Black Hawk Down Revisited
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Sunday Herald
04 June 2006
Black Hawk Down Revisited
Somalia is still ruled by the brutal warlords who dragged
dead US soldiers through the streets in 1993. But times
change. Now they are America's new allies in the war on terror
THIRTEEN years after President Bill Clinton withdrew forces
from Somalia, in the "Black Hawk down" shambles, American
security officials are giving clandestine support to the
same warlords who mutilated and humiliated US soldiers in 1993.
The American Operation, in breach of the United Nations'
arms embargo on Somalia and therefore in breach of
international law, is controlled through the US Embassy in
Kenya and Washington's 1800-strong Combined Joint Task Force
in Djibouti, on Somalia's northern border.
The Combined Joint Task Force, under Admiral Richard Hunt,
is an anti-terrorist operation for the troubled Horn of
Africa, but most specifically for Somalia, which has had no
effective government since 1991 and is seen as an ideal
place for al-Qaeda activists to hide and plot attacks.
Somalia is only a short boat ride from Yemen and is a
historic doorway to Africa from the Middle East. No visas
are needed to enter Somalia and there is no police force.
The country has a weak and ineffective transitional
government operating largely out of neighbouring Kenya. Most
of Somalia is in mayhem and lawlessness, ruled by a
patchwork of competing warlords; the capital is too unsafe
for even Somalia's acting prime minister to visit.
The US, terrified that Islamists allied to al-Qaeda are
gaining control in Somalia, has turned to the kind of
warlords who once dragged dead American soldiers through the
streets of Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, as its new allies
in the "war on terror".
Africa Confidential, the London-based intelligence
newsletter, reports in its latest edition: "CIA staff
certainly helped to organise the [Somali warlord] Alliance,
with, we hear, the involvement of at least one National
Intelligence Support Group." Patrick Smith, editor of Africa
Confidential, told the Sunday Herald: "If what is happening
now in Somalia was happening in Latin America, it would be a
new Iran-Contra scandal." He is referring to the biggest
political scandal in the United States during the 1980s. It
involved several members of the Reagan administration who in
1986 helped sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the
proceeds to fund the Contras, a right-wing guerrilla group
in Nicaragua.
The Somali Alliance -- or, more fully, the Alliance for the
Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism [ARPCT] -- is a
group of once-discredited warlords who, with Washington's
backing as "counter-terrorists", depict their own opponents
in perhaps the world's most anarchistic theatre as agents of
al-Qaeda.
So far, the efforts of the US-backed Alliance have met with
no success. No "terrorists" have been detained, and Alliance
forces have not fared well in ferocious house-to-house
fighting against Islamist militias that control most of
Mogadishu.
The fighting in Mogadishu has been the heaviest in years.
According to Africa Confidential, more than 200 people died
in the Somali capital between May 7 and 12, at least 1000
were injured, and the price of ammunition almost tripled in
two days, with Kalashnikov bullets rising from 60 cents to
US$1.50.
The focus of US concern in Somalia is the Supreme Council of
the United Islamic Courts, set up in 2004 to restore some
kind of order in Somalia, along with an Islamic government
in a country where Somalis generally have a laidback and
flexible interpretation of Islam and distrust the kind of
foreigners who make up the leadership of al-Qaeda.
The Supreme Council began with five courts, which agreed on
a joint militia of 400 men and 19 trucks mounted with
machineguns, but which also began building schools and
hospitals, an achievement unmatched by any other centre of
power in Somalia. "By early 2005, 11 courts had joined, able
to deploy at least 1500, possibly 5000, militiamen," reports
African Confidential.
One court chairman, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, warned
President George Bush in a letter that the US would "lose
the war it is waging against the Somali people" through the
warlord Alliance.
Though the Supreme Council denies links to al-Qaeda, the
militia commander of one court, Adan Hashi Ayro, was trained
in Afghanistan and led an attack that desecrated an Italian
cemetery in Mogadishu. Ayro is widely held responsible for
the killing of five Western aid workers and BBC journalist
Kate Peyton in February last year.
US officials have refused repeated requests by their own
country's news organisations to provide details about the
nature and extent of Washington's support for the alliance
of warlords. One senior official in the US capital told the
Washington Post: "We've got very clear interests in trying
to ensure that al-Qaeda members are not using it to hide and
to plan attacks."
The same newspaper reported a senior intelligence official
as saying Somalia is "not an al-Qaeda safe haven" yet,
before adding: "There are some there, but it's so
dysfunctional." US officials specifically believe that a
small number of al-Qaeda operatives who were involved in the
1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are now
living in Somalia.
The avenues through which the US is arming the warlords
appear to be multiple. Arms have arrived from Italy, the
United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Yemen, according to
Africa Confidential, which also noted that CIA director
Porter Goss visited Somalia in February before his as-yet
unexplained resignation in April. Several hundred thousands
of dollars were then flown into an airstrip for the warlords
and a CIA list of al-Qaeda operatives whom the agency
believed were in Mogadishu was also handed over.
"In February, Alliance fighters were unusually well-equipped
with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and
multiple-barrelled anti-aircraft machineguns," said the
newsletter, adding that the weapons supply was backed "with
Pentagon enthusiasm". Africa Confidential said it had no
doubt that al-Qaeda militants move easily in and out of
Somalia. They have sophisticated weapons, including
surface-to-air missiles. Al-Qaeda uses Somalia because its
long border with Kenya is porous, cross-border clan links
are strong, it has a long coastline and the "failed state"
has no counter-terrorist capacity other than the US-backed
warlords.
The immediate problem for the US administration, the CIA and
the Combined Joint Task Force in Djibouti is that the United
Islamic Courts are confident that they can win most battles
and widen the conflict. They are also less unpopular than
the warlords.
On Friday tens of thousands of people took to the streets of
Mogadishu angrily condemning the United States for
supporting the warlords' alliance.
"The courts' militias have earned some popular praise for
bringing a semblance of order in areas under their control,
something the warlord factions have been unable or unwilling
to do," said Abdullhai Shirwa, a member of Civil Society in
Action, an umbrella organisation of more than a dozen
anti-violence groups in Mogadishu. The courts may hand down
brutal punishments according to Sharia law but civilians
assert that, unlike the warlords, they do not rob and loot
ordinary people.
Although the US government is deeply into "plausible
deniability mode" over its new alliance with Somalia's
warlords, Red Cross and other aid agency officials report
seeing "many Americans with thick necks and short haircuts
moving around [Somalia], carrying big suitcases", according
to one aid official quoted by Newsweek. And a senior US
political officer, Michael Zorick, in the embassy in
Nairobi, the CIA hub for East Africa and The Horn, has been
removed from his post after he wrote a critical report on
the Somalia policy. The dissenting officer has been silenced
and sent to the US Embassy in Chad.
"He really decided to take up the battle. He realised very
well what he was doing," said a Western diplomat close to
Zorick who asked not to be identified.
Many American critics are worried that the Bush
administration is focusing too much on the potential
terrorist threat from Somalia at the expense of supporting
economic development initiatives that could provide
alternative ways of living for young men other than picking
up a gun or dabbling in fundamentalist Islamic ideologies.
Somalia experts and Somalis have also said there has not
been enough substantial support for building a new
government after 15 years without one.
"If the real problem is Somalia, then what have we done to
change the situation inside Somalia?" asked Ted Dagne, the
leading Africa analyst for the Congressional Research
Service in Washington. "Are we funding schools, health care
or helping establish an effective government?
"We have a generation of Somali kids growing up without
education and only knowing violence and poverty. Unless
there is a change, these could become the next warlords out
of necessity for survival. That's perhaps the greatest
threat we have yet to address."
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"Don't just question authority,
Don't forget to question me."
-- Jello Biafra
James A. Donald
> THIRTEEN years after President Bill Clinton withdrew
> forces from Somalia, in the "Black Hawk down"
> shambles, American security officials are giving
> clandestine support to the same warlords who mutilated
> and humiliated US soldiers in 1993.
Not quite the same warlords. One of these "warlords" is
also an American Marine.
These "warlords" defended themselves when Americans
attacked them. Why were Americans attacking them? To
reimpose a dictatorial and unpopular government on
Somalia.
It was a stupid idea to attempt to impose that
government, as Republicans pointed out at the time, and
now that that idea has been dumped, (at least in
America, though the UN still persists) there is no
obstacle to Americans working with their former enemies.
After America withdrew, Mohamed Farrah Aidid proceeded
to mend fences with America.
