faith did to earn being blown up in their own markets places. In fact far more of them had been kill by their fellow Muslims then we had killed during the 911 attacks.

In any case terrorism as a mean to force the US to change it positions in the world does not seem to be a great tool as it resulted in us being more determine not less to go after such people and kill them wherever they are hiding. We are not Spain where the blowing up of a train result in then crawling away from their commitments.

I am more then willing to fight terrorism on more their terms/rules and as you seem to be accepting that form of warfare why are you whining about our actions toward these people?

No. I'm telling you that it is not the least bit surprising that the terrorist actions of the USA covering well over half a century, [and it could well be argued that it goes back to the very origins of the USA] are met with other terrorist actions.

Violence begats violence, terrorism begats terrorism and though neither should be dismissed, there is no doubt that the USA was first and the totality of the terrorist actions of the USA makes all the other terrorists combined look like pikers.

Why would the CIA have warned numerous governments to expect these types of attaks? Why would Bill Clinton have acknowledged US terrorism and apologised for it?

As for my other questions that you've studiously avoided;

"Tragic to be sure. But do the math, Bill; count the numbers just for Iraq; approaching 1 million, that's 1 with 6 zeros, 1,000,000 men, women and CHILDREN. Before the illegal invasion of Iraq, half a million CHILDREN died, denied simple medicines by a genocidal Anglo America embargo."

What of the US/UK state sponsored genocide?

"Rates of cancer that are rising rapidly among not only CHILDREN but all Iraqis and likely Kuwaitis and Saudis because of the WMD, Depleted uranium scattered about the Middle East by the US."

Is the USA in the habit of spreading depleted uranium around the USA as a means of disposal?

Ok you are on the side of right and the one god against the evil US and England in other word you are a nut case.

Hopefully a harmless nut case and not one who will be wearing strange underwear on the plane taking me to Las Vegas next week.

I've got some news for you, Bill. The USA has a lead of over 50 years.

This tells us that you are a hypocrite of monumental proportions, but given your nature that could actually be looked upon as one of your more redeeming qualities.

Beyond the shadow of a doubt, you are no better than the very worst of those who partook in the Holocaust, and if 'partake' seems an odd choice here, it's not. Your quick embrace of depravity comes with the same degree of gusto as one might see in those at a wine tasting.

Terrorism is merely a technique and tactic employed in warfare and other like struggles. It is a commonly used weapon of the weak against the strong and well armed. Perhaps the longest lived and most successful example of terrorism in the recent history of the Werstern world is that of the Irish Republican Army against the British - something that started in about 1916 and continued until about a decade ago. It facilitated the creation of an independent Ireland after centuries of British oppression and misgovernment. In more recent times it brought down the Stormont government in Northern Ireland. In both cases it succeeded largely by exhausting a much more powerful Great Britain.

I generally supported the IRA and the movement it represented, though after decades of such warfare it ended up largely populated by thugs who stole and murdered simply because they could get away with it. In the end, it needed to go, but it accomplished good things.

Wars are hateful things, but sometimes they are the better of undesirable alternatives. War, and whatever means are used to wage it, is justified by the reasons and motives for it, and what the winners do with the victory - and not by the means used to carry it out.

I think it I remember my history correctly it was the evil US and England and the godless USSR that stop the holocaust.

It once more was the evil US that had help stop Israel from being driven to the sea and most of it population kill in a second holocaust. Yes, I am sure you had place Israel in the classification of an evil nation.

So it is only correct for the terrorists to be unpleasant as they are on the right side of the conflict correct?

The apt comparison was to you, Bill. You are the one who deems, with one face, terrorism as bad bad bad while your other face embraces its use. That's the part that makes you the equal of the greatest of the Holocaust monsters; your willingness, not to mention your eagerness, to be a part of just such an event.

If you remembered your history correctly, you'd remember not just the good things that the USA and England have done but also the genocidal actions that they've readily initiated all of their own doing, not once, but time and again.

