ahhhh....such a fitting response...

The terrorists are only going to accomplish an escalation of action against them. No matter how awful the torture was in the prison, we didn't kill them. This filmed beheading will only cause the military to track down these guys more viciously. All the while during we find the terrorists responsible, Bush's numbers will probably go up and will be re-elected.

I think the whole prison abuse scandel is atrocious, it shows the total arrogance of our current national mindset that we are somehow on the "moral highground" in this thing. As those pictures show, we can be as bad as the terrorists.

Now, does that mean what happens to our soldiers is deserved? Not by a long shot: they didn't ask for this war, they aren't asking to be looked upon as "western oppressors" anymore than Saddam wants the world to know he really didn't have any WMDs. The fact is, the brutality that's going on in Iraq is a direct failing of our strategy in that region. We went in there, guns blazing, and forgot that after the shooting stops is when the real work begins.

The prison in Baghdad is not My Lai, it's not Auschwitz, but it is pretty damn awful, and I think we just lost the moral edge in this battle. Thanks to Bush, the world is a much scarier place than it was four years ago.

Four years ago it was just as scary, and four years ago there was a fully functional terrorist machine in Al Qaeda running, but we have weakened it somewhat now. It may seem scarier now because of all the things in the news, but four years ago in retrospect was a much scarier time.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol Four years ago it was just as scary, and four years ago there was a fully functional terrorist machine in Al Qaeda running, but we have weakened it somewhat now. It may seem scarier now because of all the things in the news, but four years ago in retrospect was a much scarier time.

I weren't talking about Al Qaeda...we pissed off a hell of a lot more Arabs than Bin Laden by now

Anywho, get my e-mail?

well for my tupence the editors of the rags that published those pictures no matter how disturbing have the blood of this poor american bloke on their hands. they knew full well the likely result of publishing these pictures at a time when we are at WAR. yes the abuse of iraqis is wrong ,we went there to liberate them not to birate them,but for fucks sake where is the common sense in these people,we have soldiers out there fighting. wether you agree we should be there or not it would be them same soldiers protecting us from any valid conflict so how can these people sit back in their little offices and play armchair moralists. if i had my way pierce morgan would have his fucking head cut off n all after the danger hes put our lot in . wanker.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> Four years ago it was just as scary, and four years ago there was a fully functional terrorist machine in Al Qaeda running, but we have weakened it somewhat now. It may seem scarier now because of all the things in the news, but four years ago in retrospect was a much scarier time.

I weren't talking about Al Qaeda...we pissed off a hell of a lot more Arabs than Bin Laden by now

Anywho, get my e-mail? I got the e-mail and re-sent it. :)

The Arabs have been pissed for a while (not financially supporting Sadat, Israel, etc.); we are just continuing to piss them off. Our main problem was the strength of organized terrorism, and the strength of these groups is not as great as before. Anyways I just hope we can buckle down and get stable states in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush and hopefully not Cheney who needs to die from a heart attack already in '04

Originally posted by Take My Hand (And Don't Let Go) For what happened to that young boy from Philadelphia: :barf: ... literally... there's nothing else to add there that can make sense for me.This war should have never have started in the first place, it was done based on false excuses (WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ANYONE ?) when it was only to adress the president's personal agenda; George W. Bush was elected only based on an electoral twist (fraud), and is leading your country to ruin.My dear American friends,Fellows from the South,Get rid of that administration before it's too late. REALLY.

Nope, he's staying. :p

All I can say is, thank God they don't want The Cure, eh lads?

Of course, that's not really all I can say...

Anybody who thinks Islam is a "religion of peace" (are you listening wee Georgie?) is a fucking moron who has obviously never heard of how Islam was spread in the first place. Muslims speak of jihad because their religion is based on killing in the name of their God. Which makes me laugh when they complain that crusaders invaded "their" land (First, Palestine was a christian land when Arab armies conquered it, only to then face invasion from the crusaders, who were trying to liberate Palestine from it's muslim conquerors. And probably pick up some spoils of war while they were at it. Second, it was 1000 fucking years ago you emotionally retarded morons. Get the fuck over it already.)

Having said all that, killing Americans who have invaded their country does not make the Iraqis terrorists. They're resisting an invading army. Is there anybody here who would collaborate with an army that invaded your country?

Nevertheless, that's not to say I think the killing is justified. It isn't. It's just sad, and shows the utter lack of moral values these killers have.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol No matter how awful the torture was in the prison, we didn't kill them.

Uhh...I'd check the papers if I were you.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> No matter how awful the torture was in the prison, we didn't kill them.

Uhh...I'd check the papers if I were you. We killed the people in the certain prison where Iraqis were tortured? I may be mistaken, but I don't remember hearing the people were tortured to death.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > > > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > No matter how awful the torture was in the prison, we didn't kill them.>

Uhh...I'd check the papers if I were you. We killed the people in the certain prison where Iraqis were tortured? I may be mistaken, but I don't remember hearing the people were tortured to death.

No, you're not mistaken. But the papers have mentioned thousands of pictures that haven't been shown yet, and have alluded that what hasn't come out yet will be much worse. I did see one photo of a dead Iraqi, who had obviously been beaten to death, in a body bag, covered with ice. NY Times, I think. Anyway, the news hasn't really come out yet, but they're preparing us for it, slowly.

NY Times? i won't believe anything unless it's in the NY Post.

Considering the whole escapade in Iraq smacks of a Bush clan vendetta, the killers could have at least had the decency to behead wee Georgie. Not that it would have damaged anything vital, mind.

Still, I guess I'd settle for the Bush twins coming over for some head.

Originally posted by Generic Hmmmm....anybody have an idea on how to fix this?

Stay the course

Originally posted by Generic Hmmmm....anybody have an idea on how to fix this?