Secondly, it is not the same "warlords": Aidid was
killed by his enemies. His son and successor is an
American Somali, an expatriate citizen of America, who
proudly declares himself to be an American and an
American marine: "once a marine, always a marine"
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
G*rd*n
> > THIRTEEN years after President Bill Clinton withdrew
> > forces from Somalia, in the "Black Hawk down"
> > shambles, American security officials are giving
> > clandestine support to the same warlords who mutilated
> > and humiliated US soldiers in 1993.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> Not quite the same warlords. One of these "warlords" is
> also an American Marine.
>
> These "warlords" defended themselves when Americans
> attacked them. Why were Americans attacking them? To
> reimpose a dictatorial and unpopular government on
> Somalia.
>
> It was a stupid idea to attempt to impose that
> government, as Republicans pointed out at the time, and
> now that that idea has been dumped, (at least in
> America, though the UN still persists) there is no
> obstacle to Americans working with their former enemies.
> After America withdrew, Mohamed Farrah Aidid proceeded
> to mend fences with America.
>
> Secondly, it is not the same "warlords": Aidid was
> killed by his enemies. His son and successor is an
> American Somali, an expatriate citizen of America, who
> proudly declares himself to be an American and an
> American marine: "once a marine, always a marine"
James, you used to at least rewrite the boilerplate.
How can you demean yourself to be a transmission
tube for that kind of crap? It was probably composed
by a subnormal drone in a back room at the Pentagon.
"Once a marine, always a marine" -- A bit redolent,
don't you think?
James A. Donald
> > Secondly, it is not the same "warlords": Aidid was
> > killed by his enemies. His son and successor is an
> > American Somali, an expatriate citizen of America,
> > who proudly declares himself to be an American and
> > an American marine: "once a marine, always a marine"
G*rd*n:
> James, you used to at least rewrite the boilerplate.
> How can you demean yourself to be a transmission tube
> for that kind of crap? It was probably composed by a
> subnormal drone in a back room at the Pentagon. "Once
> a marine, always a marine" -- A bit redolent, don't
> you think?
Complain to Hussein Mohamed Farrah, Somali "warlord" and
American Marine. He said it, not me.
America's attack on Somalis, like its attack on Haiti,
was socialist imperialism, and you guys supported it,
and, as is evident from the original post, support it
still. You guys support the American government when,
and only when, it engages in self destructive evil.
G*rd*n
> > > Secondly, it is not the same "warlords": Aidid was
> > > killed by his enemies. His son and successor is an
> > > American Somali, an expatriate citizen of America,
> > > who proudly declares himself to be an American and
> > > an American marine: "once a marine, always a marine"
G*rd*n:
> > James, you used to at least rewrite the boilerplate.
> > How can you demean yourself to be a transmission tube
> > for that kind of crap? It was probably composed by a
> > subnormal drone in a back room at the Pentagon. "Once
> > a marine, always a marine" -- A bit redolent, don't
> > you think?
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> Complain to Hussein Mohamed Farrah, Somali "warlord" and
> American Marine. He said it, not me.
>
> America's attack on Somalis, like its attack on Haiti,
> was socialist imperialism, and you guys supported it,
> and, as is evident from the original post, support it
> still. You guys support the American government when,
> and only when, it engages in self destructive evil.
That's nice. Unfortunately, it is a fable. In any
case, my criticism was literary, not political. I
don't like to see your usual crazed-trot ranting style
decline into mass-media pap. Shape up.
As for Somalia, dare I predict that the taking of
sides there may result in the creation of yet further
enemies? Or would that make too much sense?
James A. Donald
> > > It was probably composed by a subnormal drone in a
> > > back room at the Pentagon. "Once a marine, always
> > > a marine" -- A bit redolent, don't you think?
James A. Donald:
> > Complain to Hussein Mohamed Farrah, Somali "warlord"
> > and American Marine. He said it, not me.
G*rd*n
> That's nice. Unfortunately, it is a fable.
You suffer from serious loss of contact with reality.
> As for Somalia, dare I predict that the taking of
> sides there may result in the creation of yet further
> enemies?
While killing thousand of Somalis from the air and
invading Haiti to install a Marxist tyrant was
supposedly blow for freedom against those terribly
wicked "warlords".
Your concern for America's welfare only seems to kick in
when it is so foolish as to attempt to kill those who
seek to kill Americans, and somehow fails to kick in
when it attempts to impose UN mandated socialism on
distant strangers with fire and sword.
brique
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:7a4582t5ojovk4r18...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 23:36:51 -0700, Dan Clore
> > THIRTEEN years after President Bill Clinton withdrew
> > forces from Somalia, in the "Black Hawk down"
> > shambles, American security officials are giving
> > clandestine support to the same warlords who mutilated
> > and humiliated US soldiers in 1993.
>
> Not quite the same warlords. One of these "warlords" is
> also an American Marine.
>
> These "warlords" defended themselves when Americans
> attacked them. Why were Americans attacking them? To
> reimpose a dictatorial and unpopular government on
> Somalia.
>
> It was a stupid idea to attempt to impose that
> government, as Republicans pointed out at the time, and
> now that that idea has been dumped, (at least in
> America, though the UN still persists) there is no
> obstacle to Americans working with their former enemies.
> After America withdrew, Mohamed Farrah Aidid proceeded
> to mend fences with America.
>
> Secondly, it is not the same "warlords": Aidid was
> killed by his enemies. His son and successor is an
> American Somali, an expatriate citizen of America, who
> proudly declares himself to be an American and an
> American marine: "once a marine, always a marine"
Like Lee Harvey Oswald?
G*rd*n
G*rd*n
> > As for Somalia, dare I predict that the taking of
> > sides there may result in the creation of yet further
> > enemies?
James A. Donald:
> While killing thousand of Somalis from the air and
> invading Haiti to install a Marxist tyrant was
> supposedly blow for freedom against those terribly
> wicked "warlords".
Not according to me. As far as I'm concerned, both
Haiti and Somalia were imperialist ventures, although
not very serious ones. Denounced by your bête noir
Dr. Chomsky as such, too, I believe.
James A. Donald:
> Your concern for America's welfare only seems to kick in
> when it is so foolish as to attempt to kill those who
> seek to kill Americans, and somehow fails to kick in
> when it attempts to impose UN mandated socialism on
> distant strangers with fire and sword.
I'm thinking that the average Somalian probably
doesn't give a rat about the U.S. one way or the
other, but if "we" can just get a few thousand troops
in there and buddy up with the local thugs, "we" can
probably make an excellent case for some sort of
local Taliban. I think we have enough of those
situations going already. As an inhabitant of New
York City I have a certain interest in these things.
James A. Donald
> > > As for Somalia, dare I predict that the taking of
> > > sides there may result in the creation of yet
> > > further enemies?
James A. Donald:
> > While killing thousand of Somalis from the air and
> > invading Haiti to install a Marxist tyrant was
> > supposedly blow for freedom against those terribly
> > wicked "warlords".
G*rd*n
> Not according to me. As far as I'm concerned, both
> Haiti and Somalia were imperialist ventures, although
> not very serious ones. Denounced by your b? noir Dr.
> Chomsky as such, too, I believe.
Actually not.
: : "I don't think that really should be
: : classified as an intervention. It should be
: : classified as a PR operation for the
: : Pentagon. The U.S. has some interests in
: : Somalia, but I don't think they're major"
James A. Donald:
> > Your concern for America's welfare only seems to
> > kick in when it is so foolish as to attempt to kill
> > those who seek to kill Americans, and somehow fails
> > to kick in when it attempts to impose UN mandated
> > socialism on distant strangers with fire and sword.
G*rd*n
> I'm thinking that the average Somalian probably
> doesn't give a rat about the U.S. one way or the
> other, but if "we" can just get a few thousand troops
> in there and buddy up with the local thugs, "we" can
> probably make an excellent case for some sort of local
> Taliban.
The US is not putting a few thousand troops in there.
It is providing arms and money to those who do not like
Islamic law.
archaeopteryx
In vain, apparently. Maybe the troops will be
along later.
Reuters
Experts say US funding Somali warlords Mon Jun 5,
2006 12:31 PM ET
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been
funneling more than $100,000 a month to warlords
battling Islamist militia in Somalia, according to
a Somalia expert who has conferred with the groups
in the country.
The U.S. operation, which former intelligence
officials say is aimed at preventing emergence of
rulers who could provide al Qaeda with a safe
haven akin to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, appeared
to be seriously set back on Monday when an Islamic
coalition claimed control of Mogadishu.
U.S. government officials refused to discuss any
possible secret U.S. involvement in the
strategically placed Horn of Africa state, which
has been wrecked by years of fighting.
But former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking
on condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the subject, said an operation to
support the warlords' alliance appeared to involve
both the CIA and U.S. military.
John Prendergast, who monitors Somalia for the
think-tank International Crisis Group, said he
learned during meetings with alliance members in
Somalia that the CIA was financing the warlords
with cash payments.
