53
   

Tunesia, Egyt and now Yemen: a domino effect in the Middle East?

 
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 06:28 pm
@JTT,
Tell us about your family traditions of sneering at anything hard, of running down moral values whilst decrying how bad the world is.....I think you are a suffering from tertiary syphilis got from someones dog in the 60s . Tell us about all those war crimes that only you know about and how only you can educate others and how awful the military are for having values you neither comprehend no have in your family of drug taking hippy fools .
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 06:33 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
that a bunch of hippies, without firing a shot, forced those murdering hordes out of SE Asia
They are still there.....never read about the war crimes committed by your boy friend Ho Chi Minh ? Did you ever have sex with him like that scum sucking gutter trash Fonda ? So if there are no murdering hordes in SE Asia how do you explain Pol Pot ? Where is your ability now to throw paint on returning serviceman now ? Gone with old age ? Senility over took you ? Because all I see is your pathetic stupidity of yelling at the ether about how someone should do something about war crimes...but not you....why don't you start by bringing me up on war crimes, or protesting at the war memorial you pathetic piece of low life **** .
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 06:35 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
but also that torture and killing would be widespread
Very Happy No doubt they cut off tens of thousands of breasts from breast feeding women in front of their babies .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 06:37 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
a vicious dictator
Do you have any idea how many personality traits you share with a vicious dictator ? I'll get you started...more then all the breasts cut off of breast feeding women while their babies watched .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 06:39 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Two words that should make you wonder why you would have ever written the above. Blair - Iraq
Two words that should make you wonder why you are so fucked in the head anti-USA......Pol Pot - Khmer
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 06:46 pm
@Ionus,
So you were in Veitnaum? Well I was one of those protestors that were branded unamerican. I dident speak badly of our solders who were forced to fight the frenches war for them. But I sure spoke out about our government getting into a foreign war we shouldent have been involved in. I think I am more an american than those who follow along where ever the government or their party "leads" without ever questioning them.
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 07:11 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
So you were in Veitnaum?
I wanted to go but was too young .

Quote:
I dident speak badly of our solders
Taking that low life whore Fonda as an example, her whinging about baby bayoneters and war crimes was played to our soldiers as the North Vietnamese tortured them . Where were you protesting then ?

Quote:
I think I am more an american than those who follow along where ever the government or their party "leads" without ever questioning them.
Just so long as you are not the type to go in the opposite direction to prove how clever you are .
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 07:16 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
the US has done nothing but threaten and provoke Iran since they booted out the US's brutal dictator
Do you understand the lack of responsibilty for your own actions inherent in provoke ? Where are you in relation to women's rights in Iran ? You believe in Theocracy do you ? How about if we start by setting fire to your arse for being a witch, bitch .
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 07:30 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
a large number of morally depraved individuals but then there has never been any shortage of folks like that in the US
How can you even say morally depraved without thinking of the hypocracy in you ?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 07:39 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Tell us about all those war crimes that only you know about



Quote:
Most famously, John Kerry, then a leader in the organization, testified on Capitol Hill on April 22, 1971, that U.S. forces had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war....”



Ionus
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 07:41 pm
@JTT,
John ******* Kerry ? Seriously ? Why dont you quote that psycho whore Fonda, at least she had more sex with North Vietnamese men then he did .
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 08:08 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Taking that low life whore Fonda as an example, her whinging about baby bayoneters and war crimes was played to our soldiers as the North Vietnamese tortured them .


Jane Fonda stands as one of the few truly brave Americans. It wasn't "whinging" little fella, it was a simple recitation of the facts.


Quote:

Many My Lais

By TARA MCKELVEY
Published: December 12, 2008

Villagers, acting as human minesweepers, walked ahead of troops in dangerous areas to keep Americans from being blown up. Prisoners were subjected to a variation on waterboarding and jolted with electricity. Teenage boys fishing on a lake, as well as children tending flocks of ducks, were killed. “There are hundreds of such reports in the war-crime archive, each one dutifully recorded, sometimes with no more than a passing sentence or two, as if the killing were as routine as the activity it interrupted,” Deborah Nelson writes in “The War Behind Me.”

The archive in question, a set of Army documents at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Md., reveals widespread killing and abuse by American troops in Vietnam. Most of these actions are not known to the public, even though the military investigated them. The crimes are similar to those committed at My Lai in 1968. Yet, as Nelson contends, most Ameri­cans still think the violence was the work of “a few rogue units,” when in fact “every major division that served in Vietnam was represented.” Precisely how many soldiers were involved, and to what extent, is not known, but she shows that the abuse was far more common than is generally believed. Her book helps explain how this misunderstanding came about.