First, George Bush has to go. He's a perennial fuck-up, and we can't afford him.

Second, we need to reevaluate Iraq's future. The notion of an "Iraqi" nation is a joke. The whole thing was held together by Saddam Hussein's sheer brutality. What we call "Iraq" is in reality at least three (and possibly more) separate peoples-- Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds-- and it's absolute fantasy to think that these people, all of whom hate each other, will live harmoniously together in a democratic republic. Pure Republican bullshit. Our next President needs to bring the international community into the administration of Iraq. Make Iraq a U.N. protectorate. Divide it into at least three regions (but as many regions as needed to make for internal harmony), each of which will remain a U.N. protectorate until it meets certain criteria for independence and self-governance. Something along the lines of the process for admission into the EU. The end result-- three or more independent nations, capable of self-governance and membership in the international community.

It's the only way out of the dilemma-- retreat, or entrench-- posed.

Perennial fuck up? Bush isn't my favorite guy in the world (Reagan is... only kidding), but Kerry politicks even more than Bush, and his past in the Senate isn't very glorious to say the least. So with Kerry we will cut the deficit in half, raise 10 million jobs, clean up the environment, lower gas prices, fix the problem in Iraq, and the conflicting list goes on. All I know is that Bush will stay in Iraq and attempt to finish the job there. With Kerry he would pull out and get the UN in there right away, and the UN is composed of nations with too many conflicting interests that they will likely bungle in Iraq. Kerry's domestic issues conflict, and his likely foreign policy also won't work. If there was a Democrat that had a clear sensible campaign I would like to get Bush out because of stupid border and tax decisions, but Bush would get my clothespin vote.

Vote for Nader; the Green Party needs the 5% vote for federal funding.

Originally posted by Generic just saw the video...it was disturbing, to say the least...and I have no more words for now...I am so enraged that anything I say would probably be inappropriate...and surely not well thought out...

I saw the video too, and hell at the moment I saw the guy hold the head up, if you gave me a gun I'd be immediately off to Iraq.

Originally posted by mike powell well for my tupence the editors of the rags that published those pictures no matter how disturbing have the blood of this poor american bloke on their hands.they knew full well the likely result of publishing these pictures at a time when we are at WAR. yes the abuse of iraqis is wrong ,we went there to liberate them not to birate them,but for fucks sake where is the common sense in these people,we have soldiers out there fighting.wether you agree we should be there or not it would be them same soldiers protecting us from any valid conflict so how can these people sit back in their little offices and play armchair moralists.if i had my way pierce morgan would have his fucking head cut off n all after the danger hes put our lot in .wanker.

i think youre absolutely wrong here. ive no time for tabloids myself, and little for piers morgan, but a few points:

1)the abuse of iraqi prisoners was mooted as a reason to oust saddam. if it is continuing under the british/us occupation force, then the citizens of these nations deserve to see it (we saw plenty of pics of saddams brutality, why not our own)

2)who are we at war with?i thought iraq was free. terrorism is not something you can fight like state nazism. the "war" on terrorism is as much about winning potential recruits to violent organisations over,as it is to stopping those already in them. whilst theree have been some sucesses on the second objective, the "west" is clearly loosing on the first.

3)the mirror printing pictures means shit. do you think that people out in iraq are reading piers morgans daily? these photos would get out anyway, through the multitude of websites, tv stations, newspapers , etc , all in the arab world. maybe if "coalition forces" diddnt strip , bugger, attack with dogs, and kill ..... yes, murder the detainees under their watch, then there would be no problem with regard to photos.

4. although not the case here, a lot of the "civilians" who have been killed in iraq are private troops, on €1000 a day to trade in their horses for humvees and go round 'raq lookin for the shit.

5. beheading is sickening. lots of us/british supported dictatorships, or regiemes do it as a matter of course. executions are terrible, but what about the 250+ fried texans that bush signed off.

6. dont get divided. this isnt a case of us and them. the ordinary people of europe,the us etc, and the ordinary people of iraq, the mid east, have a common objective - peace, stability, and a world free of prison torture and metro bambs. the leaders of the weestern countries support those countries geo-political and socio/economic goals. when we see 911, we are horrified, and saddened, when our brothers and sisters in the middle east see a regieme formally supported by "us" being overthrown by use of wmds, they are horrified. the world is divided, and ruled. by the "holy warriors" or "terrorists", by the "infadels" or by the "civilised and free world".

the only "we", is we the common people of the world. the only "them", is them our rulers. in white caves ,and white houses. millionaire$ of the world have 1 objective:to divide and rule.

I wouldn't watch Passion of The Christ, and I'm not watching this.

Originally posted by Fish On Fire http://www.ogrish.com/click above....they have it...

I wish I didn't see it; I cannot get the image out of my head now. Especially just before I fall asleep.

Okay, I just saw the video and it's horrible. Even being very bad quality video and it being hard to tell what was going on, I'd not recommend it to anyone. I don't really know what to say about it, but it saddens me very much that this happened--not that bombing the hell out of Iraq wasn't saddening also. It's not so much the act that appalls me as it is the motives; I just can't stomach religious extremism very well.

Originally posted by Fish On Fire http://www.ogrish.com/click above....they have it...

Out of respect for the the man's family I would probably remove that link. Also kids etc..

All I've been hearing lately is "Get the coalition out and the UN in". The UN couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery! And if what I've been hearing lately's even half-true, they're the ones after the oil, not America.

Originally posted by Shelley Blair All I've been hearing lately is "Get the coalition out and the UN in". The UN couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery! And if what I've been hearing lately's even half-true, they're the ones after the oil, not America.

We'd love some of that precious oil right about now, too. Gas prices here are the highest I've ever seen them.