Prendergast estimated that CIA-operated flights
into Somalia have been bringing in $100,000 to
$150,000 per month for the warlords. The flights
remain in Somalia for the day, he said, so that
U.S. agents can confer with their allies.
The Bush administration has maintained a silence
over allegations in recent months of a U.S. proxy
war against Islamist radicalism in the country.
Pentagon spokesman Navy Lt. Commander Joe
Carpenter reiterated the administration's position
that the United States stands ready to "disrupt
the efforts of terrorists wherever they may be
active."
SECRET SUPPORT
Claims of clandestine U.S. support for secular
warlords who call themselves the "Alliance for the
Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism" have
been aired by Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf and
independent analysts.
A United Nations team charged with monitoring a
U.N. arms embargo against Somalia has also said it
is investigating an unnamed country's clandestine
support for the warlords alliance as a possible
violation of the weapons ban.
The former intelligence officials said the
operation was controlled by the Pentagon through
U.S. Central Command's Combined Joint Task Force
for the Horn of Africa, a counterterrorism mission
based in neighboring Djibouti established after
the September 11, 2001 attacks.
On Monday, after months of fighting that has
killed around 350 people, the Islamic militia
claimed control of Mogadishu and a warlord
militiaman said his coalition's leaders were
fleeing the capital.
U.S. intelligence has produced no conclusive
evidence of an active al Qaeda presence in
Somalia, experts said. But there have been
reports of al Qaeda members in the country,
including suspects in the 1998 U.S. embassy
bombings in East Africa.
"The Pentagon, and now the U.S. government as a
whole, is convinced these are elements for
establishing a religious-based government like the
Taliban, that could be exploited by al Qaeda,"
said a former intelligence official knowledgeable
about U.S. courterterrorism activities.
The CIA has given its warlord allies surveillance
equipment for tracking al Qaeda suspects and
appeared to view the warlords as a counter to the
influence of Afghanistan-trained Islamist militia
leader Aden Hashi Aryo, Prendergast said.
"By circumventing the new government and going
straight to individual warlords, the U.S. is
perpetuating and even deepening Somalia's
fundamental problems, and compromising long-term
efforts to combat extremism," Prendergast said.
Somalia, a country of 10 million people, has had
no effective central authority since 1991 when
warlords overthrew military dictator Mohamed Siad
Barre. The central government is based
temporarily in the town of Baidoa and has been
unable to control events in Mogadishu.
Americans have bad memories of U.S. involvement in
Somalia in 1993, when 18 U.S. soldiers were killed
and 79 injured in a battle with guerrillas loyal
to warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid after entering the
country to support a relief effort.
(c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n
> > Not according to me. As far as I'm concerned, both
> > Haiti and Somalia were imperialist ventures, although
> > not very serious ones. Denounced by your bête noir Dr.
> > Chomsky as such, too, I believe.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
> Actually not.
> : : "I don't think that really should be
> : : classified as an intervention. It should be
> : : classified as a PR operation for the
> : : Pentagon. The U.S. has some interests in
> : : Somalia, but I don't think they're major"
An imperialist P.R. operation. That seems about
right. I read somewhere that when the first marines
landed, there were more photographers on the beach
taking pictures of them than there were marines.
So where do you get off saying I supported the
interventions in Haiti and Somalia? I'm just
curious as to how you go about making up these
fables.
Str...@flashlight.net
The cry of "Terrorist" is used to condition the public to a new
communist scare. Remember that the Neocons plan to
"reinvent" all governments in Africa as well as those in
the Middle East.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Dan Clore
Readers who want to keep up with events in Somalia (a lot is
happening now) should read:
http://antiwar.com/
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
James A. Donald
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Readers who want to keep up with events in Somalia (a
> lot is happening now) should read: http://antiwar.com/
Which will tell you the Union of Islamic courts are the
good guys, because they oppose the anarchy that Dan
Clore is supposedly in favor of.
Here is some stuff you will not hear on antiwar.com:
"Until we get the Islamic state, we will
continue with the Islamic struggle in Somalia,"
Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, chairperson of Mogadishu
Islamic courts, told a rally of hundreds.
"This is a long Islamic struggle and it will
continue until the whole country comes under
Sharia law," Fuad Ahmed, a militiaman loyal to
the Islamic side, told Reuters. "We are ready to
shed our blood in order for that struggle to
succeed."
Imagine the hysteria we would hear from the left if
Falwell promised a long and bloody struggle to impose
Christian holy law on America.
The Islamic courts in Somalia were OK so long as they
stuck to uncontroversial crimes like murder, robbery,
and stuff like that, but they are getting into the
business of imposing an increasingly strict Islam at
gunpoint, which is increasingly pissing off ordinary
Somalis. Everyone in Somalia is theoretically in favor
of Islamic law, but not everyone likes the Islamic law
that the Union of Islamic Courts is now imposing, which
is significantly different from Somali traditional law.
Of course, some might say that Somali traditional law is
just as barbaric as Sharia law, but Sharia law has an
ideology that the whole world should obey Sharia,
whereas Somali traditional law does not, so Sharia law
is a threat to us, while Somali traditional law is just
the way Somalis are used to doing things.
anarc...@gmail.com
I don't think competing warlords can be considered
anarchy. Most warlording seems to be organized on
the feudal system. In the case of Somalia, the lords
have taken over only pretty recently, so they had not
settled down.
The current development of events is interesting.
Apparently _businessmen_ have grown weary of the
inability of the warlords to provide a stable polity, so
they have been buying guns and other supplies for
these Islamic courts and the militias which support
them. They have brought some kind of order and
peace to Mogadishu, and have succeeded in
driving out the hirelings of foreign imperialists and
criminals. It seems to me this is exactly the kind
of development which anarcho-capitalists posit as
the proper method of creating a desirable society.
I am not persuaded that the Islamic courts wish
to bring Sharia to New York City, but it is certainly
possible that those who do will find a niche in
Somalia. However, that was also the case under
the so-called warlords.
Ha-Emet
"....there is a basic lesson that the Jewish people, whether in Israel or
in the Diaspora, has not yet faced up to. And that is, that antisemitism -
dangerous, militant, violent, pre-Holocaust- style antisemitism - is in
vogue in large sections of the modern civilized world." (Berel Wein)
Israel has done a better job of protecting Muslims in Israel than Muslim
countries have done protecting Jews in Muslim countries.
Anti-Semitism on college campuses throughout the U.S. is a serious
problem, and derogatory remarks and using swastikas and other symbols of
hatred or bigotry are among the conduct that could create a hostile
environment for Jewish students....................
Article: http://pnews.org/news/index.php/HalfTruth
"Listen to the pronouncements and comments that are coming from Europe.
The newly found European sympathy for the Palestinians is couched in
vaguely disguised anti-Jewish phrases. The young Socialists in Norway
speak again of Israeli (read Jewish) "intransigence," "excesses, "
"exploitation." The vocabulary of 19th- and 20th-century anti-Semitism
resonates again in Europe. To the Left we are "exploiters" and "settlers"
and to the Right we are again "violent" people. To the Arab papers and
media we are "atheistic" and "occupiers," while to the Europeans we are
"ultra-religious" and `chauvinist messianics.'" (Berel Wein)
=======================================================================
I'm certain that most of you who listen to talk radio (and Air America now
charges for podcasts) but prefer to listen on your time have read my
comments about Replay Radio. Just to remind you you can record any
streaming audio and listen to it as a podcast using your computer (any
software you have) or your IPOD (or similar) and never pay for the premium
service.
NEVER pay for a podcast again:
Check it out - http://www.kqzyfj.com/click-2000044-5355011
I set up my software to CAPTURE the stream so I can forget about it and go
about doing whatever it is I want to do, even if that is listening to
another audio file at the same time I'm capturing audio from an audio
stream. If free streams are better when you can pick your own time or take
it with you on your mp3 player to listen at the beach, on the road, or
whatever.
And even the audio is better. I am certain, because of quality, efficiency
and all around utility (listen to 10s of thousands of radio stations and
shows using Replay Radio) that Replay A/V is the best software bargain you
will ever use. Follow the link above.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
--
Adult male gorillas weigh about twice as much as a female. That is because
of the advantages in owning a harem of females so a larger male can keep
other gorillas at bay. But chimpanzees don't compete and sex with the
females is shared. There is an alpha chimp who takes more sexual favors
but he doesn't monopolize the females and the others also take their turn.
Since there is less competition for a troop of females with chimpanzees
there is no evolutionary pressure to be larger and besides it is a benefit
for climbing trees not to be so big. And they have a lot of sex but
bonobos do it even more. Since there is so much sex the sperm does most of
the competing and male chimpanzees consequently have big balls. They
ejaculate often and in big amounts . Their testicles are very large, which
is necessary for their prodigious stamina for sex and relative to body
weight their testicles are 16 times greater than a gorilla's testicles.
