0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jun, 2005 12:25 pm
McGentrix wrote:
The same people enjoy "piss Christ" and most of the works by that guy obsessed with the anus.

I wonder how you would react to a depiction of someone pissing on the Koran... It's just art, right?

Ewwwww! Your indicated preference of art strikes me as very Freudian.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 11:37 am
Why, it is apparent that we must invade Yorkshire immediately.

They cannot be allowed to continue to harbor malignancies any longer, and no cost is too high; think of the possible damage that could be caused if we didn't.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 11:45 am
Perhaps the Serbs had the right answer...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 11:54 am
That was too low even for you, McG.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 12:10 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Perhaps the Serbs had the right answer...


Do you think of killing 8,000 British male Muslims only or a couple of females as well?

McG, whe you asked me today, if I had taken my medicamention (and that was only a misreading/mistranslation on my site) - what should I ask you now?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 12:12 pm
I was merely offering cycloptichorn a response worthy of his rant.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 12:17 pm
"Out of the millions who already live here, and were born here, how are you going to eradicate THAT "malignancy", Ican the Thinker?"

We also have those kinds of "malignancies" here in the US. Some of them are Tim McVeigh, the Unibomber, and all those priests who have molested our children in their care.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 12:18 pm
McTag wrote:
So, now we know or strongly suspect, the perpetrators of the London bombings were four young British lads from Yorkshire.

"... now we know or strongly suspect ... " Question

What does that mean?

Who enlisted these perpetrators?

Who trained these perpetrators?

Who financed these perpetrators?

Who equiped these perpetrators?

Where were these perpetrators first trained?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 12:27 pm
Yeah, who exactly trained Tim McVeigh, the Unibomber, and all those priests?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 12:59 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
We also have those kinds of "malignancies" here in the US. Some of them are Tim McVeigh, the Unibomber, and all those priests who have molested our children in their care.


Yes, Tim McVeigh, the Unibomber, and all the other murderers of civilians (whoever and wherever they are) are part of the malignancy. And yes we have them in our country. In this country, we persist in attempting to kill or incarcerate the malignancy. The former governments of Afghanistan and Iraq did not persist in attempting to kill or incarcerate the malignancy.

To the best of my knowledge, those priests who molested children did not murder civilians or act as accomplices to the murderers of civilians. Therefore they are not part of the malignancy, but are part of all those who molest children. I call them child-molesters. I think all child-molesters should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives, but not exterminated like I think the malignancy should be.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 01:13 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yeah, who exactly trained Tim McVeigh, the Unibomber, and all those priests?


I don't know.

To the best of my knowledge, none were trained by those who publicly declared in 1992, 1996, and 1998 their advocacy of the murder of Americans and their allies wherever they can be found (i.e., al Qaeda).

Thankfully McVeigh and the Unibomber were caught. I don't know whether all those child-molester priests were caught. I think many were.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 03:09 pm
American Committees on Foreign Relations, ACFR NewsGroup No. 578, Wednesday, July 13, 2005, distributed but did not wrote:


THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD...
An anatomy of the London bombing.
by Victor Davis Hanson
NRO
July 8, 2005

The British may react very differently than the Spanish did after Madrid — by doing nothing rather than by retreating from Iraq.

In the corrupt West these days, that is something.

We all know the score of this war now in the near four years since September 11. The London bombings should remind us how the old tired game works.

Causes
Failed states in the Middle East — autocratic, statist, unfree, intolerant of women and other religions — blame the West for their self-inflicted miseries. Sometimes they are theocratic, like the late Taliban or the current Iranian mullahs. But more often they are dictatorial like the Syrians, Pakistanis, Saudis, or Egyptians, who all, in varying degrees and in lieu of reform, have come to accommodations with the terrorists to shift popular anguish onto the West and the Jews.

That is the Petri dish of Islamic fascism, an evil that will only disappear when the dictatorships that allow it or nourish it do as well. Whether the jihadists are in Iraq, the United States, or Europe, they all share a sick notion that someone else (the decadent Western oppressor and unbeliever) is responsible for their own poverty and backwardness rather than the fundamentalism, corruption, bias, and intolerance endemic to the Middle East.



Propaganda
In WWII we didn't care much whether in fighting Bushido some thought we were in a war against Buddhists. We weren't, and that was enough.

We knew the enemy were Nazis, not simply Germans, and didn't froth and whine to prove that distinction.

But not now.

To criticize Islamic fascism is supposedly to be unfair to Islam, so we allow on our own shores mullahs and madrassas to spread hatred and intolerance, as part of our illiberal acceptance of "not offending Islam."

It is not that we don't believe in Western values as much as we don't even know what they are anymore. The London bombings were only a reification of what goes on daily with impunity blocks away in the mosques and Islamist schools of London.

The enemy knows that and thrives on it. That refuge in religion is why imams shout that "Islam doesn't condone such things" — even as bin Laden has become a folk hero on the Arab Street. Jihadists sense that even here at home more Americans are more concerned about a flushed Koran at Guantanamo Bay than five Americans fighting for the Iraqi jihadists or Taliban sympathizers in Lodi, California.