You must be living in parallel universe of some kind from mine.

How interesting or you are just a nut case.

Why would the CIA have warned numerous governments to expect these types of attaks? Why would Bill Clinton have acknowledged US terrorism and apologised for it?

As for my other questions that you've studiously avoided;

"Tragic to be sure. But do the math, Bill; count the numbers just for Iraq; approaching 1 million, that's 1 with 6 zeros, 1,000,000 men, women and CHILDREN. Before the illegal invasion of Iraq, half a million CHILDREN died, denied simple medicines by a genocidal Anglo America embargo."

What of the US/UK state sponsored genocide?

"Rates of cancer that are rising rapidly among not only CHILDREN but all Iraqis and likely Kuwaitis and Saudis because of the WMD, Depleted uranium scattered about the Middle East by the US."

Is the USA in the habit of spreading depleted uranium around the USA as a means of disposal?

Spoken like the true war criminal you are, Gob.

I can't say right off whether the UK was or the USA is the longest lived and most successful example of terrorism but they both make the IRA look like Mother Teresa.

We are very pale in comparison with the USSR, China, Nazi Germany, even the British and French empires.

In modern times it is generally the reformers of mankind and the perfectors of society who do the most killing. Even the sainted Sandanistas and their paid cohorts in El Salvador did far more killing than did the Contras. However, oddly you take little note of that.

It's OK by me though. I think you are merely a loonie who deserves (and gets) very little attention from me.

Lord half a million my that is large number give me a break with this level of nonsense.



So the children are living in the burned out tanks in the middle of the desert?

You do know that such material are use only in anti-armor weapons so spreading it dust from such weapons through out the middle east is some little trick to say the least.

Once more, complete nonsense.

Your excuses are"very pale" anyway. McTag or Setanta may be willing to help you with your English.

Your contention about where the USA sit is certainly debatable, Gob, but as you note, honestly for once, [someone mark this thread, Georgeob1 was honest] it puts you exactly where you belong, smack dab in the company of the world's worst mass murderers.

You've got me completely wrong. I have no desire to seek the attention of such a dishonest, despicable apologist for mass murderers and war criminals. I have no desire to seek the attention of a "man" who admits to supporting terrorists; how much money did you send, Gob1?

I have no desire to seek the attention of a "man" who, given the numerous admissions you have made here at A2K, could very well have committed all manner of war crimes in Vietnam.

Hearing that I'm a "loonie" [that's a Cdn dollar, George] in the eyes of a "man" with the moral convictions you parade around here is something that I will wear proudly as a badge of honor.

Gob1, meet Bill.

And you meet the real world instead of nonsense that on it face is nonsense.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/931374/posts

The American insistence that sanctions against Iraq be continued has led, by reliable accounts, to the slow death of at least 500,000 children," purred the ABC's Phillip Adams.

"It is estimated that half a million children have died as a result of the sanctions," declared the ABC's Foreign Correspondent.

Even at the start of the war in Iraq, correspondents such as A Current Affair's Jane Hansen made their pilgrimages to Baghdad's children's hospital to show us the dying that was, they implied, at least in part caused by our sanctions.

And intellectuals here -- too eager as always to believe the worst of us -- believed this, too.

The sanctions caused "the deaths of children on a scale far exceeding that caused by any military weapon in history," wrote Malcolm Fraser in a letter co-signed by Chris Sidoti and Peter Garrett -- people happy to think we're so evil that we also stole Aboriginal children, keep refugees in "concentration camps" and rape Mother Earth.

And the prominent Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk, a regular ABC [Australia] guest, not only claimed perhaps "a million" Iraqi children were dying from our "madness", but said "mass funerals for babies -- 70 in one cortege on the last count -- made their way through Baghdad".

B UT now for the truth -- because the peddlers of such corrosive hate-speech must be exposed and shamed, if not into silence then into moderation.

Iraqi doctors now say what our intellectuals and our reporters should have felt in their bones. Iraq's children were dying not because of us, but because of Saddam. And even the parades of dead children were part of a monstrous hoax.