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope > Originally posted by Shelley Blair> All I've been hearing lately is "Get the coalition out and the UN in". The UN couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery! And if what I've been hearing lately's even half-true, they're the ones after the oil, not America.

We'd love some of that precious oil right about now, too. Gas prices here are the highest I've ever seen them. Gas prices are 2.30+ here

Originally posted by Fish On Fire I'm putting it here for those that CHOOSE to see just how barbaric these animals were.

Animals don't behave like that.

Yeah I never heard animals speaking Arabic before.

I guess i shouldn't be joking around, but humor gets my mind off these things.

As long as the Americans get the Oil, nothing else matters does it?

Bush you bastard :headoff:

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope > Originally posted by Shelley Blair> All I've been hearing lately is "Get the coalition out and the UN in". The UN couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery! And if what I've been hearing lately's even half-true, they're the ones after the oil, not America.

We'd love some of that precious oil right about now, too. Gas prices here are the highest I've ever seen them.

im not sure i get you.So An international organization composed of most of the countries of the world is after the oil then? and everyone thinks this is about oil now.

a brief timeline:

1)lets but cheap oil off saddam 2)osama is our friend killing marxists in afghinastan, lets give him stingers, and other arms. 3)saddam is gassing kurds, and fighting the iranians, good on him, lets arm him. 4)saddam is acting up, and now invades other, more friendly neighbours, lets fight back. 5)osama has finished of the russian army, shit, he's looking at us kinda funny. ok, he's no longer a freedom fighter, hes a terrorist, like gadafi. 6)shit: osama attacked us. lets go to the country hes hiding out in, kill a couple of thousand civilians, and support a bunch of fundamentalist nutters, AND increase the supply of heroin onto or market by 10fold. 7)fighting terror- saddam and osama are in it together 8)saudi and morocco arent terrorists hotbeds at all..... oh no 9)well, saddam and osama arent really friends, but saddam will nuke/bio attack/etc london/newyork/etc in 60 MINS 10)we'll use DU shells and daisy cutters again, to stop them using weapons of mass destruction 11)woops, no WMDS there in iraq, ah well, we got rid of saddam, and it will now be the centre of freedom and democracy that afghanistan now isnt. 12)well set up a network of jails for "enemy combatants" streching from iraq to germany to cuba, uncle joe stalin would be proud. no need for human rights here, these guys are all terrorists, we just havent prooved it yet, but we will, in closed military hearings. 13)shit, this is a bit of a mess, just as well oil prices are rising and rising , or people would think we werent here for humanitarian reasons, but pictures from our prisons proove that we are.............erm hold on a minuite, or 60 14)a american is executed on tv. disgusting, we usually do that behind closed doors here in the states, and with world beating electric chairs, or humane injections, not anything as crude as a big dirty blade. look - he's innocent - not like the people with metal ages of a teenager we kill on a monthly basis in our state.

ah- the moral ambiguity of being a supporter of US foerign policy. shelly is right, the UN couldnt organise a tea party in a palace, but shouldnt you really question why? the UN is a collection of most of the worlds states!

Originally posted by Clockwork C [the only "we", is we the common people of the world.the only "them", is them our rulers. in white caves ,and white houses. millionaire$ of the world have 1 objective:to divide and rule.

Yet more 'civil libertarian' nonsense.

Any rational observer of global politics can see that the world is split, just like it was in the Cold war, only a difference of civilizations.

The head of states who govern the major international players have a duty to protect and serve the country they do. It is only in the vast majority of Arabic countries and totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea where power is consficated and used for the benefit of a small majority.

lets be honest, and despite what you think clockwork, people are incapable of governing themselves? Why? because of humankinds unescapble desire to better oneself. The utopian society you dream of is NEVER coming.

The argument of "we the common people" is farcicial? Why? Becuase a significant proportion of "our lot" would happily strap dynamite to themselves to kill us all.

Anyway, as i said, a government, at least in the civilised world, has a duty to protect its citizens. Whether the war in iraq was right or wrong is not for discussion here (although it is my belief that if saddam didnt have WMD, why did he play silly beggars with Hans Blix?), but, in the aftermath of 9/11, Iraq was a percived threat that needed dealing with.

also, think of domestic policy. If we had society and system you desire, where would we go for healthcare, education, social security? People wont do things for free, or for the good of a stranger. can you not see that splitting the world into those two groups of people is... well... plain wrong?

”Yet more 'civil libertarian' nonsense.”

Don’t worry Liam, Im beyond taking it personal at this stage. Ive never decended into “you’re a reactionary soandso” though.

”Any rational observer of global politics can see that the world is split, just like it was in the Cold war, only a difference of civilizations.” Please tell me how? I generally want to live peacefully with those I love (and hate) , work at a job that’s challenging, but suitable, play spoet , listen to music, etc, just like most humans, be they from my culture, or not.

”The head of states who govern the major international players have a duty to protect and serve the country they do.”

To protect and to serve? C’mon Liam, what is this “the world according to the lapd” or something. Personally, if there’s one thing I’ve learnt from watching my contempories grow up , its this : people attracted to power are c**ts, and should be watched very very closely.

“It is only in the vast majority of Arabic countries and totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea where power is confiscated and used for the benefit of a small majority” True ; power is confiscated and in the hands of the very few in these countries , as a libertarian, I view this as more disgusting than a centralist democrat like yourself (I presume), I infer from your point here that you too believe that a concentration of power is a bad thing (if it is substantially heavier than in a centralist democracy), I would argue however, that in our western “democracy”, the power is not in the parliament, but within the parameters that the market sets. If, for example, a hard left socialist government happened upon power in a country like, for example, Britain, the markets would inevitably collapse. Within a matter of months , the government would too (no fuel, no imports, etc etc, people get pissed off). Hence most hard left groups are “revolutionary” – they realise, that the market would reject them, as much as they would the market.