As long as there is not any price to be paid for Islamism, either by governments abroad or purveyors of its hatred in the West, the propaganda works and the killing will go on. But when a renegade Saudi Prince, Pakistani general, London imam, or Lodi mosque leader screams out to the jihadist, "Stop that before those crazy Americans really do go to war," the war, in fact, will be over and won.



Methods
Terror is the signature of the Islamist: hit, back off; hit, back off — hoping in a few years to erode the will and nerve of affluent and leisured Western countries.

Bin Laden has so far only made one mistake: He took down the entire World Trade Center rather than the top floors, and had the misfortune of having George Bush as president. Thus he lost Afghanistan and ended up with democratic reform from Iraq and Lebanon to the Gulf and Egypt. Train bombings in Madrid and bus explosions in London, like the carnage in Iraq, are preferable, since they are enough to terrify and demoralize the Westerner but not quite enough to knock sense into him that only military resistance and victory will save his civilization.

So the attacks will never quite be of such a stature to convince Western voters that one more such explosion will destroy their societies. The trick is instead to wage war insidiously, incrementally, and stealthily to avoid an overwhelming response. A cooling-off period in between 9/11 and 7/7 in which Western apologists, pacifists, and Islamist sympathizers go to work is essential for the terror to continue.

Second, the denial of culpability is equally critical: a Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia must always be able to profess that it deplores terrorism, and that to its knowledge no jihadists are in transit on its territory; bin Laden & co. are not in its country; and its royal family are not funding killers. Within Europe itself, a madrassa that indoctrinates directionless youth, or an imam who shouts hatred to his audience, must always simultaneously when called upon "condemn" terrorism, and then seek victimhood when the rare scrutiny of an outraged public nears.

Finally Western self-loathing and guilt is essential: A fascist agenda of the jihadist — religious persecution, gender apartheid, racism, militarist autocracy, and xenophobia — all that must be embedded deeply within the postmodern landscape of the oppressed. A non-Christian and non-Western "other" can mask his venom only through victim status, grafting his cause to the same exploited groups that seek from Western society benefaction and compensation.



Aims
The jihadists expect that Westerners will slink out of the Middle East, allowing fascist fundamentalists to gain control of half the world's oil and thus buy enough weapons to blackmail their way back to the caliphate.

Destroying Israel, killing Christians in Africa, running Westerners out of the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia, or Bali, all that is mere relish. In Europe, the goal for the unhinged is the creation of another al Andalus; for the more calculating it is enough intimidation and terror to carve out zones of Muslim sanctuary, where millions can live parasite-like, within the largess of Western society, but without its bothersome liberal agenda of freedom and equality, in hopes of implanting the universal law of sharia.

So here we are. Even though the killers profess revenge equally for Afghanistan (the so-called "right" war), they expect Westerners to scream "Iraq."

Even though such bombings are predicated on infiltration, careful stealthy reconnaissance, and long sojourns within London, expect cries of anguish and worrying about the stereotyping of Middle Eastern males.

Look for the same scripted crocodile tears and "concern" from the Middle East's illegitimate leaders, even as much of the Islamic Street takes a secret delight in the daring of the jihadists, and the governments sense relief that the target was Westerners and not themselves.

Anticipate Western leaders condemning the terrorists in the same breadth as they call for "eliminating poverty" and "bringing them to justice" — as if the jihadists and their patrons are mere wayward and impoverished felons.

In the short term, Bush and Blair will appear as islands in the storm amid an angry and anguished public. But as 7/7 fades, as did 9/11, expect them to become even more unpopular, as the voices of appeasement assure us that if they just go away, maybe so will the terrorists.

It is our task, each of us according to our station, to speak the truth to all these falsehoods, and remember that we did not inherit a wonderful civilization just to lose it to the Dark Ages.


Quote:
It is our task, each of us according to our station, to speak the truth to all these falsehoods, and remember that we did not inherit a wonderful civilization just to lose it to the Dark Ages.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 03:56 pm
Quote:
It is our task, each of us according to our station, to speak the truth to all these falsehoods, and remember that we did not inherit a wonderful civilization just to lose it to the Dark Ages

I agree completely. What I and I can only guess to be others disagree with is teh method of doing so. Many of us ( as Frank would say) fear immensely that the direction we re pursuing is leading us into rather than away from the dark ages. Our enemies are build into the ideas that are fostered in terrorism just as as the USSR really wanted to extinguish religion they brought about (and for many other reasons as well) a rabidly totalitarian society where personal freedom was the greatest loss to their humanity/society. We (the US of A) have been fighting and losing this war against ideas beginning with Korea and have been the continual loser, paying a very heavy cost. What we should have learned, we didn't learn and that is we cannot, by military might win a war against ideas for the realtively simple reason that people everywhere have ideas, one to replace every idea we fight. Communism or fanatic Islam or rightwing nuts in the US of A. we need to move away from (as did the renaissance) thinking and move into the 21th century of a world much smaller, much more vulnerable and much more international. Armys via guns even of the highest techonoly guns are never going to win a war against ideas again. We need new ideas or we will surely endup back in the dark ages.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 04:18 pm
I didn't think we were fighting against ideas. I thought we were fighting against people who intend to impose their ideas on us and are using bullets and bombs to do it.