Dr Amer Abdul a-Jalil, the deputy resident at Baghdad's Ibn al-Baladi Hospital, has told the London Telegraph that "sanctions did not kill these children -- Saddam killed them".

"Over the past 10 years, the government in Iraq poured money into the military and the construction of palaces for Saddam to the detriment of the health sector," he said.

"Those babies or small children who died because they could not access the right drugs, died because Saddam's government failed to distribute the drugs."

As the hospital's chief resident, Dr Hussein Shihab, confirmed to Newsday: "We had the ability to get all the drugs we needed. Instead of that, Saddam Hussein spent all the money on his military force and put all the fault on the USA. I am one of the doctors who was forced to tell something wrong -- that these children died from the fault of the UN."

Dr Azhar Abdul Khadem, a resident at Baghdad's Al-Alwiya maternity hospital agreed: "Saddam Hussein, he's the murderer, not the UN."

In fact, Dr Oasem al-Taye, who now runs the Baghdad Children's Hospital, said last week that after Saddam's fall he'd found plenty of medical supplies and equipment at a hospital once reserved for leaders of Saddam's regime.

"They were willing to sacrifice the children for the sake of propaganda," he said bitterly.

THE parades of dead children were part of that same propaganda.

Doctors say hospitals were forced to keep the bodies of babies who had died prematurely or of natural causes for up to two months until Saddam had enough to stage a parade of the little corpses, with women bussed in to act as "mourners", screaming insults at the US in front of television cameras.

"All 10 hospitals in Baghdad were involved in this and the quota for the parade was between 25 and 30 babies a month, which they would say had died in one day," Dr Hussein al-Douri, deputy director of the Ibn al-Baladi hospital, told the Telegraph.

Muslims traditionally bury their dead immediately, so keeping the bodies of the babies added to the grief of their parents.

"The mothers would be hysterical and sometimes threaten to kill us," said al-Douri, "but we knew that the real threat was from the government. They would have killed our families."

Why didn't more commentators understand this?

Why didn't they assume we might expect such crimes, such lies, from a savage dictatorship?

It is not enough to say such folk had no way of knowing the truth, given Iraqis were too terrified to tell it. Some people did try to expose the hoax, but few would listen -- just as Left gurus like Noam Chomsky refused to believe Cambodian refugees who tried to tell us of Pol Pot's genocide.

In 1999, for instance, Saddam was caught smuggling baby milk and children's medicines to India.

Last year, the BBC interviewed an Iraqi refugee who told how the parades of coffins were run. And human rights groups warned for years of Saddam's depravity.

But too often, it seems, our intellectual class preferred to hear the stories that confirmed its prejudices against the West. See, even now, how eagerly it believed the lie that Baghdad's antiquities museum had been cleaned out by looters -- perhaps even by the barbaric Yanks.

WHAT made this phenomenon worse is that under Saddam too many Baghdad-based correspondents were too scared to tell the full truth about him.

CNN has now admitted censoring reports of Saddam's brutality that could get its Baghdad correspondents into trouble, and the ABC's Mark Willacy conceded he faced a dilemma: "Do you fully report what you're seeing and what you're hearing or do you hold back in case you get deported?"

The answer for the diplomatic correspondent of Britain's Channel 4 News was to hold back.

"There was one occasion when we did censor ourselves," Lindsey Hilsum admitted last week.

She'd decided not to report that the US was right -- that she'd seen for herself on the night of the deadly explosion in a Baghdad market that Iraq was indeed hiding missile launchers in residential areas.

"If I'd said that, I think we would have been thrown out the next day," she said.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. I wonder if we even dare recognise true evil any more.

This is one small gain we can take, then, from the war in Iraq. What we learn now of the horror that gripped Iraq may end our dangerous and wilful ignorance.

There is such a thing as evil in this world,

Oh calling an anti-armor weapon only used on enemy armors a WMD is kind of silly also would you not say?