Alright, you asked for it. I’ll try to keep my wits about me, though the emotional base upon which this argument is built is quite tumultuous.
Why would I say that I “hate” George W. Bush? Isn’t that a little strong? Isn’t he just your average politician? Isn’t this just some natural extension of your overall left-leaning political views?
No, not really.
[…]
…the final mark of disrespect… the gut-level intuition that leads me to label him an EVIL man, rather than a merely despicable one is his casual contempt for human life. There aren’t words to describe the horror I feel when I see Bush look into the nation’s television cameras with that sadistic little smirk and tell us euphemistically, as if half-choking on a stifled snort that our enemies… “let’s put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.”
[…]
When I look at George W. Bush, I don’t see a patriot. I see a lying, psychopathic narcissist. And it pains me, it grieves me, it WOUNDS me to realize that this puts me not only in the minority… but in the “whacko fringe.”
— ‘Geoff’, Why I hate George W. Bush (via Len)
This is the “lying-est” president and group of leaders in the executive branch this country has ever known. Bush should be impeached. He is directly responsible, along with Chainey and Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice, for the deaths of over 600 soldiers, the life-altering injuries to thousands more, and the deaths of thousands and thousands of Iraqi’s, who happen to be people who love and are loved.
Bill Clinton had extra-marital sex and was impeached. Bush released the name of a CIA agent (probably hoping she would be killed) and de facto ordered the deaths of thousands of people all the while lying to Americans about the justification for that act of vengeance — and, Bush is not impeached??? What is wrong with this picture?
I understand that George W. Bush lied to the American people and I hope that the Democrats win the up-coming American election. I understand an enormous number of lives were lost in the war on Iraq on both sides. There is one thing, though that looms in the back of my mind; what about all the people who suffered under the regime of Saddam Hussein? Hussein is, in my opinion an far more horrible person than Bush. He befouled Iraq for years. I just wanted to say, that there is a chance more lives could have been lost in the long run if there was no invasion. I’m not saying that there would have, been. I don’t know. Iraq is now a very unstable country where suicide bombings are rampant. I just wanted to raise the question.
Jo Smith-
I respect what you have said and I don’t think anyone could disagree with Saddam Hussein being a far worse person than GB is. Then again, at the same time, you should consider why the tyrant was allowed to stay in power. Why the man was let off after the first Gulf war – which, incidentally, was under the order of G.B senior. Why the man was allowed to rule as a direct result of a CIA coup that was called, by the then head of the CIA, James Critchfield, “our favourite coup” adding that “We regarded it as a great victory.”
This coup was designed to overthrow the new regime, called ‘The Arab Socialist Union’, which was in danger of threatening the foreign oil consortium, Iraq Petroleum Company, run by American companies. The coup was extremely successful and the Ba’ath Party Secretary General, Ali Saleh Sa’adi, concurred with what Critchfield had said, of course only after his party controlled the country. It was thereafter that Saddam Hussein, by all definitions a monster of a man, became the top man in 1979. He wasn’t stopped and neither was the Ba’ath party that had ruled before him. Hence the man continued to torture and kill his opponents until he stopped taking orders from the CIA.
Any way, the point I’m trying to make is that the international community did not only ignore Saddam, France, U.K and the U.S supported him. In a previous post I mentioned how the U.S and the UK armed Saddam, here it is:
“The Guardian” on May 2 and 8, 1992, as well as “The U.S. General Accounting Office, IRAQ: US Military Items Exported or Transferred to Iraq in the 1980s”, on February 1994, concluded that “Bush and his advisors financed, equipped, and soccoured the monster [Saddam Hussein] they later set out to slay, and now they were burying the evidnece.” That was qouted off Hnery Gonzalez , chairman of the House of Representatives Banking Committee”
Well, as you can see we have more than just Saddam to blame for the twenty years of oppresion the country has suffered. And it’s not only the last twenty years that the people of Iraq have been suffering: unfortunately, the country has been stricken with war and poverty for nearly a century. It seems the oil of Iraq has been a more of a burden for the people, then a gift. If you want a comprejensive history of Iraq and its dealings with the West, find my article posted on February 20, @11:58. It’s a VERY useful piece of information.
This post was not meant, in any way, to intimidate you or rebutt your opinion. I am just trying to illustrate how the West, in general, in my oponion, is as much to blame for the terrible conditions that the people of Iraq have indured for decades, as Saddam himself. This may sound a crazy thing to say but if you consider the fact that we (the West) armed him, we bombed the country after the first G.war had stopped, we stood by whilst knowing absolutely everything that was happening (see my post on April 2, 01:19Am ), we inforced sanctions when we knew it was killing people – it is now common knowledge that the Iraqi sanctions claimed the lives of more than a million people – we didn’t ‘finish the job’ in the first gulf war and last but not least, we had 20+ years to remove him, and could have at any given time, but didn’t.
im guessing that you all are people from the U.S, hes the best thing thats ever happened to America,
he doesn’t do anything bad, except kill some people, and americans love that! otherwise they wouldnt
be voting for HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
he found saddam so.. hes cured,, iraq of their dictator (svaed thousands of rapes, robberies,
deaths, murders, and a bad person………..
He didnt find NUKES!!!!! so who cares he caught saddam and hell catch osama in 3 months time!
he also …… attacked afghanistan in good intent and…. killed some taliban people who are all BAD!!!!
AND THEY ALL HATE JEWS!!! SO THATS EVEN WORSE!!, do you want ww2 again!!! so styop dicattors and evil
people like GWB did!!!! MUSLIMS usually hate GWB, and hgat jews,,,,, why WHO KNOWS!!!maybe if palestinians stop b lowing themselves up then…… GWB might stop harrassing them!!!! BE FAIR!!! amit it hes better than all you people hating him!!!!!!!!! THINK FOR ONCE>>>>>>>> IDIOTS!!!!!!!
Listen ‘hello’; don’t make the mistake of presuming everything fits into your black and white definition of who’s good and who’s evil. You should stop and think for a while and you might find that things are more complicated than you might imagine.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is not just a simple case of ‘the Palestinians should stop suicide bombing’ and then everything will go away. Why don’t you tell the Israelis to stop killing children and woman and to stop forcefully removing the Arabs from their own homes? The Palestinians have reason to kill in the way in which they do because they have become prisoners in their own home – and they have no other way out. The colonist Jews have killed more than twice the amount of Arabs civilians than Arabs have killed Israeli soldiers and these sorts of conditions, as I have said before, spawn terror. And I don’t want to hear any of that you’re anti-Semitic bullshit because I have Jewish heritage, and I also don’t want any of that self-hater crap because I am in no way disrespectful of any human being because of their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc., and that includes my self. I am proud of my heritage but I do not, in any way, agree with Sharon’s domestic or international policy nor do I agree with Western policy in general.
I feel that what Israel is doing is at the moment is aggravating the situation and using the inevitable consequential violence for economic and political gain. Take, for example, the recent killing of the new Hamas leader – which was represented falsely by the media under the guise of “that’s one less terrorist”. The man was probably a terrorist, I agree, but the only thing this can achieve is more killing and more innocent lives lost. The Israeli army knew this, Palestine knew this, and damn near anyone in the whole world with just the most basic knowledge of that conflict knew that this act would result in a whole new wave of resistance. The media barely reported it. Funnily enough, a whole new generation of Arabs are promising to revenge their new leader, and they will.
Anyway, moving on, I feel that if I was placed in the same situation as some of the Arabs are being forced to reconcile with today, then I may too resort to suicide bombings. I don’t care if you call me an extremist or a terrorist but if your mother and father were murdered in front of you for no reason apart from their race, you might think twice about peaceful process. In reality, that’s what’s happening; kids are joining terrorist groups because loved ones are being taken prematurely from them. At such a young age, if that happened to me, I can’t say I’d do any different. There is documented evidence that suggest that most if not all suicide bombers in Israel have had a connection to an innocent family member, or friend killed by Israeli troops on purpose.
Now I know this is a sensitive issue, more in America than in the UK, but I welcome any alternative viewpoints. I also feel that the suicide bombings are too aggravating the situation further and that they are not in any way a good thing. All I said, just to make this clear, is that I may resort to them – if I was placed in the same situation as some Arabs are today. I do not doubt the majority of the people on this forum would do any different.
Hello, I welcome your response…
“…knew that this act would result in a whole new wave of resistance.”
What is it with these people?! You think that Palestinian terror would stop or even recede if Rantisi had been allowed to operate with impunity? You think Usama should be allowed to just go about his business?
There is no such thing as ‘Palestine.’ Perhaps one day, G-d willing, when the terror stops there will be a Palestinian state… Here’s an interesting little tidbit that isn’t mentioned much: the Palestinians were offered a sovereign state of their own in ’47 – they, along with the rest of the Arab world, refused it and decided to make war instead.
“Colonist Jews?!” Now that’s chutzpah! Hello, it’s ISRAEL, no matter what the Romans or anyone
else called it. You talk like Arafat. Listen to yourself. Palestinian terrorists who deliberately
target innocent civilians are doing what they’ve got to do, but IDF soldiers run around killing Arabs
for fun?
You may not want to hear it, but you need to… you’ve got anti-Semite and/or self-hater painted
all over you.
If you are a Jew, think Palestinian terror is justified, and can still sleep at night, then I guess I’ll have to be ashamed FOR you.
Reuven-
I’ll reiterate:
“I don’t want to hear any of that you’re anti-Semitic bullshit because I have Jewish heritage, and I also don’t want any of that self-hater crap because I am in no way disrespectful of any human being because of their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc., and that includes my self.”
I’ll will also like to add that my dislike of Ariel Sharon’s politics should be in no way linked to the fact that he is Jewish. Moreover, I recognise that the Jews are by far the most oppressed race on the planet, but that does not make them immune from criticsim today. I believe, as I have stated in the previous post, that if you are going to criticise someone (and the same applies if you are going to praise them), you should disregard their race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. So, if I was to treat Ariel Sharon any differently to a black person for example, then I would be entriely inconsistent, would’t I?
What’s more, it really aggrevates me when you claim I’m anti-Semetic just because I have criticised the policies of a Jewish nation. As I have said before, I don’t wana hear any of that self-hater crap.
That argument is implemented by Zionists – by exploting the centuries of oppresion the Jews have encountered (not to mention the Holocuast) – and by using that, ensuring a type of immunity that is used to protect domestic policies: in this case the continued violation of Palestinian human rights carried out by the Isreali government.