If you believe in the market economic model, then that’s fine, but you must too acknowledge that it sticks its finger into democratic structures, and sets strict parameters for it. But I think your next comment sums up my point nicely:

”lets be honest, and despite what you think clockwork, people are incapable of governing themselves?”,

• so I presume that you NOW think that we don’t really live in a democracy? Surely the model democracy is one in which people DO govern themselves , only via their elected representatives in parliament? You are building a load of contradictions around your points here.

“Why? because of humankinds unescapble desire to better oneself” Absolutely – we all want to better ourselves, but why not in a structure free of intermediaries , a lesser corruptible structure. Another illustration: for a Chinese person / investor into a “regime” like Saudi, to better themselves, its very very easy, a few bribes here and there, and bingo – that pipeline across he environmentally protected area is yours, those 20 hour shifts you want your workforce working? Hey presto- then in countries like ours, its slightly more contrived: take the chancellor for the exchequer out for lunch, and remind him you own a few tabloids,etc.

Everyone wants to better themselves, but this involves more than becoming filthy rich. It involves running , so you feel fitter, putting on a nice tin of fruit to try and pull that binoche-a-like in the club, developing your painterly skills, or fixing stuff about the house. To achieve this in the market society, involves money (buting that suit, those trainers, the pastels, etc), but to say that they are unattainable , or unworkable outside the market, is outrageous.

“The utopian society you dream of is NEVER coming.”

• yet more made up falsehoods about me. Ive never used the word “Utopia”. I don’t dream of a utopian society. I do think that we’ve not come far since the greeks, and we (as a human race), can do a lot better. I think what you call “government” .We are getting there. Social gains are many. Remember people went off to the First World War thinking they’d be back in a few weeks, and marched into gas filled fields wearing kilts, being led by a marching band. Humanity learned, or certainly its leaders did. From now on, there would have to be bullshit made up about war: enemies demonised, “smart bombs” , “embedded reporters”, and various inevitabilities.

”the argument of "we the common people" is farcical? Why? Because a significant proportion of "our lot" would happily strap dynamite to themselves to kill us all.” A significant proportion of “their lot” are severely disenfranchised by “our lots” market control of them. To grow up, with no water or education, under a brutal-as-fuck dictator, puppeted in by our leaders, to please the market ,and succumb to the sweet irrationality of organised religion is quite easy. I’m not appeasing terrorists here, just outlining that something went wrong when a man grows up to strap dynamite onto himself, and to address terrorism, you MUST address this. War is the most simple of answers. A significant proportion of “our lot” drop daisy cutter bombs onto villages. Lets remind ourselves why that bomb (used by the US in Afghanistan) is called a “daisy cutter” : it is designed to blow up 1m off the ground, and send a shockwave about it, at that level, decapitating everyone within a 2.5km radius.

• is that humane? NO. is it in your, or my interests ? NO, just like the dynamite strapper on ers aren’t in the interest of the Muslim worlds many normal, common people.

”Anyway, as i said, a government, at least in the civilised world, has a duty to protect its citizens.”

• Dealt with above. Note : protecting civilians also involves supporting Saddam and Osama until quite recently, and now supporting Gadafi! I mean fucking Gadafi! How long till we (i.e. our leaders/rulers and the Libyan leader/ruler) fall out and we daisy cut libya, and liberate it, and torture its civilians, and kill them too? Well maybe when he acts up over the €20 odd billion oil wells that have gone in there since the market (yes there’s the M word) saw fit.
• “Whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong is not for discussion here” – this thread is about the beheading of an American Civilian in Iraq !!!
• “ (although it is my belief that if saddam didnt have WMD, why did he play silly beggars with Hans Blix?)” Surely if he had WMDs, he have used them IN THE WAR. Think like a horrible dictator for a moment here. And isn’t a daisy cutter a WMD ?

“but, in the aftermath of 9/11, Iraq was a percived threat that needed dealing with.” Unlike, say morocco, where a huge huge percentage of terror organisations operate out of, or Saudi ? (see both 911 and Madrid 311)

”also, think of domestic policy. If we had society and system you desire, where would we go for healthcare, education, social security? People wont do things for free, or for the good of a stranger.”

Im talking about a socio economic model here, not some sort of a free for all charity. Hundreds of years of action, from KingMob to King Mob, thousands of texts from the finest minds, from Michael Bakunin to Noam Chomsky, and Uncle Liam is concerned that in a Libertarian society , there yould be no healthcare? As a certain Tony Wilson would say in a certain p.o.s. film “you should proberbally read more”. That last statement displays ignorance beyond any reasonable scale.

“can you not see that splitting the world into those two groups of people is... well... plain wrong?” terrorists and armies vs civilians. Quite sumple really. The leaders are dividing, and will soon rule. Osama and the religious in their quarter, george and the market in their quarter.

I have no qualms about saying it. On both sides, the common people loose. Ive sided with them, I am one. So are you!

Originally posted by Shelley Blair All I've been hearing lately is "Get the coalition out and the UN in". The UN couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery! And if what I've been hearing lately's even half-true, they're the ones after the oil, not America.

This is patent nonsense.

First, the search for WMDs was conducted by the UN. The ostensible reason we went to war was because Saddam Hussein was obstructing the UN weapons inspectors from doing their job. In fact, their job was never completed, because we wouldn't let them complete the job after Saddam agreed to let them resume. That hardly speaks of UN ability to organize "a piss-up in a brewery"; rather, it speaks of the inability of the UN to carry out its mission when the US is obstructing UN efforts.