And a male chimpanzee also has sex more often, to be precise about 100
times more often than a male gorilla.
http://pnews.org/ArT/ZioN/LiFE.shtml
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doesn't Everyone Believe in Animal Rights?
Animal Rights
Human Animals, Non-Human Animals and Hypocrisy
Almost everyone believes in some form of animal rights. The problem we
have is trying to measure those rights when compared to the rights of
humans. By what justification do we consider we have a greater value
than animals if we dare to measure life strictly by a sense of
awareness or feeling emotion or pain?
"In the United States, more than 10 billion nonhuman animals are
annually slaughtered just for food. The number triples for the rest of
the world. Tens of millions are annually consumed in biomedical
research, hundreds of millions more by hunting and entertainment; for
clothing, fur, and leather; and through numerous other human
activities. More than 300 mammals and birds die each time your heart
beats." (Steven M. Wise, president of the Center for the Expansion of
Fundamental Rights, Inc. He has taught Animal Rights Law at the
Harvard, Vermont, and John Marshall law schools, and in the master's
program in Animals and Public Policy at the Tufts University School of
Veterinary Medicine. He is the author of Drawing the Line: Science and
the Case for Animal Rights (2002) and Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal
Rights for Animals (2000).)
Article: http://pnews.org/ArT/TrU/AnimalRights.shtml
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Everything begins at The Worm Hole: http://pnews.org/
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bush is a Traitor and is Guilty of Treason
What do you call blowing an agent's cover because her husband is
challenging the president's case for the war with Iraq? You call it stupid
and you also call it treason. And in time of war treason is a capital
crime.
What about Valerie Plame? Her husband says she is the real life version of
Alias and he says: "Her career as a clandestine officer is over."
Wilson's wife was operating under deep cover. A colleague at the CIA says
breaking her cover this way has damaged national security. Everyone who
ever had contact with her now, who is a national of a foreign government
is under suspicion by others and is now in danger. Every contact she has
made over the years may also have to come in from the cold. And this is
not the full extent of the damage caused by the leak.
Accountability
"Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security,
are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A
president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it.
President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced
him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false
statements about Watergate forced his resignation."
John Dean wrote "Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The
Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?" - Findlaw.Com
http://pnews.org/ArT/AiS/AcCT.shtml
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criticism of Conspiracism
Is Progressive Conspiracism an Oxymoron?
Conspiracism often accompanies various forms of populism, and (Margaret)
Canovan notes that "the image of a few evil men conspiring in secret
against the people can certainly be found in the thinking of the U.S.
People's Party, Huey Long, McCarthy, and others." Criticism of
conspiracism, however, does not imply that there are not real
conspiracies, criminal or otherwise. There certainly are real conspiracies
throughout history. As Canovan argues:
"[o]ne should bear in mind that not all forms or cases of populism
involve conspiracy theories, and that such theories are not always false.
The railroad kings and Wall Street bankers hated by the U.S. Populists,
the New Orleans Ring that Huey Long attacked, and the political bosses
whom the Progressives sought to unseat--all these were indeed small groups
of men wielding secret and irresponsible power."
The US political scene is littered with examples of illegal political,
corporate, and government conspiracies such as Watergate, the Iran/Contra
scandal, and the systematic looting of the savings and loan industry.
The dilemma for the left is that right-wing populist organizers weave
these systemic and institutional failures into a conspiracist narrative
that blames "secret elites." In a lengthy article on snowballing
conspiracism in The New Yorker, Michael Kelly called this "fusion
paranoia." With the rise of "info-tainment" news programs and talk shows,
hard right conspiracism, especially about alleged government misconduct,
jumps into the corporate media with increasing regularity. As Kelly
observes," It is not remarkable that accusations of abuse of power should
be leveled against Presidents-particularly in light of Vietnam, Watergate,
and Iran-Contra. But now, in the age of fusion paranoia, there is no
longer any distinction made between credible charges and utterly unfounded
slanders."
Read Entire Article Here:
http://pnews.org/ArT/TrU/CriticismOfConspiracism.shtml
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NEVER pay for a podcast again:
Check it out - http://tinyurl.com/mnr7r
James A. Donald
wrote:
> The current development of events is interesting.
> Apparently _businessmen_ have grown weary of the
> inability of the warlords to provide a stable polity,
> so they have been buying guns and other supplies for
> these Islamic courts and the militias which support
> them.
I much doubt this version of events.
More likely the usual suspects have been funding the
Islamic courts.
James A. Donald
> Apparently _businessmen_ have grown weary of the
> inability of the warlords to provide a stable polity,
The story that people cry out for Islamic rule because
they desire peace is part of Islamic religious doctrine,
and not part of reality. Such tales are rather like
Christians reporting miracles performed by saints.
Normally they cry out for Islamic rule because they are
sick of being massacred and robbed by Islamic radicals.
We shall see if Somalis are made of sterner stuff. I
rather think they are.
uri
brique
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:f7vf8252pfsefe69i...@4ax.com...
> On 7 Jun 2006 11:18:28 -0700, anarc...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > The current development of events is interesting.
> > Apparently _businessmen_ have grown weary of the
> > inability of the warlords to provide a stable polity,
> > so they have been buying guns and other supplies for
> > these Islamic courts and the militias which support
> > them.
>
> I much doubt this version of events.
Why is that not a surprise.
>
> More likely the usual suspects have been funding the
> Islamic courts.
The CIA? Possible, after all, they have a track record of funding islamic
movements. Of course, the islamicists are generally in opposition to the
'warlords', who themselves have a track record of pissing off the yanks, so,
historically, funding that opposition is a very probable action.
Dan Clore
> Somalia might be stateless but it doesn't lack leadership and power.
Somalia is only "stateless" in the sense that no central
government rules the entire country. In fact, the country is
divided among a number of states, with various warlords
ruling their own fiefdoms and battling each other to
increase the area that they rule (and now the Islamists as
well).
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
James A. Donald
> > More likely the usual suspects have been funding the
> > Islamic courts.
"brique"
> The CIA?
No. The same guys who funded bin Laden and the Taliban
- our beloved allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
brique
> James A. Donald
> > > More likely the usual suspects have been funding the
> > > Islamic courts.
>
> "brique"
> > The CIA?
>
> No. The same guys who funded bin Laden and the Taliban
> - our beloved allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Oh, so the CIA only half-funded them then............
anarc...@gmail.com
> James A. Donald
> > > More likely the usual suspects have been funding the
> > > Islamic courts.
>
> "brique"
> > The CIA?
>
> No. The same guys who funded bin Laden and the Taliban
> - our beloved allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
I guess we can all make up whatever stories we like.
I don't know what's going on in Somlia, and neither do
you, but what was reported in the newspaper sounded
fairly reasonable to me. Of course it is certainly
possible that external parties _besides_ the U.S. are
funding violence there. People like bin Laden would
probably enjoy getting the U.S. involved in yet
_another_ war against Muslims. I'm reminded of
Guevara's suggestion that Vietnams be multiplied. It
is truly miraculous that the imperial United States,
bereft of a proper enemy by the fall of the Soviet
Union, has managed to create new ones out of
almost nothing.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> I guess we can all make up whatever stories we like.
> I don't know what's going on in Somlia, and neither do
> you, but what was reported in the newspaper sounded
> fairly reasonable to me.
But it is what Islamic radicals always say, and perhaps
believe, regardless of the truth, evidence, or facts -
the religion of peace and all that.
I find it hard to believe that businessmen would
voluntarily fund someone with the declared ambition of
conquering all Somalia and establishing the rule Sharia
law throughout Somalia. If Somali businessmen were sick
of anarchy, and wanted to fund someone to form a
government, they would fund someone a lot less radical
and megalomaniacal than this lot.
brique
> On 9 Jun 2006 15:14:11 -0700, anarc...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > I guess we can all make up whatever stories we like.
> > I don't know what's going on in Somlia, and neither do
> > you, but what was reported in the newspaper sounded
> > fairly reasonable to me.
>
> But it is what Islamic radicals always say, and perhaps
> believe, regardless of the truth, evidence, or facts -
> the religion of peace and all that.
>
> I find it hard to believe that businessmen would
> voluntarily fund someone with the declared ambition of
> conquering all Somalia and establishing the rule Sharia
> law throughout Somalia. If Somali businessmen were sick
> of anarchy, and wanted to fund someone to form a
> government, they would fund someone a lot less radical
> and megalomaniacal than this lot.
Well, there are restrictions on foreign nationals funding the Republican
Party, I beleive, so, next best thing, one supposes.......