Here, I see an inconsistency in most Zionists arguments, since there seems to be nothing wrong with removing Palestinians from there homes yet there was definitely something wrong with moving Jews from their homes at the time of the Nazis. (Both moving Jews and Arabs from their homes is wrong – I am only making this clear in case you try and twist my words by claiming I’m denying the holocaust or something along those ridicoulous lines.) Anyway, the point is: the self-hater argument is flawed and one which is based on histroy to back up its current economic and political policies.
Moving on, I thought i’d point out a lot of inaccuries in your post.
1)You said:
“You think that Palestinian terror would stop or even recede if Rantisi had been allowed to operate with impunity?”
No, I never said that. I said:
“I feel that what Israel is doing is at the moment is aggravating the situation and using the inevitable consequential violence for economic and political gain.”
Adding that “The man was probably a terrorist, I agree, but the only thing this can achieve is more killing and more innocent lives lost”
2) You also said:
“You think Usama should be allowed to just go about his business?”
No I never said that either. You are I implying that what I said about the Palestinian terror should aplly to all terror in the same way – but just because I don’t feel that all acts of terror should be treated in the same way, doesn’t mean that I support Osama Bin Laden. This is a ridicolous and offensive thing to say, and as I regard my self as a libertarian, it is something that I have never been subjected to in all my posts, on all the forums I write on.
If you cannot see the political style and content that I write, you are a moron. . In the case of Osama and 9/11 I believe he should be trialled for crimes against humanity and if he gets the death penalty then so be it. Reueven, I am pro-unions, pro-workers, pro-socialist, pro-equality, pro-liberty, pro-freedom and pro-everything that helps the misfortunate people of this planet. I, unlike you, have the abilty to write in a relatively objective way with regards to Isreal. You, unlike I, have twisted words and have showed your true feelings to all Arabs.
This is not only onffensive, but also intimidating. You have shown with your opinions, which, unlike mine, are based entirely on a genreal animosity aimed against Arabs and a pro-Israel sentiment regardless of what that nation happens to do to Arabs.
3) You also happened to say:
“You talk like Arafat. Listen to yourself. Palestinian terrorists who deliberately
target innocent civilians are doing what they’ve got to do, but IDF soldiers run around killing Arabs for fun?”
No I never said soldeirs kill for fun nor did I say Palestinians kill because they have to . I said:
“The Palestinians have reason to kill in the way in which they do because they have become prisoners in their own home.” Adding that “I feel that if I was placed in the same situation as some of the Arabs are being forced to reconcile with today, then I may too resort to suicide bombings.”
Never once did I state that the Palestinian terrorists are doing what they have to do, nor did I even agree with what they are doing. Hence the:
“I also feel that the suicide bombings are too aggravating the situation further and that they are not in any way a good thing.”
You see, your argument is based on emotion where mine is too, but clearly not as much or in any way as blatant as yours evidently is. You seem to hone in on the easiest line: you’re anti-Semitic or “You’re a self-hater”, but disregard the basic human rights of people, in this case, the Palestinians being forced out of their own homes.
As far as history of Israel is concerned, I will address that issue when I get back from college – I have all my resources there. There are further inaccurate claims in your post none of which I will address yet – as I haven’t the time or will. I await your response
As you can see the previous post was very incoherent which can be put down to a number of things; mostly, however, due to a heavy workload. If you are in any way unclear about what I have said in my posts then I’ll be more than happy to clarify things. Unfortunately I haven’t the time to address your post tonight but I’ll endeavour to reply to it at some time during the day tomorrow. Much as I love sinking to the level of mindless insults, you have given me no other choice:
You said- “You may not want to hear it, but you need to… you’ve got anti-Semite and/or self-hater painted all over you.”
I know I addressed this in a previous post but I can’t repeat it enough – I AM NOT AN ANTI-SEMITIC OR SELF-HATER. And you, for your information, have got inconsiderate, biased, ignorant and racist painted all over you. This quote sums it up:
“There is no such thing as ‘Palestine.’”
I know there isn’t such a thing as a Palestinian State but refusing to even achknowledge the fact that these people have a separate culture, social identity and lifestyle to Isreali Jews is arrogant and self centered. I look forward to arguing with you in the future, that is if you come back…
Just brosed this on the net, a little history of Zoinism. You’ll find it interesting:
The “father” of political Zionism, Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), came from a totally different perspective. Dr. Herzl was a Viennese, emancipated, secular journalist who was sent by his editor to Paris in 1894 to cover the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus had been a captain in the French Army who was falsely accused and convicted of treason (although he was acquitted and completely cleared some years later). The case brought to light the strength of a strong streak of anti-Semitism prevalent in the upper echelons of the French Army and in the French press, with profound repercussions in emancipated Jewish circles. Herzl himself despaired of the whole idea of emancipation and integration and felt that the only solution to anti-Semitism lay in a Jewish Homeland. To that end he approached various diplomats and notables, including the Ottoman Sultan, but mainly European rulers, the great colonial powers of the time, and was rewarded for his efforts by being offered Argentina or Uganda by the British as possible Jewish Homelands.
Herzl would have been quite happy with either of these countries, but when the first Zionist Congress was convened in Basle in 1897, he came up against Eastern European Jewry, by far the greatest majority of participants, who, although broadly emancipated and enlightened, would not accept any homeland other than the land of Zion. Not only had some of them already settled in Palestine, there were strong remnants of the religious/sentimental notion of a pilgrimage and possibly burial in the Holy Land. The last toast in the Passover ceremony is “Next year in Jerusalem”; although this was a religious rather than a national aspiration, it was common amongst the Orthodox communities to purchase a handful of soil purporting to come from the Holy Land to be placed under the deceased’s head. (Orthodox Jews at that time completely rejected any Jewish political movement and did not attend the congress.)
Herzl was quick to realise that unless he accepted the “Land of Zion”, i.e. Palestinian option, he would have hardly any adherents. Thus the Zionist movement started with a small section of Jewish society who saw the solution to anti-Semitism in a return to its “roots” and in a renewal of a Jewish people in the land of their ancestors. In his famous book “Der Judenstaat” (The State of the Jews) Herzl wrote that the Jews and their state will constitute “a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism,” and again regarding the local population, “We shall endeavour to encourage the poverty-stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly–Let (the landowners) sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them.”
Max Nordau, an early Zionist, visited Palestine and was so horrified that the country was already populated that he burst out in front of Herzl: “But we are committing a grave injustice!” Some years later, in 1913, a prominent Zionist thinker and writer, Ahad Ha’am (one of the people), wrote: “What are our brothers doing? They were slaves in the land of their exile. Suddenly they found themselves faced with boundless freedom … and they behave in a hostile and cruel manner towards the Arabs, trampling on their rights without the least justification … even bragging about this behaviour.” But the dismay of Nordau and others at the injustices to, and total lack of recognition of, the indigenous population was silenced and indeed edited out of Jewish history and other books, as was some of Herzl’s writing. The Zionist slogan of “a land without people for a people without land” prevailed and within a matter of a few years the immigrants became “sons of the land” (Bnei Ha’aretz), whereas the inhabitants became the aliens and foreigners.
Following renewed efforts and lobbying after Herzl’s death, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which granted Zionists a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, set the official seal of approval on their aspirations. Protests and representations by local Arab leaders were brushed aside. Lord Balfour wrote in 1919: “In Palestine, we do not even propose to consult the inhabitants of the country. (Zionism’s) immediate needs and hopes for the future are much more important than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who presently inhabit Palestine.”
Well of course, Palestine doesn’t exist. Expect a lot more from me in the future.
One thing I am really sick of is the implied idea that one kind of prejudice is any better or worse than any other. The people who are posting pro-israli arguments on this site seem to be arguing that Israel is justified while palistinians are barbaric suicide bomber animals. To criticize this view is of course anti-semetic. Lets get one thing streight, Neither party in this thing is right, they both kill each others civilians. The difference is that Israel uses american made tanks and guns while the Palistinians who have no support must resort to home cooked weapons. This of course makes the Palistinians “Terrorists” and the Isralies “Tough on Terror.” Same fucking difference. So call me anti semitist, go ahead do it until you are blue in the face, and I still wont care. If you would call a critic of Israel an anti-Semite while lambasting Palistine then you are an anti-Muslim and no fucking better. No race or creed is any better than any other period.
I never denied the existence of a Palestinian national identity. There certainly ARE Palestinians,
just no ‘Palestine.’
It is the suicide bombers who are ‘barbaric animals,’ not Palestinians in general.
I truly sympathize with the Palestinian predicament, but there is NEVER any justification for murdering
innocent people. They do NOT ‘have reason.’ That goes for Israelis as well.
The Palestinians would do well to be rid of that crook Arafat and elect a leader who really cares about their
well-being.
Bush is a warmonger.
Sharon is a warmonger.
I support Arik’s disengagement plan.
I support the fence (though I would have drawn the route differently) and just about any other measure that keeps terrorists from entering Israel.
I miss Bibi. His talents and leadership (not to mention his intelligence) are wasted in the Finance Ministry.
As a Zionist myself, I know all about it (Zionism).
I’m not denying that there were some some expulsions, but the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs fled their
homes. That’s what people do in war. They were encouraged to leave by Arab leadership. It is important
to remember that, at the time, Palestinians thought that the Jews would quickly be driven into the sea by the attacking
Arab armies and that they would be able to return to their homes thereafter.
You were absolutely right about one thing, Bill. My previous post was very emotional, perhaps excessively
so. While I reserve the right to get as emotional as I will, I should not have attacked you personally.
Apologies. I have been very angry of late. There is SO much unfair anti-Israeli bias out there, it really
upsets me. Nobody in the world seems to care about how Arab states treat Palestinians, the microscope is
always on Israel.
Ok, let’s see, what else… Oh, Balfour’s letter to Rothschild did not grant Zionists a homeland, it simply
expressed that “His Majesty’s government view[ed] with favour the establishment of a Jewish National Home…”
Indeed, beginning shortly after the Mandate set in, the British fought the Zionist enterprise tooth and nail
with their successive ‘White Papers.’ Even after the Holocaust, the British turned Jewish survivors away from
their homeland, forcing Haganah, Irgun, and others to smuggle them in ‘illegally.’
I’ll finish this one in a general sort of way.
The real origin of the conflict: British and French imperialism (mainly British).
The biggest obstacle today: Those damned settlers. I respect their religious conviction to want to live
in Yesha, but if they want to stay there, they will have to submit to Palestinian sovereignty. Just
a thought, but if those settlements were evacuated, they would be perfect for the resettlement of Palestinian
refugees.