After the My Lai story broke, officials acted quickly. They looked into other crimes — for example, studying anonymous letters sent to superiors by “Concerned Sgt.,” which described the deaths of hundreds of civilians, or “a My Lai each month for over a year.” Serious offenses were indeed investigated, and 23 men were found guilty, though most got off easy. The harshest sentence was 20 years’ hard labor, for the rape of a 13-year-old girl by an interrogator in a prisoner-of-war compound. The rapist served seven months and 16 days.

Read on at,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/books/review/McKelvey-t.html

JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 08:15 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
So you were in Veitnaum?


Quote:
I wanted to go but was too young .


So what group of innocent foreigners did you get to save for democracy?

Quote:
Rabel: I think I am more an american than those who follow along where ever the government or their party "leads" without ever questioning them.


Quote:
Ionus: Just so long as you are not the type to go in the opposite direction to prove how clever you are .


What does this piece of drivel mean, big W writer?


JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 08:24 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
John ******* Kerry ? Seriously ? Why dont you quote that psycho whore Fonda, at least she had more sex with North Vietnamese men then he did .



Quote:

The war behind me: Vietnam veterans confront the truth about U.S. war crimes

By Deborah Nelson

Excerpt

On November 12, 1969, the Dispatch News Service carried investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh’s first article on the My Lai massacre. [1] In the weeks that followed, photographs appeared in print and on television. The army announced a full-scale inquiry that, four months later, confirmed the magnitude of the slaughter and the cover-up. [2] The tragedy and its fallout are in every credible history book on the Vietnam War.

The army launched a second important inquiry in the wake of Hersh’s exposé. But this one would receive no public notice. The chief of staff quietly assembled a team of officers to collect information on other war-crime allegations that had been reported internally or elsewhere. The men culled investigation files, surveillance reports, press accounts, court-martial records, and congressional correspondence. Each month they summarized what they’d found and sent a memo up the chain of command.

They operated in secret for five years. During that time, they amassed nine thousand pages of evidence implicating U.S. troops in a wide range of atrocities.[3] In contrast to the My Lai investigation, their inquiry led to no major actions or public accounting. In fact, the Pentagon kept the entire collection under wraps, even after the war ended.

In 1990, Kali Tal, founder of Viet Nam Generation, a small journal of contemporary history and literature on the 1960s, was tipped to the papers’ existence. She requested a declassification and Freedom of Information Act review. After a year had passed, the National Archives and Records Administration notified her that the documents were available for inspection.[4] She found the records deeply disturbing and posted a short notice in her journal to alert others. She did not pursue the matter further, and the boxes returned to the storeroom shelves.

A decade later, Cliff Snyder, a Vietnam specialist on the Archives staff, brought the cartons to the attention of Nicholas Turse, a visiting military historian.[5] While researching them for his dissertation, he came across a 1968 massacre and other cases he believed to be newsworthy. In 2005, he contacted the Los Angeles Times about them. I was the newspaper’s Washington investigative editor at the time, so his e-mail was relayed to me. We joined forces soon afterward to investigate the long-buried reports.[6]

When I proposed the project to John Carroll, then the Los Angeles Times’ top editor, his first question was whether a few rogue units committed most of the crimes. That had been his impression as a young Vietnam War correspondent, and a commonly held view. The most notorious was the Americal Division, responsible for My Lai and a lengthy list of less-known atrocities. The Tiger Force, an elite army platoon, became a late addition to the club with the Toledo Blade’s Pulitzer Prize–winning series in 2003 that documented a seven-month killing spree in which scores perished.[7]

The archive collection contained hundreds of sworn statements from soldiers and veterans who committed or witnessed rapes, torture, murders, massacres, and other illegal acts. There were letters from soldiers, statistical reports, and case summaries.[8] When we hand-entered the data into a spreadsheet, it became clear the problem was much bigger than a few bad men: Every major division that served in Vietnam was represented. We counted more than 300 allegations in cases that were substantiated by the army’s own investigations. Some had never been revealed; others had been publicly disputed while the army remained silent about its findings. Five hundred allegations couldn’t be proven or weren’t fully investigated.[9] According to officers who helped compile the records, those numbers represented only a small fraction of the war crimes committed in Vietnam.

Many veterans tried to alert the Pentagon and the public to the problem in the early 1970s at forums sponsored by such groups as Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Most famously, John Kerry, then a leader in the organization, testified on Capitol Hill on April 22, 1971, that U.S. forces had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war....”[10]

Within days, the declassified records show, the White House quietly requested a list of war-crime investigations from the army.[11] The staff at the Pentagon was ready with a lengthy response that reported 213 suspects and included confirmed cases of acts from the litany cited in Kerry’s testimony.[12] Yet the Nixon administration went ahead with an aggressive backroom campaign to discredit as fabricators and traitors Kerry and other veterans who spoke out about war crimes. The president and White House aides worked closely with a rival organization, Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace, to publicly condemn the allegations.[13] “The big lie” became the group’s familiar drumbeat. Years later, the founder of the group would boast, “Americans got the message that a motley crew of exaggerators and frauds didn’t speak for Vietnam veterans.”[14] The impression stuck. By the mid-1980s, the whistle-blowers largely had been silenced, and conventional wisdom held that atrocities in Vietnam were overblown.[15] The controversy resurfaced in 2004, when Kerry ran for president. His old detractors ran ads demanding that he disavow his 1971 testimony, confident they would play to a receptive audience; their efforts contributed to his defeat.[16] All the while, the army had evidence in its files that he had spoken the truth.