Second, I'm a bit surprised at your statement, coming from a Brit. Have you no knowledge of your own government's involvement in Iraq, pre-Bush? The League of Nations (pre-cursor to the United Nations) established Iraq as a "mandate" under British administration. When the British handed control over to the Iraqi government they set up, they secured for themselves the oil concession. The Monarchy the British established was later overthrown in a coup. It was British administration, not the incompetence of the League of Nations, that led to the Iraq we have today. The link I provided is a bit of a long read, but the parallels between British administration and American administration are striking.

The League of Nations organized Iraq as a British "mandate," and the UN is equally capable of establishing Iraq as a protectorate until it is capable of self-governance without devolving into bloodshed. The only thing preventing the UN from doing that is the US/UK coalition.

Third, your statement that the UN is after the oil doesn't make an ounce of sense. The UN is an international organization composed of independent, sovereign nations. What would the UN, as opposed to the member states, do with Iraqi oil? And who is controlling Iraqi oil now? Not the Iraqis. Under UN authority (secured ex post facto), the US controls Iraqi oil. And what companies benefit? Until recently, American and British oil companies. The accusation of UN designs on Iraqi oil is a smokescreen; you would do well to at least look at who's blowing the smoke before you adopt that smokescreen as your own position.

The fact remains that the US has no easy way out of Iraq now. Internationalizing the administration of Iraq allows us to make a graceful exit. Retaining control of Iraq leads to entrenchment or retreat.

You can't ignore the fact of France's, Russia's and Germany's interest in Iraq for oil. Why do you think they were so adamant in opposing US military action against Iraq: Oil for food program! If the UN is involved, then the US will surely have to appease these three nations with strong oil incentives that maybe the US does not want to give.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol Perennial fuck up? Bush isn't my favorite guy in the world (Reagan is... only kidding), but Kerry politicks even more than Bush, and his past in the Senate isn't very glorious to say the least. So with Kerry we will cut the deficit in half, raise 10 million jobs, clean up the environment, lower gas prices, fix the problem in Iraq, and the conflicting list goes on. All I know is that Bush will stay in Iraq and attempt to finish the job there. With Kerry he would pull out and get the UN in there right away, and the UN is composed of nations with too many conflicting interests that they will likely bungle in Iraq. Kerry's domestic issues conflict, and his likely foreign policy also won't work. If there was a Democrat that had a clear sensible campaign I would like to get Bush out because of stupid border and tax decisions, but Bush would get my clothespin vote.

It's been well-established that Bush fucked up the companies he owned. Now, surprisingly, he's fucked up in Iraq. That makes him a perennial fuck-up.

I agree that coming up with an internationally-agreed plan for administering Iraq is not necessarily an easy task. However, the alternative you propose, staying in Iraq, doesn't resolve Jeff's original question about what to do now that we're there-- entrench, or retreat. If we retreat, we lose face. If we entrench, we will still retreat, when the casualties no longer make sense. And all those lives will have been lost for nothing. Unless Americans consider a short-term savings of 20 cents at the pump worth the cost in American blood.

Even Bush isn't proposing to stay (of course, he's a lying piece of shit, so who really knows what his plan is). Bush is proposing to hand-off the government of Iraq at the end of this year. After which, I predict a bloody civil war. Bush the liberator, indeed.

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol You can't ignore the fact of France's, Russia's and Germany's interest in Iraq for oil. Why do you think they were so adamant in opposing US military action against Iraq: Oil for food program! If the UN is involved, then the US will surely have to appease these three nations with strong oil incentives that maybe the US does not want to give.

It's not our oil. The Iraqi's have a sovereign right to sell to whoever they want. Competition of the free market, isn't that what the Republicans are always yammering on about?

Originally posted by Fish On Fire I'm putting it here for those that CHOOSE to see just how barbaric these animals were.

I'm still waiting to hear denunciations of this from Muslims. Maybe I've missed it, or maybe the media isn't reporting it, but I haven't heard any statements from the middle east denouncing the beheading. I have heard a lot of outrage, well-justified in my opinion, in the US over our own misconduct in the Iraqi prisons. But where's the Muslim outrage over the beheading of a civilian? If, as that fuckwit Bush says, Islam is a "religion of peace," where's the outrage?

At least in America, Muslims are taking some steps toward that:

U.S. Islamic Leaders Call on Faithful to Denounce TerrorismNew campaign is aimed to counter anti-Muslim diatribes on radio talk shows and the Internet.

By Larry B. Stammer Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 14, 2004

Alarmed by resurgent anti-Muslim rhetoric in the aftermath of the beheading of an American in Iraq, U.S. Muslim leaders launched a new campaign Thursday to disassociate their faith from terrorism.

In Washington, the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on the nation's Muslims to sign an online petition to declare that terrorism betrays Islam and that American Muslims abhor it.

In Los Angeles, Muslim leaders said that the beheading of American businessman Nicholas Berg would be condemned in as many as 50 mosques that are part of the Shura Council of Southern California. Berg was killed by a man identified Thursday by the CIA as Abu Musab Zarqawi, who is considered an ally of Osama bin Laden.

The Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council said it was stepping up a months-long effort to gather Muslim leaders and members of Congress on the steps of the Capitol to denounce terrorism.

Although Muslims have faced criticism and hostility before, such as after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Berg's slaying has prompted new outrage directed at Islamic leaders.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and others said Muslims were being painted with a broad brush on radio talk shows and on Internet sites. Hooper said talk-show callers were asking why Muslims were not condemning the brutality.

The new American Muslim campaign, "Not in the Name of Islam," is "one way we can get that word out," Hooper said of the online petition drive.

