|
|
| |
| |
Karen Gordon wrote:
(K): So now it isn't the 'weapons of mass destruction' that
you and your puppet-master, Bush, concocted. Now it's the
'removal of Saddam Hussein'.
Well, he's BEEN REMOVED, you incoherent little lap dog.
What is your reason for occupying Iraq NOW?
_______________________________________
Story from BBC NEWS:
Blair defiant over Iraq invasion
Tony Blair has acknowledged evidence about Saddam Hussein
having actual weapons of mass destruction was wrong, during
his keynote conference speech.
But the prime minister told Labour delegates in Brighton he
could not apologise for having been involved in the effort
to remove Saddam Hussein.
Mr Blair was interrupted briefly twice by anti-war and
pro-hunting protests.
"The problem is I can apologise for the information being
wrong but I can never apologise, sincerely at least, for
removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in
prison." - Tony Blair [....]
He acknowledged that problems of trust stemmed from
decisions taken since 11 September, 2001.
And he pledged he would make reviving the Middle East peace
process a personal priority once US elections had happened
in November.
Mr Blair also referred to a new war on global terrorism
that is ongoing in Iraq. [....]
The Lib Dems called on the prime minister to apologise to
the families of the two soldiers killed in Iraq.
And party president Simon Hughes said: "Nobody in the free
world wanted Saddam Hussein to continue there wasn't any
disagreement about that - everybody wanted him out of the
way.
"The problem was how to justify regime change in
international law."
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Karen Gordon wrote:
|
| |
| |
Stephen Glynn wrote:
S. O. Damocles wrote:
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Stephen Glynn wrote:
|
| |
| |
Stephen Glynn wrote:
S. O. Damocles wrote:
|
| |
| |
JMD wrote:
=====================
It would be irresponsible of the Americans and Brits to go
into a country, overthrow the regime, and head home,
leaving the place in chaos>
You mean like in Afghanistan?
Those who do that have a duty
to help the people of that country get back on their feet.
Sounds like "nation building" .
Blair understands that obligation -- the same one the
Allies took on when they invaded Germany and Japan. You
obviously don't and that is your shortcoming.
Except that this time, YOU are Germany and illegally attacked
and invaded another sovereign country.
John Dowell
Death to all fascists!
|
| |
| |
artin Frost wrote:
My name is Martin Frost. I have recently compiled an essay
which I have hosted on my web site at:
http://tinyurl.com/3os4h
In my essay I argue that both the British and Americans
should vacate Iraq.
Return to opening page
An Economic Challenge for SCOTLAND
23,000 new jobs and some additional 2.8 billion of revenue
My interest in modern day terrorism prompted me to become involved with Mr
John Parkes who I mistakenly believed shared some of my aspirations. Below is a
summary of my current beliefs which I consider pertinent to my conduct that led
up to my sequestration.
In every action there is a re-action; terrorism has spawned a world wide
industry in counter counter-terrorism and anti-terrorism. This industry will
soon account for one per cent or more of the West's GNP. It is a huge market,
one which with foresight I had hoped Scotland could benefit from. For ease of
comprehension I have divided this web section into:
My Views upon Terrorism: a compilation by Martin Frost
Introduction
Terrorism
Counter-Terrorism
Debate
Conclusion
Ancillary Matters to Martin Frost's compilation
Scotland's Millennium Opportunity
Cintec International Ltd
Mr John Parkes
As elsewhere upon this site, the links are highlighted in blue.
My Views upon Terrorism:
a compilation by Martin Frost
Introduction
'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.
It was frequently true in the past that terrorists tried to influence an
audience - the famous 'propaganda by deed' concept of the nineteenth- century.
One of the basic differences between terrorism today and a hundred years ago is
the indiscriminate choice of targets. There were certain restraints in the
nineteenth century which no political leader would overstep. In the late
twentieth century with the growth of religious fanaticism such restraints became
weaker and are no longer existent today. In Pakistan, quasi religious shrines
have been erected to honour the Islamic bomb in major cities and there is little
doubt that if a terrorist group gained possession of such weapons they would not
hesitate to use them even if the consequences would be suicidal.