‘Amim Yisrael u’Falastin chai l’dor vador.
I agree with what Hurin said. Moreover, I find the reason that people are so much more pro Israel in America than in the UK is because of a few influential people like Richard Pearle or Douglas Feith.
Richard Pearle of the Bush Administration’s Defense Planning Board teamed with Douglas Feith in the 1990s to write position papers for ex-Israeli Prime Minister and avid hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu. Pearle is currently a prominent member of the staunchly Likudian American Enterprise Institute, which has crucially shaped the Bush administration’s Middle East agenda and has made the support of Israel against the “implacable hatred” of Muslims one of its mission parameters .
It appears Pearle and Feith have not only influenced the defense policy but also have great control over the media and the way in which Israeli-Palestinian violence has been depicted. In the U.K we see not as much of this political bias but we still see some people, like the high-flying media mogul, Conrad black, who exercises much influence over the media. Black also has much influence in politics, incidentally, he is an MP. But of course, Zionism is down to more than just individuals; it runs deep in the UK. While Jews in the UK only encompass 0.5% of the population and just 2% in the US, their influence is profound.
As I have said before, the self hater argument and the anti-Semitic argument are both very closely linked to the terrible tragedies that Jews have encountered for centuries: the most influential is unarguably, the Holocaust. Of course, this is still fresh in the minds of both Jewish people (I have relatives currently living in London who were Jewish-German refugees at the time of the WW2) as well as all other races. And by no means, should such a tragedy be forgotten, however, I do not feel that under any circumstances it should be used to further the political and economic interests of Israel. I actually regard this as an insult to the people affected by the Holocaust and a callus and grossly opportunistic thing to do.
When I consider that some people have actually used the deaths of over 7million Jews, not to mention the cripples, the physically deformed, the trade unionists, the gypsies and the other ‘non-humans’ the Nazis exterminated, as a means by which to counter criticism in the political playing field, it actually makes me feel physically sick. It is disgusting – with lack of a better word. Now I’m not saying that Reuven is doing this (and I do not doubt that very sickness is exactly what he is currently feeling) but I do feel that a lot of Zionists think (be it subconsciously or consciously) that they have political immunity due to the self-hater and anti-Semitic defense. In fact, I agree with what Reuven has said about Bush, Sharon and Arafat.
It is clear that Arafat is as corrupt as he is inconsiderate but it also clear that Sharon’s corruption goes deeper (the case of the bribing officials, regrettably I cannot remember the details). I do feel however, they should both go – and later on in the day I shall be posting some interesting info on Sharon (I shall try and find some equally interesting info on Arafat – so as to limit any bias). I think Arafat is grossly detached from the people he represents and is also ignorant of a great many things. I do not, however, agree in the fence and I do not feel it can do anything but increase the degeneration Israel is currently undertaking. You must ask: what type of society have you created when you have to build fences around your homes in order to keep another race out in fear of them attacking you?
I recognize the issue of the fence is a lot more complicated than this, but I do feel the current method of stopping terrorism will be ineffective. As Hurin pointed out, both sides are equal in blame and neither should be immune from prosecution, even if one has much more influence and wealth, and another uses more extreme and unorthodox methods of killing. I think that by keeping curfews, forcefully moving Arabs from their homes, destroying infrastructure and generally making the lives hell for people because of their race is a very bad thing. However, I think that killing innocent people just because of their race is also a very, very bad thing. Both sides need to work it out and though this may be easier said than done, I feel that both administrations are in need of vast changes and compromises must be made on both sides. Having said that, I do feel that Israel is more dangerous than Palestine, partly due to the morale high ground it has achieved in the mass western media, and partly due to its support from America and Britain.
Take for example, the Security Council that passed Resolution 1435, which demanded that “Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure” and withdraw its “occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the positions held prior to September 2000”.
The resolution was passed 14-0 with one abstention, the United States. Israel dismissed it; and nothing happened. This was no surprise. The Israelis have defied at least 40 Security Council resolutions and scores of General Assembly resolutions: a record of dishonouring and “casting aside” the law (to quote Bush) unequalled by any nation since the UN was founded.
Like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s, Israel’s defiance is rewarded with all the weapons and fighter aircraft it wants. Just as Britain used to supply Saddam with the means of making chemical bombs, so the Blair government currently supplies the Israeli regime of Ariel Sharon with chemical warfare technology. This includes “PCPs” which can easily be turned into lethal sarin nerve gas which, next to nuclear weapons, is the most feared weapon of mass destruction.
Above all, this shows the defiance of Israel, it shows the hypocrisy of the United States/Britain and a reason why Israel should not continue its campaign against Palestinians. There is overwhelming evidence that Israel has committed crimes against humanity, (as said above) disregarded basic human rights (as said above), and have deliberately escalated violence to the point where they have used terrorist attacks as a means to justify invading Palestinian areas and evicting Arabs. This, like the war on terror – as it is currently run, is going to do nothing more than create a generation of anti-American, Anti-Israel and anti-Western bitterness. Is it convenient that this exact bitterness could be used as further justification for more wars, more evictions, and more crimes against humanity? Convenient indeed, I’ll leave it there…
As you mentioned Britain in your post, I thought I would too. You are 100% correct that Britain fought Israel and the Israeli’s defended it successfully. For this, I am extremely grateful to Israel – since a victory for any country against imperialism is a victory for all (to quote a well known Cuban revolutionary). It is a common imperialist tactic to divide and rule. If, as was the case in Ireland, the Imperialists can’t rule, they tend to split the country in two (usually where there are separate ethnic groups) and then aggravate violence between the pair, often by selling weapons to both sides. (Northern/Southern Ireland plays a prime example again). Anyway, the imperialists use the inevitable war to weaken both sides and leave them fragile and economically impotent. An example of this tactic can be seen in the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir which was, before Britain left, a relatively peaceful country with hardly any conflict. Nowadays, the country is stricken with poverty and war and this is exactly the result the Brits wanted. Alas, I do not understand the ways of imperialism nor do I understand the current dominant political gene.
Unfortunately, I can’t end on a happy not as I have just seen a line in your post. It says that “the British turned Jewish survivors away from their homeland”. There is nothing wrong with this statement as such, but I don’t agree, as a matter of principle, with the term ‘homeland’. That any person should be given a “homeland” on this planet because of their race is disrespectful of other races who might happen to want to live there. This planet is for humans and animals and for humans and animals only. If I were, for example, to claim that Briain is a homeleand for white Arians you may have a different view. I think the term ‘homeland’ for Jews disregards equality, freedom and a number of other things – none of which I want to elabourate on.
To modify what I have said; I feel that there can be no true home of any race on this splanet. And though I do not have any problem with races/religions believing they have the right to live in a certain place (in fact I feel any one should have the right to live anywhere they want regardless of their race, gender, etc.,) I don’t, however, feel that people should get priority in living somewhere because they were born a particular race.
Expect more from me soon…
Here’s an interesting article on Sharon. Sadly, it’s on CD so I’ll have to print out a section of it rather then giving you guys a web address to read the lot. Nevertheless, there’s a hell of a lot more on Sharon so if it gets raised again I will be more than happy to incorporate more of it in the future.
[…]
“Sofia Mohamed Mahmoud Shamasna, Amina Isa Abdel-Halim Al-Faqih, Halima Hassan Ahmed Taha — three women from the village of Qatana in north western Jerusalem gunned down in an ambush while on their way to the village water well. Their names have never been published, and few people know, as perhaps no one knew at the time, that the person who gave the order to shoot them 50 years ago was Ariel Sharon.
In 1952-1953 Sharon was enrolled at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, about to become a student when he was recalled into the army to head a reserve regiment in the area of Jerusalem. Shortly after his appointment he assembled his officers and told them that the village women from Qatana were, without realising it, crossing into Israel when they went to fetch water from the well. The boundary between the Israeli settlement Ma’aliya Hahmishah and Qatana was not clearly demarcated, “Eric” told them, and in order to “correct that mistake” they would lay an ambush. “Eric” also instructed his officers to keep the plan secret so that it would not come to the attention of Central Area Command or General Staff.
The scenario was carried out precisely as Eric planned. Four marksmen were put into position at night and shot and killed two out of four women making their way to the village well. The Jordanian artillery opened fire on the Israeli villages in the vicinity and the Israeli artillery retaliated. The incident drew to a close with the intervention of UN observers in charge of monitoring the ceasefire. Later, when explaining the incident to his superiors, “Eric” expounded on the difference between shooting targets from a stationary position and taking aim at them while in motion during combat.
This account of events appears in Uzi Benziman’s He Does not Stop at Red (Adama Books, Tel Aviv 1994, pp. 35-36). When I contacted the author to confirm the story he told me his sources were soldiers who had served in the same unit as Sharon. I then went to Qatana where residents corrected my information: three women were shot that night, not two. I asked what the names of the victims were. I had been unable to find them in any Israeli sources. I felt it important to record their names in this article.
Contrary to the impression among inhabitants of the villages of north western Jerusalem this atrocious crime was carried out before the creation of Special Commando Unit 101 in August 1953. Led by Sharon from the outset the purpose of Unit 101 was to mount retaliatory raids against Palestinian villages along the border with Jordan, against civilian targets in Gaza and along the ceasefire lines with Syria. Sharon personally engineered the merger of his unit with the 890 Paratrooper Brigade in January 1954, which was then incorporated, by Moshe Dayan, into the paratroop corps over which Sharon was eventually appointed commander.
It was Unit 101 that bequeathed the most notorious moral “password” in Israeli military history. When some Israeli soldiers voiced qualms over the ethics of targeting civilians in retaliatory operations, Shlomo Baum, deputy commander of the unit, responded curtly: “Our guns must be clean, not pure.” In other words it was the soldier’s job to make sure his artillery was in good working order and ready for combat, not to worry about moral criteria that had no place in the fighting creed of that unit. The soldiers of Unit 101 and then the paratroop corps became the model of the aggressive Israeli fighter. This unit formulated the moral creed of an entire army. Not that the model it set was emulated in all aspects, apart from its implication in lies and false reports, as we shall see.