Aslam Abdullah, editor of the Minaret, a national Islamic magazine published in Los Angeles, said: "Those people who claim they beheaded Berg have been killing innocent people for the last several years…. They are basically exploiting the case of the Iraqi prisoners. It's an ungodly, un-Islamic act. I have no hesitation in saying they are not Muslims."

Salam Al-Marayati, director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, called Berg's killing barbaric. He rejected any connection between Berg's beheading and the brutal treatment and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad by U.S. troops. Berg's decapitation "was actually a stab in the heart of Islam," Al-Marayati said.

Abdullah said a prayer vigil at the Los Angeles Federal Building was planned for May 22 for Berg and the Iraqi prisoners.

"It's important," Hooper said, "that Muslims do their part to try and break this downward spiral of mutual hostility and hatred that seems to be engulfing the entire world."

Actually, I think I read that a number of Arab countries denounced the beheading.

I don't think its right to call on all muslims to denounce terrorism, beheading etc, of course they do.every muslim I know is horrifies by these barbaric acts. If I am a catholic, should I make a public apology every time the IRA kill someone, as a socialist, should I have expressed regret every time badder and mienhoff knocked off a judge or two?

No terorsit group is accountable to those it claims to represent. governments are, or at least should be.

As a Socialist I apologise for Blair

As an agnostic catholic I aint apologisin for fook all.

Politics aside ,Berg was fuckin naive in the extreme , bringin politics back in, what on earth shaped his world view to the extent , he thought Iraq an ideal place to make his fortune ?

Originally posted by Clockwork C I don't think its right to call on all muslims to denounce terrorism, beheading etc, of course they do.every muslim I know is horrifies by these barbaric acts. If I am a catholic, should I make a public apology every time the IRA kill someone, as a socialist, should I have expressed regret every time badder and mienhoff knocked off a judge or two? No terorsit group is accountable to those it claims to represent. governments are, or at least should be.

Why not?

The IRA, as far as i'm aware, NEVER killed someone and said they did it in the name of the Pope or God. No, it was always something to do with the political aim. Nearly everytime al-qaeda (or Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or the other twelve islamic terrorist groups listed on the US state depts. list) do something, its in the name of Allah, or Islam.

Credit to your Muslim friends for being disgusted, but where are the Muslim leaders? Where is the voice of conventional islam?

This is a problem. In 1994, a Jewish Settler named Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Muslims in prayer. Condemnation of this act came from 99% of jewish organisations, from the bottom right through to Yitzhak Rabin.

Similarly, George Bush wasted NO time at all in condeming any retalitory attacks against american muslims straight after 9/11.

Exactly my point. I don't expect every Muslim to step forward with a denunciation. But I suspect the clerics and ayatollahs are, if not openly praising it, at least keeping their silence as far as condemning it. They're the true leaders of Islamic society; they have the influence, and I'm wondering how they're using that influence.

And yeah, Garymac, Berg was an idiot to think he could wander around Iraq looking for work. Not that he deserved it, but if he had used his head a little more carefully, he might still have it.

First and foremost, when reading Chomsky, you might want to take into consideration that he is a linguist, undoubtedly a legendary one, but he has no professional credentials in any other field of social science. I for one would treat his one sided opinions with a pinch of salt.

Ever heard of the realist doctrine of International relations? You know, people like E.H Carr and Hans Morgenthau? The doctrine describes International Politics AS IT IS. Not the imperialist nonsense that Chomsky comes out with, basically, not a doctrine with the main focus being the delegitimasation of the israeli state and US foreign policy through the spread of disinformation.

By reading this, you will see that States act in their own self interest. Whether they be Western, Eastern, northern or southern, regardless of religion. Take Gaddafi for instance. Yes, Gaddafi is an evil man and has blood of many on his hands. But what would you rather have, the continuation of sanctions, and gaddafi looking to destroy Israel and the west in general. Or Libya as a peaceful, properous part of North Africa? It is my belief that after North Korea, Libya was next on the list when Jeb Bush takes over the presidency. I for one welcome the triumph of diplomacy over force in this situation.

I still cannot see where that socio economic model is coming from, nevermind how it would work. Didnt the Cold War teach you that state controlled ownership doesnt work, and is effectively totalitarian. can you not see how the society you live in, one of the most improved economies of the last thirty years, has given you the opportunity to be successful. the market economy works, in england, there is no more boom and bust, europe is on the road to economic recovery, and depsite what has happened, western europe has never had anything as bad as the results of years of marxist based economies.

So, the sources of terrorism. Having jsut wrote a 3000 word essay on this, added to my dissertation. Terrorism is caused by anti-market resentment. Just not the way you see it. remember, for centuries, Islam was the the most advanced civilisation on the planet. Then, particularly in the last fifty years, it has fallen by the way side. Now, it limps behind not only europe, but also some of east asia, like South Korea and Japan. This is anti market resentment, but because the market has advanced and left them behind.

The best example of suicide bombers, Palestinians. Quick history lesson: 1948, israel estabished, week later, arab states declare war of extermination against Israel. Israel wins. 1967, Egypt starts war with israel, other arab states, including Palestine join in, israel occupies territories to maintain its own security. fast forward to 2001, Palestinian state offered, and REJECTED BY PALESTINIAN SIDE. Suicide bombings intensify, Israels defensive intensifys. The cause of suicide bombers is the muslim leaders themselves. Yasser Arafat is entirely at fault for the ongoing war in Israel. He is on of the major reasons why suicide bombings exist, along with all the hardline fundamentalist clerics who are anti american, anti semetic, anti western.

And guess what? Who is responsible for Islam being left behind? the Islamic leaders themselves. Those who build grand palaces well the population can go screw themselves and the economy can go to pot.

Any reasonable observer can see this.