The history of terrorism remains an essential key to understanding the
phenomenon. But past experience is not the sole key. Crucial new elements are
religious, political fanaticism and access to weapons of mass destruction.
Polarity of traditions like 'left' and 'right' are now of limited relevance. But
the major obstacle to understanding is the psychological resistance to accept
uncomfortable facts and the problem that people who bring ready made theories
will not easily give up their prior judgments.
I believe that we should all be cognisant of the real danger that
threatens us and that we collectively should make adequate provision. I think in
many respects the authorities are treating us like children. It appears to me
that political correctness is more often a higher goal than our lives.
Are our authorities honest with us? What is our understanding? Let us
consider:
London was a simultaneous target of the 9/11 attack. A British Airways
aircraft to Mumbai on September 9th 2001 was to be hijacked from Heathrow and
was to be crashed into the Houses of Parliament.
However, in an encrypted e-mail received at the last moment this operation
was postponed with that of the US until September 11th 2001.
The Al Qaeda British cell then assembled at Heathrow at 14.30 on September
11th to hijack the 17.00 domestic flight to Manchester, but by 17.00 the US
strikes had taken place and all Heathrow flights were grounded.
Supporting evidence to this Heathrow attempt was endorsed by Al Qaeda's
Muhammad Afroz upon his capture in October 2001 in New Bombay by the Indian
intelligence services.
The analysts of Osama bin Laden's last billing records between 1996-98
revealed that a fifth (238 out of 1,100) of his telephone calls, the largest
percentage, were made to U.K. numbers. Mark Hosenball & Daniel Klaidman
analysts 2002
Britain remains the main western hub of Al Qaeda's overseas political and
military operations. According to the CIA, between a fifth and a quarter of all
Islamic organisations in the U.K., are infiltrated by sympathisers of Al Qaeda.
The average Al Qaeda terrorist is better trained and better prepared for his
mission than any other Islamist terrorist. At a conservative estimate there are
several thousand such Al Qaeda trained Islamist terrorists in Britain today.
Worldwide both the CIA, and Germany's intelligence services estimate that
Al Qaeda has more trained recruits than soldiers in the British army.
Since 1969 more civilians and combatants have been killed in Northern
Ireland than in 9/11. The IRA had at best some 600 active terrorists; Al Qaeda
with 19 managed a kill ratio of some 200/1 compared to the IRA's 4/1.
Question. Given the number of troops required for Northern Ireland, how
many will we require for the U.K. mainland?
Killings in Northern Ireland were largely financed via funds collected in
the USA. Killings in 9/11 were financed largely via funds from Saudi Arabia.
Why should our Muslim population be expected to have lower aspirations
than our Irish?
We are not communicating. Western politicians have taken great pains to
make it clear that the war we are engaged in is a war against terrorism, not
against Muslims. Osama bin Ladin's message is the opposite. For bin Ladin it is
a religious war, a war for Islam against the infidels (the West).
A Muslim is keenly aware of his history, but for most Muslims history
begins with advent of Islam. A Muslim's perception of history is nourished from
the pulpit, and although it may be slanted and inaccurate it is nevertheless
vivid and powerfully resonant. Thus to virtually all Arabs and most Muslims the
Crusades but happened yesterday. In the Arab Iraq, Iranian war both sides waged
massive propaganda using events and personalities from the seventh century. Can
you imagine an Irish or British man harbouring a living grudge against a
Scandinavian on account of a Viking raid of similar age?
In the West the basic unit of human organisation is the nation. The nation
can then be subdivided in a number of ways one of which is by religion. Muslims
tend to see not a nation subdivided into religious groups but a religion
subdivided into nations; even when the Islamic community split into many states
the ideal of a single Islamic polity persists.
It is still wrongly believed that terrorism today is a response to
injustice and is caused by intolerable conditions such as poverty or oppression.
Terrorism in the nineteenth century aimed at social revolution or national
liberation. Terrorism in the twenty first century seeks global catastrophe.