The first attack carried out by Unit 101 was mounted against Al-Bureij refugee camp on the night of 28 August, 1953. Learning that its presence had been discovered, instead of withdrawing it stormed the camp and escaped from the other side, and thus found itself surrounded by unarmed civilians. The ensuing massacre claimed 43 Palestinian refugees, among whom were seven women, and wounded 22. Losses of Unit 101 totaled two wounded. Sharon had personally led the attack. In his report to his superiors he justified the enormous civilian death toll that resulted as follows: “The enemy opened fire on me from the northwest… I decided that it was better to pass through the camp and slip out the other side than to go back the way I came, because crops, gardens, barbed wire and guards made it difficult to move in that direction… I also decided that offensive action was better than giving the impression that we were attempting to escape… Therefore I invaded the camp with my group.” (Benny Morris, Israel’s Border Wars: 1949-1956, Aam Ufid, Tel Aviv, 1996, p. 273)
As the last sentence of his military report illustrates, Sharon would rather attack and kill civilians than appear to be retreating. The equation is clear and the price clearer. International ceasefire observers described the Bureij operation as “an alarming instance of deliberate slaughter”. Israel’s government at the time officially denied responsibility for the operation, giving Western diplomats to understand that it had been undertaken independently by Israeli vigilantes and members of the kibbutzim near the Jordanian border in retaliation against raids mounted by Palestinian infiltrators. The lie, by which Israeli officialdom took refuge behind Israeli civilians ostensibly acting on their own, was repeated on a grander scale in Qibya.
On 13 October 1953 Prime Minister David Ben Gurion met with Minister of Security Yitzhak Lavon and Moshe Dayan, head of operations in the office of the chief of staff, to discuss retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in a grenade attack on her home by a Palestinian infiltrator. Qibya was mooted as a suitable target and, apparently, there was a ready-for-use plan calling for the demolition of 50 out of the 280 homes in the village. However, what is of particular interest here is what happened to the order as it passed down the line of command.
The order issued by Dayan read, “Operation Shushna: Objective, carry out sharp-response reprisals against villages being used as bases for [Palestinian] infiltration operations. Task A: incursion into Naalein and Shiqba villages with the aim of destroying a number of houses and wounding their inhabitants. Task B: attack Qibya, occupy it temporarily, blow up homes and cause injury, forcing inhabitants to flee the village.”
The order was transmitted by hand to Central Area Command, which reissued it as follows: “The aim of Chief of Staff is to mount sharp-response destroy-and- kill reprisal operations against Arab villages. The task: attack Qibya, occupy it temporarily, demolish homes and kill as many as possible in order to compel inhabitants to flee their homes… Invade Naalein and Shiqba, destroy a number of houses and kill inhabitants and soldiers.”
Already the order had become more explicitly murderous than the original, as is obvious by the addition of “kill as many as possible”. Working at the time in Central Area Command was David Alazar, operations officer (later to become chief of staff in the 1973 War). His counterpart in the office of the chief of staff was Rahboam Zaiffi , nicknamed Gandhi. The following is how Sharon, commander of the operation, interpreted the order to the forces that were to take part in it:
“The objective of Command is to mount sharp- response reprisal operations… The task: invade Qibya, occupy it, kill as many as possible and do as much damage as possible to property… Invade Naalein and Shaqba, kill inhabitants and blow up a number of houses.”
In an article in Haaretz, on 8 June 1994, Ben Gurion’s semi-official historian, Shabtai Tibit, attempted to vindicate the former Israeli prime minister. The metamorphosis of the operation command order he attributes to the military culture of the Palmach, the underground paramilitary organisation that fathered most of Israel’s military elite. The formula, “kill as many as possible”, (in Hebrew, “cause maximum loss of life”) had been in use in Palmach since the Haganah, on 12 December 1947, adopted a policy of “effective defence” and “systematic retaliation”. In practical terms, Shabtai suggests that no one can be held responsible for the bloodthirsty wording of the Qibya orders since such orders are deeply rooted in the Zionist military credo.
The operation was carried out after midnight on 15 October. Carrying 700 kilos of explosives the task force blew up 54 houses within three hours. Seventy villagers were killed, most of them women and children. Most of the victims died from bullet wounds. A significant portion perished beneath the rubble of their homes, having been given no warning to vacate.
The Qibya massacre triggered international outrage in the face of which Tel Aviv issued the following statement: “Over the past four years armies from the Trans-Jordan (read: Kingdom of Jordan) and from other Arab countries have been infiltrating Jewish settlements on the borders and in Jerusalem in order to commit murder and theft. Hundreds of citizens — men, women, children and the elderly — have been killed and wounded. Arab governments have sponsored these operations directly and indirectly for an obvious political purpose, which is to destroy Israel and make life in it impossible.”
[…]
Oh, I think its safe to say that the IDF have DELIBERATELY targeted innocent civilians. It is also safe to say there are numerous similarities between Saddam and Sharon – having both served in the army and both being driven by sheer animosity. Saddam despised the Kurds in the same way as Sharon despises the Arabs. The difference is: Saddam had no moral high ground to fall back on, Sharon, on the other hand, had WW2 to entirely silence any form of criticism…
At the top of this page you find the arguments on the WMD’s. The thing is that Saddam was a problem that had to be dealed with. So what if he didn’t have WMD he still had a history of killing his own people. If he could do that on his own people I have no doubt in my mind that he would not even think twice on doing it to us!!!!
I hate the word ‘race.’ It is a vicious lie. History will eventually record it on the same page as the blood libel. The concept that there is more than one “race” of human beings on this earth was deliberately concocted by Europeans to justify colonialism and imperialism and other ‘Manifest Destinies.’ I find it surprising (and a little troublesome) that someone such as yourself, who espouses such pluralistic views, would be taken in by it. There is but one ‘race,’ no matter which side of the Pacific, Mediterranean, or the Green Line you’re talking about. The assertion that Jews and Arabs are in conflict in the Middle East because of their ‘race’ is as ridiculous and offensive as the claim that they’re fighting over religion.
I find your arguments against the concept of homeland pretty thin. Do the Iroquois not have a homeland? The Maoris? The Japanese? The Jewish people wasn’t ‘given’ or ‘granted’ a homeland – it has been for thousands of years. There have ALWAYS been Jews in Israel. What I hear is you attempting to deny peoples’ right to self-determination, which is curious given that it is the root of your argument against Israeli policy on the Palestinians. I am beginning to suspect that you would like to see the state of Israel abolished.
Veronica,
Don’t you care that you were lied to? Don’t you worry about what else this Administration might be lying to you about if it could so callously and blatantly lie about something so serious as WMD?
I guarantee you that there are plenty of guys out there who do worse to their own people all the time. This was NOT about ‘liberating’ the Iraqi people. Wake up. Don’t you realize that you’re just spouting Administration sound-bytes like a parrot? Blind support is dangerous.
Saddam COULDN’T have done anything to the US even if wanted to. He was contained and HAD NO WEAPONS!!!
I can tell you who does, though. The United States. They have the largest stockpiles of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in the world. Try asking them to disarm. They’d go apeshit. The United States is the only country in the world that has ever used a nuclear weapon against others and is the only country today that threatens to use them again.
Question a little. Don’t be a lemming.
The concept of race is a long and difficult argument to address. The answer is unsure, but without doubt, I would agree with you that we’re all humans and that there is only human race. (If I didn’t agree, would I be a consistent libertarian?)
However, when there is general consensus that race does exist, I will use this definition upon which to base my arguments. If I were to ponder each and every philosophical or scientific uncertainty each time there was a reference to it, I would get nowhere. If I were, for example, to start arguing about the rights of Palestinians, I would have to address the problem in existence of a material world in order for me to claim that there are any Palestinians existing.
In addition, I may have to address the epistemology of solipsism, or almost certainly the problem of evil and how to define it, if you can define it. I would also have to address ethics and how one can never define a good or a bad thing (therefore resulting in my arguments that are aimed at you, which are by and large, based on opinion, being completely ineffective.) I would also have to address how human beings are scientifically no way different to each other yet there is a comprehensive social construction of race that is evident everywhere in contemporary societies.
The point is: my posts would be much, much longer, and harder to write. My opinion would be shrouded with some relevant, but mostly irrelevant information. My answers to questions would be undermined by certain theories and there would be NO conclusion. As far as your claim that I am taken in by race, I am only using the social construction of race as a means to bringing my point across to the largest possible audience. And if I had the impression that you were too a libertarian – as I am, then I may have addressed it differently. Until the problem of race was brought up, you had given me the impression that you weren’t in any way as ‘liberal minded’ as me and hence I didn’t think you’d be even aware of such a profound social fabrication as race. Sorry, but that’s the impression you gave me.
Moreover, with regards to your opinion on race I am in 100% support of your view, I think the concept of race is used as a means to discriminate and segregate people. I think race divides and polarises people. I think certain ethnic groups are described racially and for this reason are used as scapegoats for social problems. I think the concept of race has given ammunition for various terrorist groups such as white supremacists. I think that ultimately we are all human beings and though we do share different languages, different cultures and different societies, we are nevertheless part of the same species. I also think that the problem of eugenics has arisen partly out of the social construction of race and partly out of the general animosity some people have for another. Having said all that, I do think a reasonable way to define different people would be based on their language, culture and the society they live in. As a result, I will now classify certain people as ethnic groups.
I hope I have cleared that up with you and if there is anything you want me to clarify, you know where to find me. Moving on, I now have to alter my statements to be consistent in what I have just said. For example you pointed out that I said in a previous post:
“The assertion that Jews and Arabs are in conflict in the Middle East because of their ‘race’ is as ridiculous and offensive as the claim that they’re fighting over religion.”
This should be transformed into something like: “The Jews and Arabs are in conflict because of their different ethnic groups and cultures. Religion intensifies this hostility further – as it is often used as a means to justify conflict. Though both religion and ethnicity are not a cause, they are increasingly important factors and help to add to the animosity both sides have for the other.” I realise that what I said was offensive for both Jews and Arabs and I shall be happy to modify any statement that has come across as being ethnocentric, offensive or ridiculous to you in any way. I apologise to you and anyone else who has been offended by this.
As you stated my homelands arguments were ‘thin’, I shall modify these too. When I said: “I feel that there can be no true home of any race on this splanet”, I should have said: “There can be no true home for any ethnic group on this planet.” I would like to add, though I think I did make it pretty clear in the previous post, that this opinion is based not on the demolishing of the Israeli state (as you claimed) but on the observation that countries, such as Zimbabwe, have used ethnicity to claim their land is for certain ethnic groups and for those ethnic groups alone.