But this book isn’t about Kerry. It’s about setting the record straight for the many ordinary men who were ignored, threatened, or disbelieved. It’s a place for them to tell their stories again, now with the full force of the army’s own investigation findings behind them. Years ago, many of them hoped their accounts would pressure the Pentagon to stop “all the wrong killing,” as a soldier wrote in a private letter to then army chief of staff Gen. William C. Westmoreland in 1970.[17] The war ended without an accounting or acknowledgment of the war crimes they witnessed. Their retelling comes at an equally important time when, having failed to address the past, we’re destined to repeat it.

http://www.thewarbehindme.com/excerpt.php

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 08:30 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
of running down moral values whilst decrying how bad the world is.


You have an odd, crazy actually, idea of what constitutes "running down moral values". You've engaged in nothing but a full apology for all manner of vicious war crimes, based on absolutely nothing but your own nutty ideas of the historical record.

You make constant mockery of those relatively small numbers of brave Vietnam troops who stood up and spoke and speak the truth; a truth that the vast majority of American know of but remain curiously silent on.

The result - Iraq & Afghanistan, two more brutal incursions led by a country that has never called itself to account for its brutal past and its ongoing brutality today.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 08:48 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
How about if we start by setting fire to your arse for being a witch, bitch .


You are young, aren't you and so angry.

Quote:
Where are you in relation to women's rights in Iran ? You believe in Theocracy do you ?


What I believe in is that people have an inherent right to decide for themselves their own form of governance. You are woefully ignorant about what the US and the UK did to Iran in the early 1950s.

But that doesn't come as any surprise at all because you have shown yourself to woefully ignorant on virtually every topic you "discuss".

Quote:

Iran 1953

Making it safe for the King of Kings

excerpted from the book

Killing Hope

by William Blum


"So this is how we get rid of that madman Mossadegh," announced John Foster Dulles to a group of top Washington policy makers one day in June 1953. The Secretary of State held in his hand a plan of operation to overthrow the prime minister of Iran prepared by Kermit (Kim) Roosevelt of the CIA. There was scarcely any discussion amongst the high powered men in the room, no probing questions, no legal or ethical issues raised.

"This was a grave decision to have made," Roosevelt later wrote. "It involved tremendous risk. Surely it deserved thorough examination, the closest consideration, somewhere at the very highest level. It had not received such thought at this meeting. In fact, I was morally certain that almost half of those present, if they had felt free or had the courage to speak, would have opposed the undertaking."

Roosevelt, the grandson of Theodore and distant cousin of Franklin, was expressing surprise more than disappointment at glimpsing American foreign-policy-making undressed.

The original initiative to oust Mossadegh had come from the British, for the elderly Iranian leader had spearheaded the parliamentary movement to nationalize the British owned Anglo-lranian Oil Company (AIOC), the sole oil company operating in Iran. In March 1951, the bill for nationalization was passed, and at the end of April Mossadegh was elected prime minister by a large majority of Parliament. On 1 May, nationalization went into effect. The Iranian people, Mossadegh declared, "were opening a hidden treasure upon which lies a dragon".

As the prime minister had anticipated, the British did not take the nationalization gracefully, though it was supported unanimously by the Iranian parliament and by the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people for reasons of both economic justice and national pride. The Mossadegh government tried to do all the right things to placate the British: It offered to set aside 25 percent of the net profits of the oil operation as compensation; it guaranteed the safety and the jobs of the British employees; it was willing to sell its oil without disturbance to the tidy control system so dear to the hearts of the international oil giants. But the British would have none of it. What they wanted was their oil company back. And they wanted Mossadegh's head. A servant does not affront his lord with impunity.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html


And what of your great concern about the people of Iran, your posturing that you care about womens' rights. You make it abundantly clear in your "writing" that you hate women.

Quote:
And what of the Iranian people? What did being saved from communism do for them? For the preponderance of the population, life under the Shah was a grim tableau of grinding poverty, police terror, and torture. Thousands were executed in the name of fighting communism. Dissent was crushed from the outset of the new regime with American assistance. Kennett Love wrote that he believed that CIA officer George Carroll, whom he knew personally, worked with General Farhat Dadsetan, the new military governor of Teheran, "on preparations for the very efficient smothering of a potentially dangerous dissident movement emanating from the bazaar area and the Tudeh in the first two weeks of November, 1953".