On Chomsky, I tend to take everyones opinions with a pinch of salt, its good practice, be they hayek or Trotsky. Chomsky, as a libertarian would delegitimise any state. On Israel, even the most ardent supporter must deal with the FACTS. Principally that it is an institutionally racist state, by its definition. Constitutionally , and institutionally as racist as south Africa was back in the day. This isn’t disinformation, it’s the states own constitution. Israel has exercised a reactionary approach to terrorism since its founding and should be a warning to the rest of the world of such a policy. As I said before, I have no problem condemning Israel as one of the worlds primary human rights violaters . These are merely facts. The “offers” to Palestinians are beyond a joke.if you wish, we can discuss all that on another thread, but I figure its an aside.

I have never known of him to spread any “disinformation” (unlike, say Michael Moore, who takes a liberal view with actual statistics) . I don’t think you need a degree in social science to see some fundamentally flawed things in the world, objectively analyse them, and offer an opinion. Drawing the correlation between university qualifications and the quality of your opinion is wrong. There are plenty of reasons why someone might be unqualified to write on an issue, but I don’t see that as one of them.

States act in their own self interest indeed, but once you scratch beneath that, and see whose interest the state represents (certainly western market states, and totalitarian states), you will see that the interest of majority of the states “weige earning” citizens are not represented. Take the “war on terror” at face value, after 911 bush went on a worldwide mission to fight terror. He proposed to do this essentially by force. As I said before, why not butter up saddam, like he did Gadafi ? or bomb Gadafi like he did Sadam? Or better still, why not go into the 2 most concentrated areas of world terrorism, namely Morocco and Saudi? I happen to think the way to deal with scum like Gadafi is to “talk” to him, bring him “into” the block, and deal with his authoritarian rule ,but back to the war on terror, Saudi and Gadafi are totalitarian states, with brutal leaders, in Saudis case informed by 1 families religion. As another Israel, and “harbourer of terrorists”, you would wonder why bush picked up Saddam, but that would be if you believed he was acting out of the primary interest of stopping terrorist attacks, and not after Saudis cheap oil, Iraqs huge reserves, and of course, this new $20bn deal Blair just struck with Gadafi like I do.

you cannot say Gadafi is a “triumph of diplomacy over force” while force was necessary in Iraq. This is the like I don’t understand from you Uncle Liam. Do you not think that maybe, JUST MAYBE the fact that Saddam was playing monkey with “our” oil , while the colonel wasn’t MAY have something to do with it(the $20 bn was small change compared with whats to come, or so that bastion of libertarian socialism “the financial times ” tells me)

Do you think that giving water to the entirety of sub Saharan Africa , instead of spending tens (maybe hundreds?) of billions of dollars MAY reduce desperation in these countries. Do you think that spending money on schools, water, health care, and progressive infrastructure in the hotbeds of terrorism, instead of bombing houses and daisy cutting (an atrocity you conveniently failed to address in your response, you usually avoid such minor asides) entire villages MAY result in less people from these countries gassing the tube, or blowing up skyscrapers, or decapitating engineers?

The model of dealing with terrorism, the reactionary, military cantered “war” response has been tried. Its called Israel. And so long as people are blocked by 30ft high walls, helicopter gunshipped, and murdered on a wide scale by a state (or the west), I’m afraid a certain percentage of them will react too.

As for the economics of anarchism, there is a saying “liberty without socialism is privilage and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery”. I don’t admire or aspire to any authoritarian state. I thought you’d have picked that up from the whole “libertarian” thing you seem so willing to slag off whislt showing brave ignorance of it.

The market economy works, for 2% of the worlds populace, for a further 15 its alright, and for the billions living on under $2 a day, its not so hot. Im acutely aware of my place in the market economy, and so should you. I don’t think people can be brought out of poverty by bulldozing their culture, giving them a 20 hour night shift, and then sending bob geldof a few bob when it gets particularally hot.

Islam is a religion. A set of moral parameters. To say the market has “left Islam behind” is ludicrous. Maybe youd post that 3000 word essay, id be enthralled!

Simple illustration. Has the Muslim man running a convenience store been left behind by the market? Nope? Muslims are at all strata of society in , for example , England. Their religion doenst make them out of sync with the market.

Western supported, post colonial Totalitarianism (and formally USSR supported totalitarianism ) has ruined Islamic states. Left many without education, and basic needs. That’s the root cause of terrorism, not a fucking religion. Religion preys on the ignorant, and offers a kindly excuse for leaders to do as they please. Be they protestant Texan governors letting mentally retarded murderers have the chair, or bearded Muslim leaders telling kids that they should blow up school busses full of infidels. Once a set of moral absolutes are there, its just a matter of shifting them around a bit.

Your history of Israel and Palestine is so selective, it would make Michael Moore proud! “1948, israel estabished, week later, arab states declare war of extermination against Israel,Israel wins”

Please, please dont call Chomsky a spreader of half truths after that. My god!

the leaders of the Islamic movement are indeed (mostly) reactionary, anti semites. The cause of Suicide bombers IS indeed their own, but it is NOT the cause of the ordinary, decent people of Islam, JUST as the cause of Ariel Sharon is NOT that of the Israeli civilian, just as the cause of George Bush is not that of the people of America.

Please realise this.

These totalitarian leaders cause IS that of Bush, when they oppress a people for his markets benefit. It is not his, when they oppress a people for their own wealth , or someone elses market.

Also, a few points to Uncle Liam. You said on another thread that I support Suicide bombers. I do not, and never even indicated so. Please remove this.

Also, when you do blurt out a half truth or ten, and I take the time to reply to it, please post back your reasons for doing so in the first place – I always do.

Nice thread

Originally posted by Jeff White hey...Dubya is vindicated...they found an artillery shell with serin in it....Iraq had A weapon of mass distruction, or biological weapon...we can all sleep safer now that this lone shell has been discovered...