Dan Clore
> James A. Donald wrote:
> I guess we can all make up whatever stories we like.
> I don't know what's going on in Somlia, and neither do
> you, but what was reported in the newspaper sounded
> fairly reasonable to me. Of course it is certainly
> possible that external parties _besides_ the U.S. are
> funding violence there. People like bin Laden would
> probably enjoy getting the U.S. involved in yet
> _another_ war against Muslims. I'm reminded of
> Guevara's suggestion that Vietnams be multiplied. It
> is truly miraculous that the imperial United States,
> bereft of a proper enemy by the fall of the Soviet
> Union, has managed to create new ones out of
> almost nothing.
I can only repeat, use http://antiwar.com/ to follow the
story. There's a lot happening in Somalia.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
Michael Price
> James A. Donald
> > > More likely the usual suspects have been funding the
> > > Islamic courts.
>
> "brique"
> > The CIA?
>
> No. The same guys who funded bin Laden and the Taliban
> - our beloved allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
>
Why would they need funding? I mean they were running their
little court businesses for years which got them enough money
to hire militias. These militias defeated the US-backed warlords
in mere days, which wouldn't cost that much. Hell probably less
than the value of the artillery and rockets they left behind fleeing
for
the border. The real boast to the Islamists is the impetus to
combine which was provided by the US-backed invasion by
supposedly democratic warlords.
anarc...@gmail.com
> On 9 Jun 2006 15:14:11 -0700, anarc...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > I guess we can all make up whatever stories we like.
> > I don't know what's going on in Somlia, and neither do
> > you, but what was reported in the newspaper sounded
> > fairly reasonable to me.
>
> But it is what Islamic radicals always say, and perhaps
> believe, regardless of the truth, evidence, or facts -
> the religion of peace and all that.
>
> I find it hard to believe that businessmen would
> voluntarily fund someone with the declared ambition of
> conquering all Somalia and establishing the rule Sharia
> law throughout Somalia. If Somali businessmen were sick
> of anarchy, and wanted to fund someone to form a
> government, they would fund someone a lot less radical
> and megalomaniacal than this lot.
The businessmen do not have anarchy, they have an
ongoing civil war between petty fiefdoms and mafias,
something like the Europe of the Dark Ages. Apparently
conflict has been intensified by donations of weapons and
money from the U.S. At least this is what we are told.
This is not good for the accumulation of capital, production
or trade, which is what most businessmen are interested in.
I don't see the conflict between Islam and business.
It is certainly less than the conflict between literal
Christianity and business.
In any case, people who desired the wars of the
gangs and mafias to be stopped would not have a lot
of alternatives. The militias attached to Islamic Courts
may seem like the best of a few poor choices. Many
people supported the Taliban in Afghanistan for very
similar reasons and later may have regretted it.
James A. Donald
> > I find it hard to believe that businessmen would
> > voluntarily fund someone with the declared ambition
> > of conquering all Somalia and establishing the rule
> > Sharia law throughout Somalia. If Somali
> > businessmen were sick of anarchy, and wanted to fund
> > someone to form a government, they would fund
> > someone a lot less radical and megalomaniacal than
> > this lot.
> The businessmen do not have anarchy, they have an
> ongoing civil war between petty fiefdoms and mafias,
> something like the Europe of the Dark Ages.
Yet strange to report they have prospered in that
environment, and have failed to prosper in the rest of
Africa, and failed to prosper before that environment
came to be. Nowhere else in Africa, except South
Africa, is there a significant business class. You are
telling me they are trying to destroy the environment
that allowed them to become wealthy businessmen.
And if it was true that they were suffering in that
environment, as you claim, and wanted the order that
only the wise and benevolent state can provide, they
would fund someone more pragmatic and inclined towards
peace than a bunch of wild eyed holy radicals.
Here is Al Jazeerah's translation of the program of the
Somali Islamists.
: : The Islamic militia that captured Mogadishu
: : has vowed to turn Somalia into a religious
: : state after winning a three-month battle for
: : the capital.
: : "Until we get the Islamic state, we
: : will continue with the Islamic
: : struggle in Somalia,"
: : Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, chairman of Mogadishu
: : Islamic courts, told a rally of hundreds of
: : people on Tuesday
: :
: : Fuad Ahmed, a militiaman loyal to the
: : Islamist side, said:
: :
: : "This is a long Islamic struggle and
: : it will continue until the whole
: : country comes under Sharia [Islamic]
: : law."
: :
: : "We are ready to shed our blood in
: : order for that struggle to succeed."
The kind of people businessmen would fund would have a
more conciliatory and compromising tone. Businessmen
like to hear about "agreement", not "blood", "long
Islamic struggle" and "whole country".
Obviously businessmen want peace, but what Islamic
radicals promise is not peace, but salvation. salvation
through bloodshed.
> Apparently conflict has been intensified by donations
> of weapons and money from the U.S.
Surely what intensifies the struggle is the
determination of the Islamic radicals to impose Sharia
law on a country where customary law differs
substantially from Sharia law. These guys are radicals.
They want to remake Somalia in their own image. They
don't think Somalia is sufficiently islamic, and want to
make it more islamic at sword point.
Traditionally, Islam was only successful in imposing
Sharia law on family matters. Criminal law was
customary law. The Islamists want Sharia to apply to
criminal law also, which means second class citizenship
for those deemed insufficiently Islamic - means that
over time those deemed sufficiently Islamic get to
dispossess those deemed insufficiently Islamic. That is
not a recipe for peace.
> I don't see the conflict between Islam and business.
> It is certainly less than the conflict between literal
> Christianity and business.
If you really thought that, you would love Christianity
the way you love Islamic radicalism, and hate islamic
radicalism the way you hate "fundamentalist"
Christianity.
Observe it was Christian countries that industrialized -
eventually all of them, while Muslim countries remain in
poverty and ignorance, except for Turkey and Dubai - and
both Turkey and Dubai have governments notoriously
unsympathetic to Islam. And that is precisely the
reason that the radical left is now in bed with the
Islamic radicals the way they were previously in bed
with the KGB - shared hatred of capitalism and
capitalists.
There are muslims who argue Islam is compatible with,
and supports, capitalism and free markets, but the
muslims who argue this argue that Islam *rightly*
*interpreted* is compatible with capitalism, and propose
that Islam reform by being rightly interpreted. They
have a pretty good case. The Koran is pro capitalist,
but subsequent interpretations of Islamic law have
become progressively anti capitalist.
> In any case, people who desired the wars of the gangs
> and mafias to be stopped would not have a lot of
> alternatives.
What makes the place anarchic is not a shortage of
alternatives, but a distinct oversupply of alternatives.
One of the many alternatives is the UN armed and funded
government, which currently claims to govern a small
village some distance from Mogadishu.
Indeed there are lots and lots of organizations that
claim to be the government of Somalia, and unlike the
Islamic radicals do not propose to turn the place upside
down. Over the past years, numerous governments have
been announced with great fanfare and much international
aid.
James A. Donald
> The real boast to the Islamists is the impetus to
> combine which was provided by the US-backed invasion
> by supposedly democratic warlords.
Those threatened by the imposition of Sharia law should
assist each other in opposing it.
anarc...@gmail.com
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > > I find it hard to believe that businessmen would
> > > voluntarily fund someone with the declared ambition
> > > of conquering all Somalia and establishing the rule
> > > Sharia law throughout Somalia. If Somali
> > > businessmen were sick of anarchy, and wanted to fund
> > > someone to form a government, they would fund
> > > someone a lot less radical and megalomaniacal than
> > > this lot.
>
> anarc...@gmail.com
> > The businessmen do not have anarchy, they have an
> > ongoing civil war between petty fiefdoms and mafias,
> > something like the Europe of the Dark Ages.
>
> Yet strange to report they have prospered in that
> environment, and have failed to prosper in the rest of
> Africa, and failed to prosper before that environment
> came to be. Nowhere else in Africa, except South
> Africa, is there a significant business class. You are
> telling me they are trying to destroy the environment
> that allowed them to become wealthy businessmen.
As I said, I don't know what is going on in Somalia.
All I know is what I read in various media. From that
I have to guess, because as we all know, the media
routinely lie and get things wrong even when they are
not deliberately lying. My guess is that in Somalia
some sort of business class, that is, people interested
in acquiring wealth rather than killing and torturing
other people, got a leg up and were supporting the
Islamic courts, whereas in other parts of Africa they
are probably routinely robbed by the (semi-feudal)
central government and cannot get as far as having
Islamic courts. Probably, there was at first a sort
of symbiosis or at least coexistence between the
warlords and mafias on the one hand, and the courts
and the businessmen on the other. We can guess
further that something broke it down -- let us say
a decision by al-Qaeda and the CIA to play games
there. All guesses, of course.