There is a growing element of madness in contemporary terrorism. Not every
paranoiac is a terrorist but in every terrorist lays the paranoia fears of
conspiracy, suspicion of others, and a general inability of self appraisal and
assessment. Present day terrorists are committed to the death
|
| |
| |
Carl Donaldson wrote:
Karen Gordon wrote:
The civilized countries of the
world should,
Have stopped the criminal U$/UK attack
and invasion "by any means necessary" !
at this moment,
all be lining up to help police
Iraq in order to allow it's transition
from a state of virtual civil war
to that of a functioning democracy.
Regardless of the motive for the
invasion of Iraq, The US has done
it and that phase is over. No one
now has any excuse for not
assisting Iraq in becoming a
democratic country ruled by
themselves and for themselves.
You really think the U$/UK wants, much less
will allow, Iraq to become a truly democratic
one man, one vote, fanatical Islamic anti-western Republic?
What a right wanker you are.
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
Carl Donaldson wrote:
Have stopped the criminal U$/UK attack
and invasion "by any means necessary" !
You really think the U$/UK wants, much less
will allow, Iraq to become a truly democratic
one man, one vote, fanatical Islamic anti-western Republic?
What a right wanker you are.
Doesn't matter what you, or
anyone thinks. It's what
should be done.
|
| |
| |
Carl Donaldson wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
Doesn't matter what you, or
anyone thinks. It's what should be done.
Wrong again numbnuts.
You don't let criminal bank robbers dictate the
terms and conditions of their retribution/restitution
to the banks they rob.
The world didn't let Saddam dictate the terms and conditions
of the rebuilding and structure of Kuwait after he was thrown
out for his criminal attack, invasion and occupation.
And the world should not let the criminal scumbags in the U$/UK
who illegally attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq, dictate, control
or participate in the reconstruction/rebuilding of Iraq.
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
Carl Donaldson wrote:
Wrong again numbnuts.
You don't let criminal bank robbers dictate the
terms and conditions of their retribution/restitution
to the banks they rob.
The world didn't let Saddam dictate the terms and conditions
of the rebuilding and structure of Kuwait after he was thrown
out for his criminal attack, invasion and occupation.
And the world should not let the criminal scumbags in the U$/UK
who illegally attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq, dictate, control
or participate in the reconstruction/rebuilding of Iraq.
I can see you are to stupid
to understand. Rave on!
|
| |
| |
Carl Donaldson wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
I can see you are to stupid
to understand. Rave on!
Speak English much, eh moron?
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
Carl Donaldson wrote:
Speak English much, eh moron?
It's still what should be done
regardless of your name calling,
and you know it.
|
| |
| |
Carl Donaldson wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
It's still what should be done
regardless of your name calling,
and you know it.
Your pathetic denial is telling. Now
why don't you deploy yourself and
your children to Baghdad if you feel
so strongly about it you chickenhawk
coward.
You and Toady BLiar, lying rightard scumbags.
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
Carl Donaldson wrote:
Your pathetic denial is telling.
What is it that I am supposed to
be denying?
Now
why don't you deploy yourself and
your children to Baghdad if you feel
so strongly about it you
What good would that do??
chickenhawk
coward.
What is a chicken hawk coward?
You and Toady BLiar, lying rightard scumbags.
"Me and Toady Blair"???? What's
that about?
"lying rightard scumbags"???
What's that???
Could you manage to say something
coherent?
|
| |
| |
n Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Carl Donaldson wrote:
"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
I can see you are to stupid
to understand. Rave on!
Ironically, for Americans, it would seem that most of the
Iraqis would prefer to have Saddam Hussein reinstated back
into power and be their president once again.
From UN's point of view, he STILL is the legitimate ruler and president
of Iraq. The US charges against him are purely made up bull#@($ and US
propaganda to justify the war anyway, with perhaps few exceptions, and
Allawi - the Saddam replacement - isn't any cleaner in this respect.