Here's what is all the buzz on the radio talk show circuit this afternoon:

The Mother of All Connections

From the July 18, 2005 issue: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.
by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn
07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41

"In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars."

U.S. government "Summary of Evidence" for an Iraqi member of al Qaeda detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

FOR MANY, the debate over the former Iraqi regime's ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network ended a year ago with the release of the 9/11 Commission report. Media outlets seized on a carefully worded summary that the commission had found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" and ran blaring headlines like the one on the June 17, 2004, front page of the New York Times: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."

But this was woefully imprecise. It assumed, not unreasonably, that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was based on a firm foundation of intelligence reporting, that the intelligence community had the type of human intelligence and other reporting that would allow senior-level analysts to draw reasonable conclusions. We know now that was not the case.

John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released. "There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as--nor meant to be--the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."

Lehman's caution was prescient. A year later, we still cannot begin

to offer a "definitive" picture of the relationships entered into by Saddam Hussein's operatives, but much more has already been learned from documents uncovered after the Iraq war. The evidence we present below, compiled from revelations in recent months, suggests an acute case of denial on the part of those who dismiss the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship.

There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

More to a very lengthy article
Link
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 04:37 pm
Good thoughts, Dys.

I have been listening to the BBC and am awestruck by the police work in the UK. Their work has been amazing. How did they learn so much so quickly? Good intelligence? Or just good police work on the ground?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 04:41 pm
Kara wrote:
Good thoughts, Dys.

I have been listening to the BBC and am awestruck by the police work in the UK. Their work has been amazing. How did they learn so much so quickly? Good intelligence? Or just good police work on the ground?


You could sort of tell that they were going to find who was behind the bombings the day after it happened. Good job!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 04:44 pm
So many public places in England, especially in London, are under constant cctv surveillance, that they have an advantage in police work that we do not have here. Additionally, England has historically been the premier nation for intelligence gathering, both foreign and domestic. I salute them for their excellence and their hard work.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 04:44 pm
Ok Foxfyre, we all understand you don't think we are fighting ideas "War on Terrorism"? You probably didn't think we were fighting ideas when we lost so many souls in Korea or Vietnam either "Domino Theory" but I and I guess other "liberals' do think so. Therein lies our difficulty in comunication across that broad spectrum of political thought but so it goes. I will continue to think that our only chance of reasonable survival in this modern world is move out of the methodologies of WW II and begin to recognise we are living in the 21st century, I'm sure (as someone else said) republicans want change but not just yet. meanwhile 50 years on we are still engaged in winning the Korean war (of ideas). Will the next ugly ideas come from S America, Africa, China? we don't know and we are not thinking about preventing those idea/wars because we are still engaged in "fighting" wars with technolgy of bigger and better bombs. The world is just too small to continue in this manner, Eisenhower is no longer the president but the republican party is still winning the D-Day invasion of europe while "terrorism" is sticking its' pointy little head out from all the darker corners of the world.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 04:48 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I didn't think we were fighting against ideas. I thought we were fighting against people who intend to impose their ideas on us and are using bullets and bombs to do it.

Here's what is all the buzz on the radio talk show circuit this afternoon:

The Mother of All Connections

From the July 18, 2005 issue: A special report on the new evidence of collaboration between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.
by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn
07/18/2005, Volume 010, Issue 41

"In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars."

U.S. government "Summary of Evidence" for an Iraqi member of al Qaeda detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

FOR MANY, the debate over the former Iraqi regime's ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network ended a year ago with the release of the 9/11 Commission report. Media outlets seized on a carefully worded summary that the commission had found no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" and ran blaring headlines like the one on the June 17, 2004, front page of the New York Times: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie."

But this was woefully imprecise. It assumed, not unreasonably, that the 9/11 Commission's conclusion was based on a firm foundation of intelligence reporting, that the intelligence community had the type of human intelligence and other reporting that would allow senior-level analysts to draw reasonable conclusions. We know now that was not the case.

John Lehman, a 9/11 commissioner, spoke to The Weekly Standard at the time the report was released. "There may well be--and probably will be--additional intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as--nor meant to be--the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities."

Lehman's caution was prescient. A year later, we still cannot begin

to offer a "definitive" picture of the relationships entered into by Saddam Hussein's operatives, but much more has already been learned from documents uncovered after the Iraq war. The evidence we present below, compiled from revelations in recent months, suggests an acute case of denial on the part of those who dismiss the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship.

There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

More to a very lengthy article
Link


Thanks Foxfyre!

This is some of the "More to a very lengthy article" that I think is particularly pertinent:
Quote:
We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 04:58 pm
ican/foxy, seems like the idea of fighting "ideas" is not on your agneda so I can only assume you will continue to support the "idea" that you can change the world by simply killing all those who are against you. I would wish you luck but unfortunately that also means that more of us and more of "them" will die from your "thinking" and nothing will chnage other than the location of the killing fields.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/08/2024 at 04:39:53