While this may seem reasonable if you consider the centuries of divide and rule Africa has had to bear with thanks to the West, it is by no means as way to justify ethnic eviction, of in this case, light skinned ethnic groups. I feel that like Zimbabwe, the Israeli government has used ethnicity as a means to claim their ownership of the land. Now I’m not a relgious person but to the best of my knowedge this presumption is based on religion. Yes…? And I have no problem with people believing in homelands – as I have said before. But I do not feel that just because someone is part of an ethnic group they are claimed to a better life, which is evident if they are part of a Jewish ethnic group and living in Israel as oppose to being part of Arabic ethnic group living in Israel. This, I feel is wrong. And as someone who appears to oppose any form of race distinction, I think you will feel the same way (if you agree with the premises).
The point that you raised which claimed I was actually basing my opinions on the wanting to abolish the Israeli state is unfounded. As I have said before, and I will continue to say if you don’t comprehend it: I am in no way in support of any group based entirely on their ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Acordingly, I am in no way opposed to any group based entirely on their ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I treat all governements, social institutions and societies as equally as I can possibly do so, I also feel that I criticise accordingly. And though I support left wing governments more than right wing ones, I do attempt to criticise any governing of any country.
Here, you could counter this by claiming the majority of my posts are critiquing American administrations but the issue that has been dominant on this forum has been Iraq and I have incorporated as much alternative anti-Western content as I could have. You could also, however, claim that there is bias in my posts concerning Israel – as there is more anti-Israel content as there is anti-Palestine, but I can only post the content from the sources that I agree with, and to post some anti-Palestine content would unfortunately result in me having to go to a biased pro-Zionist website. I’m not saying there isn’t the info out there, I’m just saying that my expereince of searching for anti-Palestine info has resulted in an array of biased Zionist sites whereas the content I post on Israel, comes from niether Arabs nor Jews and I believe it is relatively free of bias. That is my opinion, I am entitled to it, you are welcome to rebutt it.
Last but not least, would you care to elabourate on this:
“What I hear is you attempting to deny peoples’ right to self-determination, which is curious given that it is the root of your argument against Israeli policy on the Palestinians.”
P.S.
I have just seen your post to Veronica and I can’t say I would disagree with anything that you have said. I think if we had started this debate after I had seen your opinions on the GB Administration, we probably would have got more resolved. Did you know, for example, that America has, on the last count in 1999, 11,000 nuclear missiles? This is enough to wipe out every inch of the world including the sea twice over. You, as well as I, are probably thinking why anyone should need such an arsenal.
Aliens, possibly…?
I think the Christian Right may think otherwise…
Hey Reuven,
Saddam did have weapons, he attacked his own people with them!! If a man has a family and owns a gun and lives in the bad part of town, he has never killed anyone but he threats you attack his family he will shoot to kill. But across the street is a man who has all ready killed his wife and children and might have another gun in his house, who do you think has a the right to own the gun? I beleive that, if that raging Lunatic might have WMD’S I will go in their to. All the Bush Administration was doing was protecting his country, his home, his people, and even deeper then that his family! ZI have notice about the American people is you mess with us or if we think your messing with us you better watch out. Are you a U.S. citizen?
I agree with Veronica. The only way to keep peace is to remove the opposition, even we need to bust a few heads. That may not make sense to some, but to keep the peace you need to show power. If Saddam was not captured, he would eventually cause trouble with the U.S.’s allies or the U.S. itself. Just because he didn’t have WMD when the U.S. caught him doesn’t mean he wouldn’t eventually get them.
What that guy said
^
|
|
|
Veronica and Nimo, did you ever stop and think about who sold Saddam his WMDs?
Did you know that chemical and biological weapons that Saddam was suspected of having are alost impossible to store after 6 months of purchase?
Did you know that the only WMDs he did have were sold to him by both Britian and America?
Did you think that the strong armed neo-con tactics that the Bush admin is currently using to get its way will do America any good? I think the rest of the world may differ with you on that one…
The claim that “anyone who ‘messes’ with America should better watch out” is similar to the claim one would expect from a bully in a playground. I’m not trying to be offensive but wake up, America is not the only country on this planet, nor does it have the right to do what it pleases on the gut instinct of a terror threat. America may consume 25% of the worlds oil, (not to mention contribute the same percentage to global pollution) but it only encompasses 5% of the world’s population, so you should consider that next time you feel it’s America’s right to do whatever the fuck it wants to…
You should also take the time to consider the affects of global warming and how that will do, in the long, run, far more damage than any gruop of fanatics could possibly imagine. Though you haven’t brought up the environment issue, it seems hilarious to have such conservative views and yet have no apparant concern in caring for the well-being of this planet…
Hey Bill,
Thank you for your comments on global Warming, I will how ever wonder were they came from. Yes I knew who sold the WMD. But I believe your information is out dated. We gave the weapons to him while we were fighting Iran and yes I know that was also a bad thing that the United States did but what country has not done anything wrong. But their were more recent information since then, Saddam has been caught buying Uraniun from Etheopia. No why in the world whould he need that?? And were is it now, in fact were is Saddam!!! Saddam LOVER!!!
What des Global Warming have to do with the Bush administration?If the U.S. is causing alot of pollution, it’s working on it.
How can you be sure that the U.S. or Britain sold WMD to Iraq. The only country that i heard sold weapons of any kind to Iraq was France. Besides, if the U.S. or Britain did sell weapons to Iraq, it would have been to protect itself, after all, Iraq was an ally of the U.S. several years ago. If the U.S. feels that its former ally shouldn’t be allowed kill the innocent, then the U.S. should let them know. And don’t say that the U.S. is killing innocents. The Iraqis aren’t just in the streets aren’t holding toys…. they are real and they are pissed.
I’m only going to respond to Nimo’s post, as the post from Veronica was undoubtedly childish and immature. Whether she is a child is another matter, but I don’t feel I can get anywhere in a debate that puts a premium on objectivity and rationality (as a friend of mine put it), when insults are being hurled at me just because I don’t support the war on terror, nor the views that this young woman holds. Thus I will say no more and hope Veronica can do the same with regards to me.
Nimo, I’m sorry but I have already addressed all the issues you have raised so you shall have to refer to the previous posts I have listed. You said:
“What des Global Warming have to do with the Bush administration?If the U.S. is causing alot of pollution, it’s working on it.”
Well no it isn’t, hence the move backing out of the Kyoto protocol. If I had seen a substantial move from the Bush administration to clear up the pollution emissions, than I would say nothing but as I care for the environment as much as I care for the human race, I find it a particularly important and emotive issue.
Anyway, you said:
“How can you be sure that the U.S. or Britain sold WMD to Iraq.”
Because of a study conducted by the US governement. (See my post on March 28th 01:50AM)
You said:
“Besides, if the U.S. or Britain did sell weapons to Iraq, it would have been to protect itself, after all, Iraq was an ally of the U.S. several years ago.”
Nope, all the evidence suggests that the Brits and the Yanks sold weapons to provoke a war between Iran and Iraq – after Saddam stopped selling oil to the West. By the way, Britian and America sold WMD’s to both sides. (Refer to my post on February 20th 11:15AM)
You said:
“And don’t say that the U.S. is killing innocents. The Iraqis aren’t just in the streets aren’t holding toys…. they are real and they are pissed.”
I never once disputed that there is a significant amount of dangerous terrorists in Iraq who pose a threat to the Coalition forces, nor did I dispute the fact that Iraqi’s are real. I did however, use multiple sources to show that the U.S is killing innocent civilians and that there is relibale information showing that the US Marines did this, on purpose, and as a direct result of four merceneries shot dead in Falluja. In essense, it was vengence that took the lives of so many innocent Iraqi civilians. (see my post on April 21st 05:15AM)
I know you could possibly be offended by the blunt rebutt of your opinions but I would like to stress this is not in my intentions. You come across as a rational person and you seem able to comprehend my point of view without resorting to mindless insults. I ask of you to consider the evidence I have given you and post your response or alternative viwepoint…
I also strongly recommend you read the previous posts by both me and “Hurin” which differentiate with the views of both “Belka95” and “Read the facts”. While there are only a few posts from each person involved, it provides quite a comprehensive analysis of the state of Iraq, the reasons for and against the war, and the dealings of the governments involved as well as the UN. It may also resolve some questions that you need answering. It starts at March 23rd 05:45PM
Hey Bill,
I’m sorry that I affended you and your idea’s. I got a little carried away with my anger. What I’m trying to say is I trust the American people, so I’m going to trust the person that the American people make my Commander and Chief. When people I have grown up with are out their dying for the iraqi people. I’m going to support them any way I can. I don’t want happing tothe Vietnam vets happing to my brothers and sisters in the war today. I don’t want them coming home, after facing what their facing right now, to people who spit on them and tell them what they were fighting for was a waste of time. When you saw your commrad next to you shot down it was a waste of time. Well I see I got carried away agin , well… I’m sorry-
“to keep the peace you need to show power.”
Nimo, I’ve just noticed a blatant similarity with one of your opinions and the words, or principle slogans, of George Orwell’s prophetic piece of literature, 1984. If you haven’t read it, read it. 1984 tells the story of an elite, minority group of people governing a future world and provides a very interesting and complex analysis of a universal, totalitarian regime. Ironically, some of the predictions that the book outlines have already came true in both contemporary Britain and America.
Most worrying of these, is undoubtedly the introduction of the domestic Anti-terrorist laws in Britain, which have illustrated the British and American government’s enthusiasm, as well as a general Western trend, to undermine freedom of speech and the fundamental rights of humans in the blind hope that this will deter or stop terrorism. Now despite the fact that I’m not claiming we are currently being fast tracked to the regime depicted in 1984, I am saying however, that there are significant undertones of Orwellian opinions in both the Patriot Act and the Anti-terrorist laws. What’s more, I have found these opinions are shared by an alarming amount of people, or better still, a significant minority and that the three slogans that capture the book’s ideology, “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery”, and “ignorance is strength”, are now principally, commonplace in contemporary Western society.
Nimo, I’m not necessarily saying you, or the significant minority are ignorant, nor am I necessarily saying you, or anyone else is a slave to the system, but I am saying your statement resembles the statement “war is peace” almost word for word. It’s also reasonable to assert that the majority of the pro-Patriot Act public would find nothing alarming about the statement “war is peace”. Along with there being an increasing amount of people expressing an Orwellian attitude, I also feel it is more likely that this now-common approach of Orwellian thinking has been normalized and represented in such a way as to appear acceptable by the influential, and essentially right wing, proportion of the mass media. Thus it also seems reasonable to assume that the mass media has adversely influenced your and others’ views on the ethics of Patriot Act – not to mention the various other draconian laws each Western government has passed in the past 4 years. With the help of a few influential politicians, it seems the mass media has a very profound, or at least, a more profound influence than I would deem beneficial, on an enormous amount of people.