- A CIA sponsored terrorist and murderer - as "nice a guy" as Saddam
ever was.
All in all, I would say that Saddam is even the last and best hope for
peace in Iraq, since he has most of the people's backing, which nobody
else in Iraq can claim. UN should back him up and put him back into
power. - Not that they'll do it. If Kofi Annan had had the balls, he
could have spoken out and stopped the war. If he had the balls, he
could speak out and stop a lot of wars. - Unfortunately, he doesn't.
If Saddam is not reinstated, after the US fails (99% chance of that,
I would say, unless they draft more americans for gun-fodder) and
pulls out, the iraqis will be left to fight it out for themselves.
-> big bloody mess, with Mossad, Iran, Saudis, CIA/US agents, and
Martians fighting via agents and different Iraqi factions for power.
Not that Americans would ever have the guts or the balls to admit
having been mistaken about the WMD. Indeed, now that the reason for
war has changed simply to "removal of Saddam", i.e. a personal
vendetta of president Bush, it is outright impossible. They would
do better if they cut off Saddam's head and stuffed it onto a silver
plate and hung it on the White House wall for all Americans to
spit at.
The most ridiculous excuse to go to war, and die for, ever,
especially with the guy replacing him looking more or less
like Saddam's mirror-image. - It's not like anything in Iraq
will change. Allawi will still get 150% of the votes, like I
read the new elected-to-be Afghanistan "democratic" president
is going to get. - They already got a few million more voters
registered than they have eligible population for voting:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100204C.shtml
Saddam will blush with embarrassment for his mere 100% vote
in his cell, if he isn't decapitated before that.
Still, Afghanistan and Iraq's future looks at best like
"Florida sort of democracy" to me:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=566688
The fact that British put up with Blair, after such mistakes,
is another matter. I never understood the British need to suck
America's ass so much. (Nor for Aussies', for that matter.)
// Jei
No: 1 Choice for President Among Iraqis: Saddam Hussein
http://207.44.245.159/article6999.htm
From Baghdad
A Wall Street Journal Reporter's E-Mail to Friends
by Farnaz Fassihi
10/02/04 "ICH" -- Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad these days is
like being under virtual house arrest. Forget about the reasons that lured
me to this job: a chance to see the world, explore the exotic, meet new
people in far away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could
make a difference.
Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has defied all those
reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I have a very good reason to and a
scheduled interview. I avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the
streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in restaurants,
can't strike a conversation with strangers, can't look for stories, can't
drive in any thing but a full armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking
news stories, can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside,
can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't linger at
checkpoints, can't be curious about what people are saying, doing,
feeling. And can't and can't. There has been one too many close calls,
including a car bomb so near our house that it blew out all the windows.
So now my most pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story
but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay alive. In Baghdad
I am a security personnel first, a reporter second.
It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly began. Was it April
when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp of the Americans? Was it when
Moqtada and Jish Mahdi declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr
City, home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly
battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the insurgency began
spreading from isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to include most of
Iraq? Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster.
If under Saddam it was a 'potential' threat, under the Americans it has
been transformed to 'imminent and active threat,' a foreign policy failure
bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.
Iraqis like to call this mess 'the situation.' When asked 'how are thing?'
they reply: 'the situation is very bad."
What they mean by situation is this: the Iraqi government doesn't control
most Iraqi cities, there are several car bombs going off each day around
the country killing and injuring scores of innocent people, the country's
roads are becoming impassable and littered by hundreds of landmines and
explosive devices aimed t
|
| |
| |
ei wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Carl Donaldson wrote:
Ironically, for Americans, it would seem that most of the
Iraqis would prefer to have Saddam Hussein reinstated back
into power and be their president once again.
From UN's point of view, he STILL is the legitimate ruler
and president of Iraq. The US charges against him are
purely made up bull#@($ and US propaganda to justify the
war anyway, with perhaps few exceptions, and Allawi - the
Saddam replacement - isn't any cleaner in this respect. - A
CIA sponsored terrorist and murderer - as "nice a guy" as
Saddam ever was.