> If you really thought that, you would love Christianity
> the way you love Islamic radicalism, and hate islamic
> radicalism the way you hate "fundamentalist"
> Christianity.
I assure you I have no personal use for Islamic
radicalism. I am merely guessing why others might.
Michael Price
> "Michael Price"
> > The real boast to the Islamists is the impetus to
> > combine which was provided by the US-backed invasion
> > by supposedly democratic warlords.
>
> Those threatened by the imposition of Sharia law should
> assist each other in opposing it.
>
Somalia and did not effectively oppose it. They effectively guaranteed
James A. Donald
> > Those threatened by the imposition of Sharia law
> > should assist each other in opposing it.
"Michael Price"
> But the US is not threatened by the imposition of
> Sharia law in
> Somalia and did not effectively oppose it.
The same people who want to impose Sharia law in Somalia
want to impose it in the US, for much the same reasons.
Michael Price
> James A. Donald:
> > > Those threatened by the imposition of Sharia law
> > > should assist each other in opposing it.
>
> "Michael Price"
> > But the US is not threatened by the imposition of
> > Sharia law in
> > Somalia and did not effectively oppose it.
>
> The same people who want to impose Sharia law in Somalia
> want to impose it in the US, for much the same reasons.
>
give a damn what law America is under and none of them have any
say in the matter.
James A. Donald
> > The same people who want to impose Sharia law in
> > Somalia want to impose it in the US, for much the
> > same reasons.
"Michael Price"
> Not really. Very few of those trying to impose Sharia
> law in Somalia give a damn what law America is under
> and none of them have any say in the matter.
On the contrary, they care deeply and passionately what
law America is under, and if it is true, as alleged,
that some of those trying to impose Sharia law in
Somalia are Al Quaeda, they have had some success in
having a say on the matter.
Muslims have a religious duty to dominate the world
politically and militarily, to give infidels a hard
time. Somalia is not a specific nation to them, it is
just one part of the world. Nation states are
unislamic. Ethnicities, cultures, and local traditions
are unislamic. Nation State boundaries are unnatural,
and conflict with Islam. Somali customary law is
unislamic for the same reasons as the anglo saxon legal
tradition is unislamic.
Michael Price
> James A. Donald:
> > > The same people who want to impose Sharia law in
> > > Somalia want to impose it in the US, for much the
> > > same reasons.
>
> "Michael Price"
> > Not really. Very few of those trying to impose Sharia
> > law in Somalia give a damn what law America is under
> > and none of them have any say in the matter.
>
> On the contrary, they care deeply and passionately what
> law America is under, and if it is true, as alleged,
> that some of those trying to impose Sharia law in
> Somalia are Al Quaeda, they have had some success in
> having a say on the matter.
>
No doubt there are some al-Quaeda sympathisers in Somalia, but
they are vastly outnumbered by those who don't give a damn about
US laws as long as Somalia goes sharia who are in turn vastly
outnumbered by those who would prefer it doesn't but don't care
as long as they are not under a US-imposed dictatorship.
James A. Donald
"Michael Price":
> They've had bugger all success in [imposing Sharia in
> America] as you well know.
Looks to me that they have had considerable success.
Observe how very few dare speak unkindly of Islam,
whereas everyone piles onto Christianity. There is no
Islamic equivalent to "the Da Vinci Code", no Islamic
equivalent to "V is Vengeance", even though everything
people hate about Christianity is far far worse in
Islam. Under today's circumstances, to speak unkindly
about Christianity without making comparable criticisms
of Islam is cowardice, defeatism and capitulationism,
and we see lots of cowardice, defeatism and
capitulationism, which must warm the hearts of our
enemies, for that was their purpose.
The major aspects of Sharia are not uncontroversial
stuff like punishing thieves and muggers, and not silly
stuff like putting bags over women's heads. (The bag
over the head business is not even part of Sharia,
according to widely accepted interpretations.) It is
about showing respect for Islam, and demonstrating
submission to it. It is about non Muslims taking second
place to Muslims, about Muslim crimes against non
Muslims requiring a remarkably high standard of proof
and extremely lenient punishment, and non Muslim
offenses against Muslims being vague, broadly defined,
and requiring draconian punishment. They are getting
the major aspects of Sharia implemented in Europe, and
to a lesser extent in America.
> No doubt there are some al-Quaeda sympathisers in
> Somalia, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who
> don't give a damn about US laws as long as Somalia
> goes sharia
Anyone that wants Sharia in Somalia, wants it for
religious reasons. Anyone that wants Sharia for
religious reasons, wants it world wide. They are evil,
the enemies of all mankind, not just the enemies of
Somalis.
brique
> --
> "Michael Price":
> > They've had bugger all success in [imposing Sharia in
> > America] as you well know.
>
> Looks to me that they have had considerable success.
> Observe how very few dare speak unkindly of Islam,
> whereas everyone piles onto Christianity. There is no
> Islamic equivalent to "the Da Vinci Code", no Islamic
> equivalent to "V is Vengeance", even though everything
> people hate about Christianity is far far worse in
> Islam.
Had a look, couldn't find any 'V is Vengeance' in christianity, Please
provide a source so we can attack it.
Under today's circumstances, to speak unkindly
> about Christianity without making comparable criticisms
> of Islam is cowardice, defeatism and capitulationism,
> and we see lots of cowardice, defeatism and
> capitulationism, which must warm the hearts of our
> enemies, for that was their purpose.
>
> The major aspects of Sharia are not uncontroversial
> stuff like punishing thieves and muggers, and not silly
> stuff like putting bags over women's heads. (The bag
> over the head business is not even part of Sharia,
> according to widely accepted interpretations.) It is
> about showing respect for Islam, and demonstrating
> submission to it. It is about non Muslims taking second
> place to Muslims, about Muslim crimes against non
> Muslims requiring a remarkably high standard of proof
> and extremely lenient punishment, and non Muslim
> offenses against Muslims being vague, broadly defined,
> and requiring draconian punishment. They are getting
> the major aspects of Sharia implemented in Europe, and
> to a lesser extent in America.
Oddly, those calling for Sharia-like punishments for crimes are not the
whining apologetic, surrender-monkey liberal communists., It's the brave
defenders of Truth and Freedom who sit upon the right-hand side of God who
want more executions, more jails, harsher conditions, corporal punishment,
seizing of assets, more life sentences, curfews, control orders, fines etc,
etc....
>
>
> > No doubt there are some al-Quaeda sympathisers in
> > Somalia, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who
> > don't give a damn about US laws as long as Somalia
> > goes sharia
>
> Anyone that wants Sharia in Somalia, wants it for
> religious reasons. Anyone that wants Sharia for
> religious reasons, wants it world wide. They are evil,
> the enemies of all mankind, not just the enemies of
> Somalis.
So, therefore, the USA has decided to fund the last lot of 'evil monsters'
in their fight with the new batch of 'evil monsters' and lo, guess who wins?
Yep, evil monsters, but it better be our 'evil monsters' or we'll bomb the
shite out of the place until they get it right.
James A. Donald
> So, therefore, the USA has decided to fund the last
> lot of 'evil monsters' in their fight with the new
> batch of 'evil monsters' and lo, guess who wins? Yep,
> evil monsters, but it better be our 'evil monsters' or
> we'll bomb the shite out of the place until they get
> it right.
I supported Somalis when the US under Clinton attacked
them, and I support them today when the US under Bush
assists them to defend themselves.
anarc...@gmail.com
> "brique"
> > So, therefore, the USA has decided to fund the last
> > lot of 'evil monsters' in their fight with the new
> > batch of 'evil monsters' and lo, guess who wins? Yep,
> > evil monsters, but it better be our 'evil monsters' or
> > we'll bomb the shite out of the place until they get
> > it right.
>
> I supported Somalis when the US under Clinton attacked
> them, and I support them today when the US under Bush
> assists them to defend themselves.
More exactly, you support some Somalis and not others:
those who can be hired by _certain_ foreign imperialists
meet with your approval, while others do not. This is
a rather fine distinction, especially for a Somalian, who
may not be fully aware of whether the imperialists coming
upon him are Republicans or Democrats.
brique
> "brique"
> > So, therefore, the USA has decided to fund the last
> > lot of 'evil monsters' in their fight with the new
> > batch of 'evil monsters' and lo, guess who wins? Yep,
> > evil monsters, but it better be our 'evil monsters' or
> > we'll bomb the shite out of the place until they get
> > it right.
>
> I supported Somalis when the US under Clinton attacked
> them, and I support them today when the US under Bush
> assists them to defend themselves.