That was no lone shell, there was one on the grassy knoll

Astroturf

Seriously though, Conor, you make some valid points, you also make those points well.

I've probably been actively interested in politics for about 25 years now , and I've seen and heard some rhetoric time and time again , my opinions will always be in a state of flux . Uncle Liam you seem to dismiss Chomsky as he is a linguist, what qualifications do you reccomend to have a world view ? It's his world view after all , one of the most politicaly astute people I know is a 67 year old retired engineer, his debating partner is a retired bricklayer.

Let's not lose our heads over this...

My entire problem with Chomsky is that he is foisted above pretty much every single other academic, for seemingly no good reason. He has no professional credentials in this area, yet he has taught in Harvards school of government.

Chomsky readers might be interested to find a book called memoire en defense by a man called robert faurisson. A extremely interesting tome, with the main points being holocaust denial and the labelling of anne franks diary as a "forgery". Yet chomsky was prepared to lend his acedemic reputation to Faurissons "findings" that were based on "extensive historical research" Chomsky even went so far as to write an introduction for his next book!

I have no problem at all with people voicing their opinions, in fact, i openly encourage it. However, when one mans opinion, especially when it is as perverse as chomskys often is, is foisted above everyone elses, thats what i have a problem with.

I would also think long and hard, and provide factual evidence, when you suggest that Israel is an "institutionally racist state." Admiteddly, Israel is jewish state, but in practice it is largely secular and offers complete freedom of religion to Muslims, Christians and other religions.

I assume you were also referring to Israels law of return. Of course, it seems that Israel is subjected to the usual double standard that the vast majority of people claim. Germany has a law of return, as does Russia, yet i very rarely, if ever heard these states categorised as racist.

Yet non jews are also entitled to citinship in Israel. in April 1999, Israel rescued 100 hundred albanian refugees from kosovo and invited them to live in Kibbutz Maagan Michael. Israel has also taken in many non jews from the former soviet union.

Admittedly, there is some discrimination in israel. Muslims cannot serve in the army (but the question must be posed, how many of them would fight fellow arabs?). Ona different note, in 2002, the Israeli supreme court ruled that the government may not allocate land on grounds of religion or ethinicity.

Of course, if we want to talk about "institutionally racist states" then we need look no further than the arab states, many of whom practice south african like apartheid against non muslims. Jordan is perhaps the best example, a country that has a law of return that explicity denies all jews the right to citizenship. Indeed, its law states that citizenship is open to "any person who is not jewish."

And as for "leaving islam behind." This is also the view of professor bernard lewis, arguably the western worlds most foremost scholar on Islam. Check out his book "what went wrong? western impact and middle eastern response."

Back to Israel. I would hardly call the 2001 offer at Taba a "joke" Hell, Prince Bander of Saudi Arabia called Arafats rejection of the offer as "a crime against the entire region." The offer satisfied UN resolution 242 and Israel offered to provide $30 Billion in compensation. The offer also gave Palestinian control over 97% of jerusalem, with the exception of the jewish and armenian quarters as well as control of Gaza and West Bank. One wonders what else Barak could have offered, short of the dissolution of the Israeli state.

And if this offer was so bad, how come Arafat did not even offer any form of counter proposal? EVERYONE (apart from Noam Chomsky, who, is a lecture to Harvard University on 25th November 2002 stated "Israel called off the Taba negotiations) from arab princes to george bush, blamed arafat for the collapse and the subsequent collapse of order.

Essay on the rise of international terrorism will be emailed (so i can provide full references) tomorrow. I have had to have it emailed to me as it not on this computer.

First up, I admire Chomsky’s own writing, not those he supports, or lends introductions too (I really couldn’t tell you about the Robert Faurisson link or anything). All Chomsky’s books come with detailed references, the man offers his opinion, and, as a linguist, articulates it far better than most. I’m studying engineering (which I don’t happen to like too much), and would liken Chomsky reading to reading a technical text. Exact, and concise. You are obviously not a libertarian, and so it bothers you that he is so highly recognised. Should I disregard Bernard Lewis because he is a lawyer? Chomsky is only one in a long line of writers on libertarianism, my point was that another post of yours seemed to show a blind ignorance, and yet a disdain for libertarianism.

Your line on Israel seems to be “o.k. It’s institutionally racist, but so is x.y. & Z”. Do you see me defending Jordan, or Saudi? Germany, by the way, is bounded by (at least up until this case yesterday) EU law.

Would you say that Israel’s reactionary approach to terrorism has worked? Please explain.

The law of return is an explicitly racist law. You say as much. There’s no double standard there. Why is it, that under Israeli employment law, a Jew must have a certain minimum weige, a Christian must have another, and a Muslim must have another? Sounds like straight ahead racism to me.

Have I defended Saudi? Or Jordan? Or Israel?

Why criticise Jordan, and Saudi, and not Israel? Why bomb Iraq, Afghanistan, and not Libya? Why give unqualified support to Indonesia, and North Korea?

Give me ANY of the above states, and ill gladly tell you my problem with them. Racist? Yes, some dictatorial, but, some supported by the west, while others aren’t?

Why not go into morocco? Or Saudi? If you support a reactionary “war” on terror why not start here?

Why not post back dealing with these issues, besides narking on about some writer Chomsky wrote a forward to?

As for the “Muslims being left behind in the market”, well please tell me how Mohamed al Fayed has been left behind in the market?

As is said, it’s the post colonial ,western supported dictators, and racist states that are to blame.

And as I also said, the “leaders” of the Palestinian movement represent their people in the same way the Israeli state represents the 100000 of its people that marched for peace on Saturday.

Aslo: where is Michael Mc Dermott?