If the notion of bringing in an equivalent of the anti-terrorist laws or the Patriot Act were discussed in parliament or congress 20 years ago, it would have been ridiculed, to say the least. Nowadays, I accept there is a different political climate; and overall, the world is a more dangerous place than it was twenty years ago, but the principle remains that governments can now (legally) use these laws to undercut the freedom of speech and the various human rights conventions that have defined civilised society from as far back as the days of the signing of The Magna Carta! There is no point in arguing that these laws are only there to protect the people when there is documented evidence already appearing in Britain, and I do not doubt that America has a corresponding problem, showing that police and members of the intelligence agencies have abused such laws. This point is: these laws stretch far and wide and theoretically can be used in a variety of situations, not only ‘terror’ threats; hence the abuse of the laws by the Metropolitan Police Force.
There is a law in Britain, for example, which enables police to enter a house if they have a reasonable suspicion of the owner being linked to or associated with known or suspected terrorists. America has possibly a more extreme equivalent. Though the law may seem reasonable at a glance, the negative implications of this law are massive. Already police have used this to enter people’s houses on the basis of them supposedly being a terrorist – yet where there has been no such evidence. There has been a huge rise in ineffective raids on the homes of people of Arabic appearance. And because this law can be applied to any crime, what’s going to stop the police entering any house, at any time, for no reason?
Here, an argument springs up that is probably one of the most important and foundational counter arguments for the Patriot Act and anti-terrorist laws but it is one that is flawed. The argument claims that ‘if you haven’t got anything to hide’, then ‘why be afraid’? Well, for the simple reason that if you use that flawed line of reasoning as a premise, then why not have cameras in our own homes displaying our every move? Why not have electronic chips monitoring our social habits? Why not have a thought police, as described in 1984, because, after all, if you haven’t anything to hide, then why you should you worry? As expected, I have yet to see an argument that successfully addresses this considerably significant point, without missing the basic issue I have raised: the laws are abused and will be abused more often, and possibly, in some cases, for the benefit of the government and the agencies working for it. Regrettably, this issue was not addressed in the run up to the passing of these laws and if it had been, I don’t think it would have raised more than a few eyebrows in both the Houses of Parliament and Congress.
All I ask of you, and anyone out there who shares a similar political and ideological standard, is to consider the ethics of what you believe in and what implications these laws have not just on our societies, but on the world as a whole. I also find it offensive, and precariously ironic, that the Bush Administration as well as the Blair Government, has passed such disrespectful and inhumane laws under the guise of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberation’ during the run up to this ‘war on terror’. To finish, I would like to use the film, Enemy of The State, as an analogy with which to describe how, if money and power got into the wrong hands, anyone could, literally, control an entire country. For some, this may seem a weak example and a weak argument, but it nevertheless demonstrates how, if one individual exercised enough influence, the world could change for the worse at a drop of a hat – regardless of the possibility of the film being inaccurate.
In the words of John Pilger: War is terror…
Apology accepted
I thought i’d just point out that though i don’t support the war, that doesn’t mean i don’t support the troops. After all, it’s the polticians who take us to war
If it isn’t already that obvious, I would just like to point out that the message that was written by “Bill” on May 3rd at 09:25AM, was not written by the same person who wrote all the previous messages under the name of Bill. Michael Hanscom can verify this – in case anyone believes I would say, “my mummy helps me poop” on a forum like this. And though my mummy did help me “poop” around-about 16 years ago; she doesn’t anymore, so if this man/woman (or child) should want to claim anything more about my toilet habits, could he/she please email me on the fake address I have supplied under my name.
[…]
Anyway, after coming back from a brilliant, bank-holiday afternoon – looking forward to criticisms, alternative viewpoints and opposing views – it appears the “why I hate George Bush” site has been taken over by children! Someone call the National Guard… nevertheless, I’m still expecting responses from a load of people so if they have anything they want to say: say it, and I’ll write back a.s.a.p. I look forward to hearing from you guys soon…
However, if you guys do receive a post supposedly written by Bill, which claims that “I am the king of the castle” or that you are a “liar, liar, pants on fire…” then take it not as an insult, rather a complement because do I find it really hard to engage in a meaningful conversation without there being pictures or games of some sort to keep my attention…
Nimo, Bill, Veronica: unfortunately, immature people trolling discussions is pretty much a fact of life on the Internet these days. I won’t always have time to police and delete every instance where they appear, so I’d recommend just sticking with the old standby of “just ignore them.”
It’s fairly obvious (to me, at least, as a reader) when it’s actually one of you as opposed to one of the trolls (you know, little things like staying on-topic and not babbling about ridiculous tripe), so I wouldn’t worry about someone actually confusing you with your impostors.
Sorry about these little interruptions — hopefully they get tired of their game soon enough. In the meantime, I’m glad you all are enjoying batting all of this back and forth. Thanks for continuing to drop by!
Hi Nemo, I find it equally offensive too; it’s such a shame that a rash of immature comments appear when some of us are trying to engage in a meaningful conversation; especially when someone new comes to the site. As Michael Hanscom pointed out, the best approach is silence, and even if we did debate with someone of that stage of maturity, I think we would end up degrading ourselves to their level of mindless belligerency. Ah well…
As for my age, if you must know I’m 18, and in my first year of college. Bear in mind when I say college, I mean college in a British sense – and that is the equivalent of American High School. To the best of my knowledge, what the Brits call universities, the Americans call colleges, so thus in American terms, I would be approaching my final year of High School after the exams this September (and then heading off to University in roughly a year’s time).
You may be wondering why I am as old as 18 and only in my first year of college (or the second last year of High School) but I was, in essence, a technical school drop out and left school early to go to work. Now I’m back in education and my writing needs a lot of work, so I come to these sites as much as I possibly can to help improve and develop my writing skills. Hence the huge posts! The irony of it is that these anonymous offensive posts are probably coming from people not much younger than me! It just goes to show what a little life experience does to you…
Anyway, my life has improved dramatically since I returned to education and I have started enjoying the life of an intellectual, even though I can’t write like one just yet! You seem to want to know where I get this information on GBush and other Western politicians, so if you want a good source, and I mean a really good source, (and this goes for anyone) read “New Rulers of the World” by John Pilger. I have mentioned his name before, but I must stress that he is the one who provides me with such accurate and comprehensive reports on all the issues I raise. People are usually ‘gob-smacked’ by my comprehensive demolishing of their opinions and this, 9 times out of ten, results in them leaving and never to return!
This is not in my intentions but when I argue with people of opposing views I can literally refer to this book, my new bible, and counter them almost immediately! And because Pilger writes his work like a University/College paper, and includes sources on almost every accusation he makes, you can’t really flaw him. You can also always check out what he is saying (as it is often too horrible to even imagine) and find out whether the source is reliable or not. And despite the fact that he does specialize particularly in Indonesia and Iraq, he has a very broad range of papers and articles and writes every week for various newspapers and a weekly journal “The New Statesmen”.
If you want to read his work on the net then go to his website I hav included I include in my next post. You can even ask him questions, which he answers once a month (though unfortunately I cannot seem to open the question page and find these answers). Having said that, (and this goes to anyone else, though particularly Hurin and Michael Hanscom), you SHOULD buy his most recent book – as it includes the footnotes and sources, which are a wealth of knowledge in themselves. Regrettably, the website does not use sources in the form of footnotes, but it does sometimes include references in the articles.
It goes without saying that Pilger is not my only source and I use a lot of other sources. Most of them are just found here and there on the net, however, I have an extensive collection of Trotsky literature at home which I have yet to fully read, or comprehend, for that matter – as Trotsky is a hard writer to understand. I also have read some Chomsky but I feel Pilger is better and more comprehensive. I would like also recommend the articles written by the former attorney General, Ramsey Clark, who wrote the article on Iraq history that I referenced to you in one of my posts. Clark also has written many other articles – all of which prove to be very interesting and informative (as he was employed by the US government, though it’s not hard to understand why he was ‘let-off’).
Really, it’s a matter of picking your sources correctly and not relying on the pure gut level ideology that drives a lot of critics on both the left and the right wing. This is why I use Pilger for the most part of my posts as he includes sources and not just bare ideological convictions. I really do encourage you to read his work especially his most recent book. I don’t know if you can find him in American bookshops but he was a best seller here…
Michael Hanscom-
Can you not find the IP address of these trolls and block them from entering the site?
The IP (65.125.115.30) has been banned, and the comments deleted. I hate having to resort to that, but after a while…(shrugs).
Ah well, you did warn them more than once. They also disrupted a meaningful conversation – which, after all, is the purpose of this site – as well as impersonating all the people, including you, trying to engage in a meaningful conversation and in the process, offended a few people.
I know they were blatantly kids, and that, as one person put it, they were quite funny in a childish way, but they should have realized that the joke was funny at first, but after a while it got just a little too reckless. I also fear it may have revoked the coming of Nimo, seeing that he sounded quite annoyed by their behavior and possibly felt that he was being discriminated against because he was a new comer to the site.
Clearly, I feel that this should definitely be avoided at all costs and if you’re reading this Nimo, you’re more than welcome to discuss anything you want on this site. Me, Hurin, Michael and Rob (though he doesn’t come here much anymore) are definitely not going to do anything stupid or discriminate against you – though I certainly can’t speak for the others who come here.
Thanks Michael anyway, it was a most appreciated act of wisdom – despite the blocking of the child. As a result of there being no more silly comments by the bottom of the page, which could almost instantaneously discourage any person from even reading more than one post, hopefully, more mature and open-minded people will be encouraged to come here in the future…
About all this torture business:
It makes me laugh (not to mention how it made me wonder whether he has actually wrote one of his own speeches), when GB compared himself, and the American military establishment, to that of Saddam’s regime.
I mean really, does anyone have the right to claim that we’re the true ‘freedom fighters’ because we’re not as bad as Saddam? What does GB think people living in Iraq feel about this? Does he think that because America prosecute their evil-doers (though funnily enough, I don’t think he’s used that specific term for the men and women set to be charged; it seems to be reserved exclusively for people of Arabic appearance) that makes them a better regime?
Does he think the 22 million people living in a starved and depraved country are going to somehow see this comparison in a positive light, and that they will somehow feel that their new rulers are any better than the previous ones?
What makes it worse is an assumption in all the daily newspapers in Britain, though I do not doubt there is a similar, if not, a more comprehensive assumption in America, that this torturing, raping, and illegal killing is something new. Bullshit! As John Pilger points out, torturing has been going on for centuries and has occurred as recently as in the Vietnam and Kenyan Western occupations.