So, you supported the guys who killed US troops in a dastardly ambush then
dragged their corpses through the streets? But you don't support the guys
who kill US troops in dastardly ambushes in Iraq. Well, consistency was
never your strong point, so we will let that pass. You do know that your new
buddies are not anglo-saxon, don't you?
constan...@gmail.com
brique wrote:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:nm8v82dlkfviuuh0u...@4ax.com...
> > "brique"
> > > So, therefore, the USA has decided to fund the last
> > > lot of 'evil monsters' in their fight with the new
> > > batch of 'evil monsters' and lo, guess who wins? Yep,
> > > evil monsters, but it better be our 'evil monsters' or
> > > we'll bomb the shite out of the place until they get
> > > it right.
> >
> > I supported Somalis when the US under Clinton attacked
> > them, and I support them today when the US under Bush
> > assists them to defend themselves.
>
> So, you supported the guys who killed US troops in a dastardly ambush then
> dragged their corpses through the streets? But you don't support the guys
> who kill US troops in dastardly ambushes in Iraq. Well, consistency was
> never your strong point,
Moronic consistency (e.g., support America no matter what, or oppose
America no matter what) is hopefully no one's strong point. I know it's
one of your strong points, so let me rephrase: is hopefully not a
common strong point.
James A. Donald
"brique"
> > > So, therefore, the USA has decided to fund the
> > > last lot of 'evil monsters' in their fight with
> > > the new batch of 'evil monsters' and lo, guess who
> > > wins? Yep, evil monsters, but it better be our
> > > 'evil monsters' or we'll bomb the shite out of the
> > > place until they get it right.
James A. Donald:
> > I supported Somalis when the US under Clinton
> > attacked them, and I support them today when the US
> > under Bush assists them to defend themselves.
"brique"
> So, you supported the guys who killed US troops in a
> dastardly ambush then dragged their corpses through
> the streets?
The dastardly ambush was committed by US troops. The
sequence of events was that prominent members of Habr
Gidr clan held one of their regularly scheduled meetings
in a hotel The US attacked the leadership of the clan,
and indeed everyone in the hotel and the general
vicinity of the hotel, having considerable difficulty
telling one Somali from another, many of those attacked
not even being members of the Hadr Gidr clan. Those
attacked defended themselves, and phoned out for
reinforcements on their cell phones.
> But you don't support the guys who kill US troops in
> dastardly ambushes in Iraq.
US troops are on the side of freedom in Iraq, were on
the side of tyranny, despotism, artificial famine, and
mass murder in Somalia.
The ones who kill US troops in Iraq seek to enslave and
rule Iraqis. Aidid was the man primarily responsible
for freeing Somalia from the despotic rule of Siad
Barre, and for this reason the UN and Clinton sought to
kill him. The ones fighting us in Iraq supported the
despotic rule of Saddam, and intend a similar rule, in
Iraq, and throughout the world.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
5lcdK9xvV5PxtD4isPmIVwaHGv1AMdW85ALyMuIi
4PfO+YOKK/2gdib0ZvGEF7WARtBXELqiPTekktt/1
Michael Price
> "brique"
> > So, therefore, the USA has decided to fund the last
> > lot of 'evil monsters' in their fight with the new
> > batch of 'evil monsters' and lo, guess who wins? Yep,
> > evil monsters, but it better be our 'evil monsters' or
> > we'll bomb the shite out of the place until they get
> > it right.
>
> I supported Somalis when the US under Clinton attacked
> them, and I support them today when the US under Bush
> assists them to defend themselves.
>
who wanted to establish a State, contray to the wishes of the
majority of the population.
Michael Price
Then why are they the one's doing most of the arbitrary arrest and
torture? And why are they very much against anything that looks
like free market forces or free debate?
> were on the side of tyranny, despotism, artificial famine, and
> mass murder in Somalia.
>
> The ones who kill US troops in Iraq seek to enslave and
> rule Iraqis. Aidid was the man primarily responsible
> for freeing Somalia from the despotic rule of Siad
> Barre, and for this reason the UN and Clinton sought to
> kill him. The ones fighting us in Iraq supported the
> despotic rule of Saddam, and intend a similar rule, in
> Iraq, and throughout the world.
>
Bullshit. The ones fighting "us" in Iraq simply want the US
troops to leave, for a variety of reasons. One of those is so that
they can oppose the Iraqi governments increasing genocidal
tendencies.
Michael Price
> --
> "Michael Price":
> > They've had bugger all success in [imposing Sharia in
> > America] as you well know.
>
> Looks to me that they have had considerable success.
> Observe how very few dare speak unkindly of Islam,
> whereas everyone piles onto Christianity.
Plenty of people speak unkindly of Islam.
> There is no Islamic equivalent to "the Da Vinci Code", no Islamic
> equivalent to "V is [for] Vengeance", even though everything
> people hate about Christianity is far far worse in
> Islam. Under today's circumstances, to speak unkindly
> about Christianity without making comparable criticisms
> of Islam is cowardice, defeatism and capitulationism,
> and we see lots of cowardice, defeatism and
> capitulationism, which must warm the hearts of our
> enemies, for that was their purpose.
>
No it merely means for the majority of commentators that they
talk about what they know and they don't know Islam.
> The major aspects of Sharia are not uncontroversial
> stuff like punishing thieves and muggers, and not silly
> stuff like putting bags over women's heads. (The bag
> over the head business is not even part of Sharia,
> according to widely accepted interpretations.) It is
> about showing respect for Islam, and demonstrating
> submission to it. It is about non Muslims taking second
> place to Muslims, about Muslim crimes against non
> Muslims requiring a remarkably high standard of proof
> and extremely lenient punishment, and non Muslim
> offenses against Muslims being vague, broadly defined,
> and requiring draconian punishment. They are getting
> the major aspects of Sharia implemented in Europe, and
> to a lesser extent in America.
>
What the hell are you talking about?
>
> > No doubt there are some al-Quaeda sympathisers in
> > Somalia, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who
> > don't give a damn about US laws as long as Somalia
> > goes sharia
>
> Anyone that wants Sharia in Somalia, wants it for
> religious reasons.
No they want it because by and large it works, at least at
a minimal level, and it's a well recognised code of law. Religious
reasons are probably secondary.
James A. Donald
> > Anyone that wants Sharia in Somalia, wants it for
> > religious reasons.
"Michael Price"
> No they want it because by and large it works, at
> least at a minimal level, and it's a well recognised
> code of law. Religious reasons are probably
> secondary.
In the past Sharia law in Somalia was never applied to
criminal matters. Such matters were always the domain
of customary law and colonial law.
If you are in favor of abrupt and radical change, you
are not in favor of peace, but rather want to turn
society on its head. In the case of Sharia law, they
want to turn society on its head by violent means.
Anyone that wants Sharia for religious reasons, wants it
world wide. They are evil, the enemies of all mankind,
not just the enemies of Somalis. Somalia is just what
is closest to them. Ultimately those who want impose
Sharia on Somalia by violent means want to impose Sharia
on us by violent means.
Ilja Schmelzer
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> schrieb
> The ones fighting us in Iraq supported the
> despotic rule of Saddam,
No. They want their own rule, Sharia. Saddam was
their enemy.
Ilja
James A. Donald
> Then why are they [US soldiers] the one's doing most
> of the arbitrary arrest and torture? And why are they
> very much against anything that looks like free market
> forces or free debate?
You have valid points, but look what side they put you
on. The enemies of the US, are also the enemies of
Iraqis, as demonstrated by their actions. There are
rather few good guys in Iraq, which makes nation
building a rather dubious exercise (not that it would be
any wiser if there were a reasonable number of good
guys). When you make that kind of (entirely valid)
argument, you find yourself arguing, or at least tending
to think, that the terrorists are the resistance, are
freedom fighters. They are not.
constan...@gmail.com
Michael Price wrote:
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > "brique"
> > > So, therefore, the USA has decided to fund the last
> > > lot of 'evil monsters' in their fight with the new
> > > batch of 'evil monsters' and lo, guess who wins? Yep,
> > > evil monsters, but it better be our 'evil monsters' or
> > > we'll bomb the shite out of the place until they get
> > > it right.
> >
> > I supported Somalis when the US under Clinton attacked
> > them, and I support them today when the US under Bush
> > assists them to defend themselves.
> >
> Bush did nothing of the kind. He funded a group of warlords
> who wanted to establish a State, contray to the wishes of the
> majority of the population.
And yet what's happening now in Somalia looks a lot like the
Talibanization of Afghanistan, and not by warlords funded by Bush.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060615/wl_afp/somaliaunrest_060615215233
"Somali Islamists overrun towns in northward push"
Is this overruning of towns in a northward push a representation of the
anti-state wishes of the majority of the population? That's some
strange kind of anti-state sentiment.