The notorious Iranian secret police, SAVAK, created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel, spread its tentacles all over the world to punish Iranian dissidents. According to a former CIA analyst on Iran, SAVAK was instructed in torture techniques by the Agency. Amnesty International summed up the situation in 1976 by noting that Iran had the "highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran."

When to this is added a level of corruption that "startled even the most hardened observers of Middle Eastern thievery", it is understandable that the Shah needed his huge military and police force, maintained by unusually large US aid and training programs, to keep the lid down for as long as he did. Said Senator Hubert Humphrey, apparently with some surprise:

"Do you know what the head of the Iranian Army told one of our people? He said the Army was in good shape, thanks to U.S. aid-it was now capable of coping with the civilian population. That Army isn't going to fight the Russians. It's planning to fight the Iranian people."

Ibid

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 09:33 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
And what of the Iranian people? What did being saved from communism do for them?


That remark is, of course, heavily tongue in cheek. There was no threat from the USSR. The UK and the US overthrew a widely popular, democratically elected, honest man. They replace him with a butcher, which suited their purposes just fine for it has always been policy number one that these two countries, the USA and the UK, interfered solely to satisfy their own greedy interests.

Quote:


It was indeed a strange episode when the Shah of Iran, former head of one of the world's most brutal and repressive states, managed to land in the U.S. as a "private citizen." For several days leading newspapers published first page stories detailing the treatment of the Shah's cancer, creating a mood conducive to accepting him on humanitarian grounds. Only a few months earlier the press and the U.S. Senate were raising hell about the execution of the Shah's military chiefs and ex-cronies in Iran. They complained bitterly about the violation of due process of law. But they conveniently forgot that the Shah's own military courts (which were unconstitutional) tried as terrorists anyone brave enough to protest his regime. The verdict was often decided beforehand. Where were the passionate defenders of law then?

The Shah systematically dismantled the judicial system of Iran and the country's guarantees of personal and social liberties. His regime consistently violated the codes of law and justice, destroying the dignity of our people by treating them like backward savages to be pulled with an iron hand out of the middle ages into the light of the modern era. Nearly every source of creative, artistic and intellectual endeavor in our culture was suppressed.

...

SAVAK conducted most of the torture, under the friendly guidance of the CIA. Imagine that, the CIA; whoda ever thought? which set up SAVAK in 1957 and taught them how to interrogate suspects. Amnesty International reports methods of torture that included "whipping and beating, electric shocks, extraction of teeth and nails, boiling water pumped into the rectum, heavy weights hung on the testicles, tying the prisoner to a metal table heated to a white heat, inserting a broken bottle into the anus, and rape."

The Shah greatly expanded the military and turned it against his own people. With newfound oil wealth the Shah bought $2C million of U.S. arms. The U.S. military trained Iranian officers. Despite claims that a strong army was needed to prevent external agression, its real purpose became clear last year when the army murdered more than 50,000 Iranians fighting the Shah (the number is based on estimates of dead quickly buried after street massacres and compiled throughout the year).

Under the Shah education was a means of pacification. Our history books were full of lies about the glories of the Iranian dynasties, and they encouraged racism towards non-Persian-speaking minorities in Iran as well as nearby nations. A special military guard was stationed on most large university campuses to mute student opposition. The number of students tortured, lost or murdered is unkown. Yet the universities remained a bulwark of opposition to the Shah and his cultural agression.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/12/6/life-under-the-shah-pit-was/


Consider, just for a moment, the wealth that the US and the UK have stolen from Iran.

Consider too, the grand levels of hypocrisy, the lack of any sense of shame, that we've heard from so many on this and other threads.

All the rah rah for this "blossoming of democracy" that might well have taken place more than half a century ago had not the US and the UK committed these horrendous war crimes. And this, right after, just a few years after both these countries had prosecuted Germans and Japanese for the same damn things.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 09:49 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
why don't you start by bringing me up on war crimes,


That's largely been the problem, little guy. Bring up some dumb grunt on charges, let the politicians and the high ranking brass who are completely responsible for these crimes, perform a big song and dance for the general public, jail the little guy and then let him out when the heat is off.

It's a pattern that's been repeated by the US since, since forever. On the odd occasion that there was someone brave enough to even bring the war crimes up.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 10:44 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
I dident speak badly of our solders who were forced to fight the frenches war for them.


Pure fantasy, Rabel. Even guys like you have bought into the incessant propaganda. It wasn't a "foreign war". It was another clear cut power play, no. that's much too much a euphemism, it was war crime piled upon war crime pile upon war crime, solely to try to advance US business interests.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Apr, 2011 11:20 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
Two words that should make you wonder......Pol Pot - Khmer


That's three words actually, son.

Why don't you give us the historical background on the Khmer Rouge and how and why they came to power?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 02:00:00