For example, John Pilger writes:
In Kenya in the 1950s, the British slaughtered an estimated 10,000 Kenyans and ran concentration camps where the conditions were so harsh that 402 inmates died in just one month. Torture, flogging and abuse of women and children were commonplace. “The special prisons,” wrote the imperial historian V.G. Kiernan, “were probably as bad as any similar Nazi or Japanese establishments.”
If you guys want the full article then go to:
http://pilger.carlton.com/print
I recommend you read it…
I beleive that bush himself or at very least rumsfeld is the architect of this inhumanity. I beleive I once posted an article about cruelty at Guantanimo bay on this article. Guantanimo was hand picked for that purpose precisely because the constitution does not apply thier. This whole business sickens and angers me. I have called the menace currently shrowding our Government with darkness a Nazi regime before. Looks like I was not exagerating as much as I would have liked to think. What makes me even more Ill is that the media covers it as though it was a defect of the people working at the instalation. While they failed to act on a moral imperative and refuse orders, I have to beleive that several MP reservists could not have cooked this up on thier own. Certainly if it bothered their commanding officers enough they would have been out of thier. According to my local paper (the Ann Arbor News) the red cross had sent memos to the white house about this as early as february. Bush knew. I beleive he or rumsfeld ordered it. It is just too easy to picture that evil little smirk of his as he masturbates, eyes fixed on the prostrate tortured bodies of all those “evildoers.”
Hurin-
Indeed I heard the same thought from a Pulitzer Prize winning America investigative journalist, Seymour Herch, on a programme the other night. Herch was speaking on a politically motivated review of the day’s news, Newsnight, when I was shocked to hear that he believes, and I do not doubt it is far from the truth, that there is a common lack of knowledge in the Bush administration of how bad the situation in Iraq really is.
What’s more, Herch also said that he had been in contact with America’s top military generals for the past year and that they had said, quite literally, that the politicians, namely Donald Rumsfeld, DO NOT CARE what is happening in Iraq and thus they remain practically blind to the everyday issues that are developing in the country. He also said that the generals have got to the point where they wouldn’t tell the politicians how bad the situation is.
As you pointed out Hurin, this mistreatment of prisoners goes deeper than just a fringe minority in the American army. You have to consider that it is regarded by Muslims across the world – that the stripping of men and the subjection of sexual humiliation to men in front of woman – is probably the most patronising thing one could do to a man of Muslim faith. And we’re supposed to believe that this was the brainchild of but a few, country-bred MP soldiers, who had the tenacity to catch this terrible event on camera?
Bullshit. This goes a lot deeper than that, and as Herch pointed out, this may go right up to the ‘top’. The uncovering of these photographs will indefinitely damage the coalitions ‘attempt’ to stabilise Iraq and by all means, is irreparable. I just don’t think that the Bush administration is fully aware of how serious this really or perhaps, they are ‘fully’ aware of this and are using the inevitable suicide bombings (not to mention the decapitation of Nick berg), terrorist attacks and all other related issues that follow becuase of these photographs for political capital. After all, this can only do two things: destabilise the coalition and make the world an even more dangerous place than it already is.
The irony is inescapable: the American and British soldiers who are in Iraq—so we are told—to “liberate” the country and bring “freedom” and “democracy” to the country are humiliating, violating, torturing Iraqis. To add one more layer of irony, all of this takes place in the very same Abu Ghraib prison, the site of some of Saddam Hussein’s worst atrocities. Similar atrocities, same site. Different abusers. And we act shocked and surprised that the whole world, including Muslims in this country, have not, do not, and will not buy this war as a “liberation.”
— Source:
http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm/action/current/article/235.html
Two things:
First, my computer’s going mad so when i finished a paragraph on “dangerous place then it already is.” It was supposed to add another sentence: Just perfect for a right wing government intent on passing disrespectful and draconian laws.
Second, when i said Muslim faith, i meant to say Islamic faith. (nothing to do with my computer – rather my intellect.)
Since that guy came on the site and provided a very witty argument against mandatory abortion I’ve been surfing the net looking for pro-life and pro-choice forums. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, all the sites I have the pleasure of visiting have been excessively commercialized and run on a membership basis. Thus I can’t provide my point of view on either the pro-life or pro-choice sites unless I have a membership account and to acquire an account I have to give my email address – and this is something I can’t do because my computer is going bloody mad.
As I was saying, the arguments arising from the “pro-life” side are deeply emotional and based on a basic ideological principle – to preserve the teachings of their particular denomination of their particular church. Although there are some emotional arguments cropping up from the “pro-choice” side, mostly from women who have had a first hand experience of abortion, I find this side more objective and intelligible. When pro-lifers often respond to people with opposing views with comments such as “Babykiller”, I find it quite hilarious that they also claim they have the moral superiority, when in reality they are actually fighting against the fundamental right for a human being to make a decision about what they feel is best for them, their child and those around it.
Ironically, one of the most narrow-minded arguments coming from pro-lifers is the one that claims that they are actually ‘pro-life’. Bear in mind that parents are subjected to a lifetime of childrearing once they have had that child and if they can’t do this in the best way they feel possible, and they choose to abort for the benefit of the child, then surely they are the ones caring for the life of their potential child and not the so-called pro-lifers? To bring a child into a bad world, with a bad upbringing and a dark future is certainly nothing to do with being ‘anti-life’, rather to do rationality, reason, common sense an morality.
I haven’t the time to outline all the strengths and weaknesses of each argument but I will point out that the essence of the pro choice argument is this:
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her body?
– Ayn Rand
And I feel exactly the same way, so if anyone with an alternative view would like to rebut this statement then you know where to find me…
If anyone wants a good article that is outlining exactly what I have just said, though in a more succinct and coherent way, then go to:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2404
What the fuck, it’s printed my post three times. Like is said: my computer’s going bloody mad.
Ah well, at least you got the message
George was playing golf on the day before the war was about to begin.. what king of perosn would do that. he is makes me sick to my stomach. so many kids are dieing while his resting in his fucken massion… i mean what did those innocent kids (who don’t even know what war is about) do to him. who ever voted for him must’ve been smokin weed. Robsix, you need to stop defending him and look at the facts because he sure doesn;t need your support because he dosn’t give a fuck about you and every other human. i know the truth hurts and shout out to every one whos hate the fuck head and the people who don’t you need to wake up and see the facts.
I absolutely abhor George Bush. I have never hated anyone this badly….I hate his administration and his supporters. Hate is a strong word, which is why I am using it. I have never seen such righteous, self-centered bullshit in my entire life. Why are people so blind? Why are they such complete f’in idiots? Why are they letting this tyrant take away our rights?
I don’t give a flying crap if he considers himself a good Christian. A) he’s not. b) he has no right to tell us what God thinks…. If he wants to be Christian, that’s fine, but I will not participate in his holy wars, nor will I allow this SCUM BAG to take away my rights as a women–my rights to birth control. I am a human being and I can make my own decisions. I control my body, not some shitbrained fascist redneck.
Yep. HE’S A FASCIST! Your rights are leaving you quickly.
No more freedom of speech. No more freedom of religion…privacy….press…..you name it; it will be gone.
No wonder everyone hates America now. George Bush is a tyrant trying to take over the world.
Why don’t the stupid asshole terrorists just try to kill him and his worthless administration instead of innocent people? And why doesn’t George Bush stop making them want to?
So sad.
Indeed, could there be any reason for anyone with a smidgeon of reason and logic to support GB? I think not…
When you consider both the domestic and foreign policies the Bush Administration has executed since its presidency, and the affect this has had on America as a whole, why so many, reasonably intelligent and, with some exceptions, rational people, could support GB, remains a mystery to me.
Having said that, I do think the media is key here, because how anyone could even complement the man, let alone support him, considering what he has done to the planet as well as America, is something that has to be put down to just a little “harmless propaganda”.
The man has done no good for his country – and I’ve heard he hasn’t succeeded in ONE of his domestic policies he promised to fulfil when he came to power – now why he is still in power, and as one person put it “Why he hasn’t he been impeached”, could be put down to any of the following:
Alas, if he gets re-elected this fall, which fortunately I don’t think he will, it will be a bad representation that the majority of the American populace will be giving to the rest of the world (presuming he doesn’t cheat this time, which is still a probability – but not one anyone has mentioned as of yet in the media hype during the run up to the election).
Having said that, exactly the same can be said of Tony Blair and the British public, but unfortunately, because of the laughable British political system, for me, and a lot of other people like me, there is no sensible person to take Blair’s place.
So, with a risk of sounding hypocritical, the only option I feel come election time will be not to vote and thus risk relegating myself to the same level of one of those people who is ‘not interested’ in politics.
After all, it would be, as some journalist described in a separate case, the choice between Coke and Pepsi.
I heard a very clever point expressed on a radio show dedicated to voicing the opinions of Muslims living in the UK. Three young university undergraduates felt that they no longer have faith in the judicial system in the UK – after the introduction of the “anti-Terrorist laws”. They explained that before these laws were passed, they wouldn’t think twice about reporting ‘a terrorist crime’, nor would they ever support a terrorist under any circumstances. Now though, they might hesitate when reporting such a crime in their communities, seeing that they were actually jeopardising the person’s life as there was a possibility it may be ruined, if they were imprisoned without a trial.
It was not that they tolerated terrorism and terrorist acts, nor was it that they felt sorry for any potential terrorist behind bars, but that they knew at this moment in time, on the basis of a measly “suspicion”, someone could end up in prison for life, without a fair trial. Thus the person they may report – who, it must be said, is likely to be completely and totally innocent – may have to endure a lifetime of incarceration, and possibly even abuse and torture, on the basis of a mere “suspicion”. This, the men argued, is why they no longer have faith in the judicial system and partly why the element of extremism in some Western Muslim communities, particularly in Britain, are frequently being overlooked.
Consider, for example, two average Muslim parents living in, say, an average British city. Suppose these parents suspected their children were involved in terrorism, but didn’t say anything because they knew this would lead to them being imprisoned for life – even if the suspicions were incorrect. Later on, the kids were found out to be involved in terrorism and took part in something like the Madrid bombing or 9/11. Now the reason the media would overlook as to why the parents didn’t ‘tell’, would be that the parents didn’t want their children being imprisoned for life, where there was a high risk that they could be innocent. I mean really, would you willingly ‘grass’ on your kids, knowing that they could be incarcerated for life even if they are innocent? Could you live with yourself if they received no trial?