All in all, I would say that Saddam is even the last and
best hope for peace in Iraq, since he has most of the
people's backing, which nobody else in Iraq can claim. UN
should back him up and put him back into power. - Not that
they'll do it. If Kofi Annan had had the balls, he could
have spoken out and stopped the war. If he had the balls,
he could speak out and stop a lot of wars. - Unfortunately, he
doesn't.
If Saddam is not reinstated, after the US fails (99% chance
of that, I would say, unless they draft more americans for
gun-fodder) and pulls out, the iraqis will be left to fight it out for
themselves. -> big bloody mess, with Mossad, Iran, Saudis,
CIA/US agents, and Martians fighting via agents and
different Iraqi factions for power.
Don't foget the Turks going into northern Iraq to
quash and exterminate any ideas of a Free Kurdistan.
Not that Americans would ever have the guts or the balls to
admit having been mistaken about the WMD.
They weren't mistaken. No one in power, idiot Bu$h excepted,
actually beleived the bull#@($ and propaganda, no one.
They knew from day 1 that Saddam has NO usable WMD material.
Indeed, now that the reason for war has changed simply to "removal of Saddam",
i.e. a
personal vendetta of president Bush, it is outright impossible. They
would do better if they cut off Saddam's head and stuffed it onto
a silver plate and hung it on the White House wall for all
Americans to spit at.
OK if you put Bu$h head on a wall in Baghdad.
The most ridiculous excuse to go to war, and die for, ever,
especially with the guy replacing him looking more or less
like Saddam's mirror-image. - It's not like anything in Iraq
will change. Allawi will still get 150% of the votes, like I
read the new elected-to-be Afghanistan "democratic"
president is going to get. - They already got a few million more
voters registered than they have eligible population for voting:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100204C.shtml
Saddam will blush with embarrassment for his mere 100% vote
in his cell, if he isn't decapitated before that.
Still, Afghanistan and Iraq's future looks at best like
"Florida sort of democracy" to me:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=566688
The fact that British put up with Blair, after such
mistakes, is another matter. I never understood the British need to
suck America's ass so much. (Nor for Aussies', for that matter.)
Buncha drunken right wankers the lot of them, may they receive
all the terror retaliation they deserve.
// Jei
No: 1 Choice for President Among Iraqis: Saddam Hussein
http://207.44.245.159/article6999.htm
From Baghdad
A Wall Street Journal Reporter's E-Mail to Friends
by Farnaz Fassihi
10/02/04 "ICH" -- Being a foreign correspondent in Baghdad
these days is like being under virtual house arrest. Forget
about the reasons that lured me to this job: a chance to
see the world, explore the exotic, meet new people in far
away lands, discover their ways and tell stories that could
make a difference.
Little by little, day-by-day, being based in Iraq has
defied all those reasons. I am house bound. I leave when I
have a very good reason to and a scheduled interview. I
avoid going to people's homes and never walk in the
streets. I can't go grocery shopping any more, can't eat in
restaurants, can't strike a conversation with strangers,
can't look for stories, can't drive in any thing but a full
armored car, can't go to scenes of breaking news stories,
can't be stuck in traffic, can't speak English outside,
can't take a road trip, can't say I'm an American, can't
linger at checkpoints, can't be curious about what people
are saying, doing, feeling. And can't and can't. There has
been one too many close calls, including a car bomb so near
our house that it blew out all the windows. So now my most
pressing concern every day is not to write a kick-ass story
but to stay alive and make sure our Iraqi employees stay
alive. In Baghdad I am a security personnel first, a
reporter second.
It's hard to pinpoint when the 'turning point' exactly
began. Was it April when the Fallujah fell out of the grasp
of the Americans? Was it when Moqtada and Jish Mahdi
declared war on the U.S. military? Was it when Sadr City,
home to ten percent of Iraq's population, became a nightly
battlefield for the Americans? Or was it when the
insurgency began spreading from isolated pockets in the
Sunni triangle to include most of Iraq? Despite President
Bus
|
| |
| |
|