Of course, you have to take into account other considerations when dealing with terrorism in itself, such as why it is now a common trend for many terrorist groups to prey on the young by seducing them into suicide bombings and all the stuff that comes with terrorism. The terrorist groups know the young are impressionable, and considering the daily news of torturing and prisoner abuse is plastered all over the front pages of every Western and Eastern broadsheet newspaper, the groups know it will no longer take much to corrupt young Muslim minds in both Western and Eastern societies. With a risk of sounding prejudice (which is definately not intentional), religion also plays a crucial role, usually backed up by the concept within Islam of an after-life, which encourages many young Muslim men into terrorism. But what is often overlooked is the relationship between the state and its communities – those same communities that could be harbouring ‘potential terrorists’.
The war on terrorism, as it is currently being run, leads to some Muslims feeling that it is purely based on a West versus Middle East campaign and thus they no longer feel oblidged to trust authority. It is only expected that some Muslims living in close knit, sometimes clandestine, community may be dissuaded from informing the authorities if they felt the person they would inform on may be imprisoned without trial, without justice: for life. These communities are isolated enough as it is; to expect them to trust the judiciary, after everything that has happened in the prisons and after all the mistruths that were proudly emphasised in the right wing media, like WMDs or Saddam’s Army, is laughable. The West with all its supposed wisdom seems to be failing to recognise this…
It is certainly something that the authorities will HAVE to recognise if they truly want to ‘win’ the war on terror (if there can be a winner in any war); and want to win the war against the extremist element in all Muslim communities, both abroad and at home. While I do understand it is necessary to imprison some, and only some people, without trial for a temporary amount of time, I don’t believe that even those malicious and totally insane extremists, should be subjected to life in prison without a trial, especially if it is counterproductive.
In the words of Hunter S. Thompson:
“Even a goddamned werewolf is entitled to a legal defence”
George W Bush is a reflection of the unconsciousness of humanity as a whole peoples, unfortunately. This has given us our greatest gift while being the proverbial double-edged sword, our most dreadful sin. Our gift is that this anti-Christ situation has pushed us into the consciousness that a World War III shall, without a shadow of a doubt, annihilate we the species, homo-sapiens and the universe only knows what will happen to its blessed child mother earth. Be that as it may, our sin we must heal is that we have wallowed in our tendency of laziness far too long. Too lazy to think individually, allowing our creative genius to be deeply asleep while using substances (even all the pharmaceutical so called social balancing drugs — anti-depressants — to make us all “normal”) and the consequence is that we fear our own power and therefore allow someone like GWB to trick us into a giant chapter of the Klu Klux Klan and take it into Iraq. This is bad enough, but then we all follow GWB as though he is the father, Moses, Charles Manson, the cult leader who hypnotizes us into believing he is the chosen prophet and he is directly told to bring God into every hearth and heart, “homeland security” and “patriotism.” GWB has missed the point. God or call this power by many names of respect, the universe, has never forced us to kill in the name of a creator. It is a contradiction in terms. Creation does not kill. It is cyclical in nature and evolves infinitely, but it is not a hungry ghost that can’t be filled. Furthermore, making people powerless is against the golden rule “free will.” Cheney, Bush (I put Cheney first because he is actually the man at the wheel), Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice — maybe Powell will get conscious after all — and the other died in the wool greed mongers have their destiny to fulfill just like Hitler and the Nazis, which is to be the alarm clock of the collective human psyche; but, they will recycle their energies and hopefully when they begin as a swarm of mosquitos on the lowest chain of consciousness the trip back up to another power point may or may not come to pass.
If you do not realize that GB is an idiot and retard then you have not been paying attention. The guy cannot give an impromptu speech. He can only do scripted speeches. He is a puppet. Whenever he had to speak spontaneously he sounded like a true fucking idiot, which he is. Do you really think that he is smart enough to run the country and understand complex issues when he graduated with a low C average??? You have to remember, he is the president of the US and should take full responsibilty for his actions, even if he is just a puppet. In case you are not familiar with his resume, here it is
RESUME
GEORGE W. BUSH
Mon, 17 May 2004
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Law Enforcement:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the
influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my
driver’s license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has
been “lost” and is not available.
Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to
take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By
joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty
in Vietnam.
College: I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for US. Congress and lost.
I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I
bought an oil company, but couldn’t find any oil in Texas. The
company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that
took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry
(including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies,
making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-
ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions
in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American
history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father’s
appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by
over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in US history to enter office with a
criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one
billion dollars per week.
I spent the US surplus and effectively bankrupted the US Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
US stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs
and that trend continues every month.
I’m proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in US history. My “poorest millionaire,” Condoleeza
Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a US
President.
I am the all-time US and world record-holder for receiving the most
corporate campaign donations. My largest lifetime campaign
contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over
the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in US History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to
assure my success with the US Supreme Court during my election
decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against
investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent
investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused
to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history.
I changed the US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any
President in US history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy
in the history of the United States government.
I’ve broken more international treaties than any President in US
history.
I am the first President in US history to have the United Nations
remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the US from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspector’s access to US “prisoners of war”
detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations
election inspectors (during the 2002 US election).
I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any
President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year
period.
After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the
worst security failure in US history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the US after the World Trade Center
attacks and less than a year later made the US the most hated country
in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people),
shattering the record for protests against any person in the history
of mankind.
I am the first President in US history to order an unprovoked, pre-
emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I
did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of US
citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in
duty benefits for active duty troops and their families – in wartime.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for
attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends. I am
the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%)
view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear “Tactical Bunker Buster,” a
WMD. I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin
Laden [sic] to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father’s
library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President,
attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and
unavailable for public review.
PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.
So, yes, I hate the SOB…
That’s one hell of a list. As i said in a previous post, “could there be any reason for anyone with a smidgeon of reason and logic to support GB?”
Anyway, I found this on a “George Bush IQ” site that will fit nicely into the education section:
Among US presidents who have run the country over the last 50 years, George W. Bush appears to have the lowest Intelligence Quotient (IQ). His IQ has proved lower than that of the average American citizen. According to the British press, researchers from the State of Pennsylvania have obtained the finding. Mr. Bush’s IQ makes up as little as 91 points, which is exactly half of his immediate predecessor Bill Clinton’s IQ (182 points). By the way, Mr. Clinton takes 1st place in the US president list by this parameter. Interestingly, Democrats prevail on the list.
In calculating the IQ, the scientists analyzed the following indices: academic performance in school and college, independently (without anybody’s assistance) prepared publications, speech lucidity, and psychological parameters.
The mean IQ value of man varies within the range of 100 points. Apart from George W. Bush, only only one ex-president, his father, Mr. Bush Sr, has not exceeded this level.
Below are IQs of 12 US presidents, starting from 1945.
Bill Clinton – 182, Jimmy Carter- 175, John F. Kennedy – 174, Richard Nixon- 155, Franklin D. Roosevelt – 147, Harry S. Truman – 132, Lyndon B. Johnson- 126, Dwight D. Eisenhower – 122, Gerald Ford – 121, Ronald Reagan – 105, George Bush – 98.
I suppose the results of the previous table are summed up in the following words of the commander in chief himself, GWB.
“As people do better, they start voting like Republicans…
…unless they have too much education and vote Democratic,
which proves there can be too much of a good thing.”
While we are on the subject of Bush’s intellegence or rather lack there of, I thought that it might be worth pointing out that one thing that may independantly effect the president’s thinking. It is well known and equally well documented that Bush spent about 15-20 years of his life in a washed out alcoholic haze. I read an interesting article on Counterpunch.Org that was talking about the psychological effects that can be manifested on an addict via the drug to which they are addicted, to the end of showing such thought patterns in GWB. The mentioned effects included inability to perceive subtlety and complexity in situations and viewing the world in a clear cut black and white fashion. This should set off bells in anyones head who has ever listned to one of bush’s demented ramblings about the “evildoers,” or his patronizing “your either with us or against us” garbage. Bush may be inacting his policies under the assumption that arabs and paticularly muslims are inherently evil. An assertion that could have been informed early on by their differing religious beliefs (fundamentalists have the tendancy to attribute any differences of faith to the devil; I wittnessed this first hand while being evangelized by a woman who got very upset when I applied the word “Faith” to a religion other than hers, and promptly assured me that christianity was the only “faith”), and galvanized by 9/11. The end result of course being the political molotov cocktail that has presided over wars heavy on the destruction that include scant plans for reconstruction/nation building, the torture of untried arabs and others at gitmo and abu ghrabe (spelling?) and of course the no questions asked support of israel. Being that bush is also not that intellegent as Bill pointed out this basically shows that bush is obeying his gut impulses on a world he sees in black and white, with an intellect roughly equivalent to that of your average joe who cleans toilets for a living to reign him in. No wonder things are fucked.
Hurin-
That’s well put and if you could site the address to that article I would have a lot of fun reading it.
First and foremost, I think we have pretty much-rounded things up on the topic of hating GB on this, one of many, “hate bush sites”. We have possibly every single reason why not to support the man, largely thanks to the post by Dickweed on May 30thwhich brings together every piece of information we had posted in previous posts, in addition to a lot of other – how can I put it – interesting facts, explaining why this man is so bloody incompetent.
Secondly, I believe we have accumulated enough evidence to argue against the Iraq war and I will be constantly referring to this site for various bits of information on it. I also believe we have collected enough evidence to argue against fascistic, extreme right wing administrations. And even if we hadn’t, the pattern I notice when going on any site like this is that the typical right-winger, who is pro-war and pro-fascist, cannot maintain a meaningful and intelligent conversation without resorting to mindless insults (and the few that do tend to leave the site prematurely with no explanation). Of course by saying this I’m not, intentionally, implying the left have more intelligence than the right – one must be careful when assuming the left are naturally intelligent and the right are innately stupid. It would be more reasonable to assume that a person’s political ideology depends largely on their upbringing and not their intellect.
Anyway, thirdly, I think GB will not get re-elected this year, obviously not because of our conversations on this site (though it would be nice to think it was) but because of the terrible state of the country and the fact that anything and everything this man lays his hands on, with an exception to his business buddies accounts, turns to crap.Having said that, as someone on another similar site put it, “the man can’t get ‘re-elected’ because he was never elected in the first place, rather appointed by the supreme court and their judges who were all – the 5 out of 8 who voted for him anyway – employed by either his father or Regan.”
Well even if he does, God forbid, get “re-elected” this year, I’ll have to believe it’s the fault of a biased media with a few other things and not a great many people who seem to have no care whatsoever for the well being of their country…