Michael Price
> "Michael Price"
> > Then why are they [US soldiers] the one's doing most
> > of the arbitrary arrest and torture? And why are they
> > very much against anything that looks like free market
> > forces or free debate?
>
> You have valid points, but look what side they put you
> on.
Whose side is that? I'm not on anyone's side in Iraq. I just
wish my government would take the same sensible approach.
Wanting to stop funding someone's murder is not being on their
side.
> The enemies of the US, are also the enemies of
> Iraqis, as demonstrated by their actions.
Again who are you talking about? The insurgency in Iraq is
far too general to be talked about this way.
> There are
> rather few good guys in Iraq, which makes nation
> building a rather dubious exercise (not that it would be
> any wiser if there were a reasonable number of good
> guys).
There are millions of good guys in Iraq. People who just want to
get on with their lives and are only prepared to use force to defend
themselves, their families and their communities. The US has
bombed many of them. The US forces are not in Iraq to kill the
promoters of disorder. They are their to kill and/or disarm the
promoters of order. They did the same in New Orleans, but due
to the presence of cameras mostly had to confine themselves to
disarming rather than killing.
> When you make that kind of (entirely valid)
> argument, you find yourself arguing, or at least tending
> to think, that the terrorists are the resistance, are
> freedom fighters. They are not.
>
I argue no such thing. There are parts of the resistence that
use terrorist tactics, but not all the resistence does that. As for
freedom fighters that really a relative term. The US soldiers cannot
claim to be freedom fighters as they are the prime supporters of
dictatorship.
Michael Price
And why are they winning? Because they have something to unite the
people behind them, the threat of invasion by a foreign-backed military
dictatorship. They are simply using the same old Soviet tactics. Set
yourself up as the opposition to someone vicious and nasty. Get people
to combine behind you to conquer opposition. Then once you've won
betray the people who backed you and become as vicious and nasty
as your former opponents, or more so. The Taliban got their power the
same way IIRC. And I suspect the Islamists got their funding from the
same source.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald wrote:
> > The enemies of the US, are also the enemies of
> > Iraqis, as demonstrated by their actions.
"Michael Price"
> Again who are you talking about? The insurgency in
> Iraq is far too general to be talked about this way.
The main target, and main victims, of "the insurgency"
are Iraqis. The "insurgency" is funded and armed by
neighboring despots who fear they might wind up in
Saddam's shoes.
James A. Donald
> > When you make that kind of (entirely valid)
> > argument, you find yourself arguing, or at least
> > tending to think, that the terrorists are the
> > resistance, are freedom fighters. They are not.
"Michael Price"
> I argue no such thing. There are parts of the
> resistence that use terrorist tactics, but not all the
> resistence does that.
So what is the non terrorist faction of the
"resistance"?
I have been asking Socratic questions, challenging you
to defend an indefensible position, without offering my
own position up for criticism: Let me make my own
position clear. Nation building is always stupid.
Altruistic wars always turn bad. But we have enemies
who seek to destroy us, seek to enslave pretty much
everyone, and destroying such enemies is wise and good.
There are bad people who mean to kill us, and we need to
kill them, and if innocents happen to be in the way,
they had damn well better get out of the way.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
djaE5qsmDYr3cnYeqh7UZuGc+teklB7cCYq/YoVg
4u+wKyfFoUZWUyGq1NXJ4rG2KNpuPuFxx4dn1Dftr
Michael Price
> --
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > > The enemies of the US, are also the enemies of
> > > Iraqis, as demonstrated by their actions.
>
> "Michael Price"
> > Again who are you talking about? The insurgency in
> > Iraq is far too general to be talked about this way.
>
> The main target, and main victims, of "the insurgency"
> are Iraqis. The "insurgency" is funded and armed by
> neighboring despots who fear they might wind up in
> Saddam's shoes.
>
reconstruction effort. The US so far has failed to show that Iran
or Syria are arming anyone.
> James A. Donald
> > > When you make that kind of (entirely valid)
> > > argument, you find yourself arguing, or at least
> > > tending to think, that the terrorists are the
> > > resistance, are freedom fighters. They are not.
>
> "Michael Price"
> > I argue no such thing. There are parts of the
> > resistence that use terrorist tactics, but not all the
> > resistence does that.
>
> So what is the non terrorist faction of the
> "resistance"?
>
Those who simply want revenge for US attacks for a start. Those who
simply want the US out for a second.
> I have been asking Socratic questions, challenging you
> to defend an indefensible position, without offering my
> own position up for criticism: Let me make my own
> position clear. Nation building is always stupid.
> Altruistic wars always turn bad. But we have enemies
> who seek to destroy us, seek to enslave pretty much
> everyone, and destroying such enemies is wise and good.
And yet everywhere it's tried it leads to bad results.
> There are bad people who mean to kill us, and we need to
> kill them, and if innocents happen to be in the way,
> they had damn well better get out of the way.
>
The fact that someone wants to kill you doesn't mean it's either
wise or good to kill them, let alone torture and murder innocents to
do it.
James A. Donald
> And why are they [Somali Islamists] winning? Because
> the threat of invasion by a foreign-backed military
> dictatorship.
Why did the taliban win?
The Taliban won by foreign backing, and the use of
religion to disarm and paralyse the will of their
enemies.
The Taliban told people they would get no peace unless
they submitted to the Taliban. They submitted, yet still
got no peace.
The Somali Islamists are the same kind, and on all
indications using the same tactics. They are the enemy
of all mankind, not just the enemies of Somalis, and all
mankind should help those that fight them.
Joshua Holmes
: But we have enemies who seek to destroy us, seek to enslave pretty much
: everyone, and destroying such enemies is wise and good. There are bad
: people who mean to kill us, and we need to kill them, and if innocents
: happen to be in the way, they had damn well better get out of the way.
God will know his own, right?
--
Joshua Holmes
jdho...@force.stwing.upenn.edu
Does a man tell you of sacrifice?
Beware, he intends to make you the bull.
James A. Donald
> > So what is the non terrorist faction of the
> > "resistance"?
"Michael Price"
> Those who simply want revenge for US attacks for a
> start. Those who simply want the US out for a second.
In other words, you cannot name a single "resistance"
organization or faction that does not engage in terror
against ordinary Iraqis.
Surely a better name for such people is terrorists, not
insurgents.
> > I have been asking Socratic questions, challenging
> > you to defend an indefensible position, without
> > offering my own position up for criticism: Let me
> > make my own position clear. Nation building is
> > always stupid. Altruistic wars always turn bad. But
> > we have enemies who seek to destroy us, seek to
> > enslave pretty much everyone, and destroying such
> > enemies is wise and good.
"Michael Price"
> And yet everywhere it's tried it leads to bad results.
In Afghanistan, it led to excellent results.
In Iraq, the nation smashing phase went sweet. It was
the nation building bit that went bad. Conclusion:
Stick to nation smashing.
Michael Price
> James A. Donald:
> > > So what is the non terrorist faction of the
> > > "resistance"?
>
> "Michael Price"
> > Those who simply want revenge for US attacks for a
> > start. Those who simply want the US out for a second.
>
> In other words, you cannot name a single "resistance"
> organization or faction that does not engage in terror
> against ordinary Iraqis.
>
> Surely a better name for such people is terrorists, not
> insurgents.
>
> > > I have been asking Socratic questions, challenging
> > > you to defend an indefensible position, without
> > > offering my own position up for criticism: Let me
> > > make my own position clear. Nation building is
> > > always stupid. Altruistic wars always turn bad. But
> > > we have enemies who seek to destroy us, seek to
> > > enslave pretty much everyone, and destroying such
> > > enemies is wise and good.
>
> "Michael Price"
> > And yet everywhere it's tried it leads to bad results.
>
> In Afghanistan, it led to excellent results.
>
Utter rubbish, the intervention in Afghanistan has achieved
localised control of Kabul and the destabilisation of the atrocious,
yet preferable to the alternative, Pakistani regime.
> In Iraq, the nation smashing phase went sweet.
If by "sweet" you mean that it achieved results that helped the US
not
a bit without actually being immediately painful.
Michael Price
> "Michael Price"
> > And why are they [Somali Islamists] winning? Because
> > they have something to unite the people behind them,
> > the threat of invasion by a foreign-backed military
> > dictatorship.
>
> Why did the taliban win?
>
> The Taliban won by foreign backing, and the use of
> religion to disarm and paralyse the will of their
> enemies.
>
able to unify the country, which people assumed meant make it
more peaceful. They were able to mostly unify the country but, as
you point out, that hardly meant pacify it*. Their progress in this
way is very similiar to Chinese Nationalists and Communists of
various countries. They won by offering an alternative that seemed
better.
> The Taliban told people they would get no peace unless
> they submitted to the Taliban. They submitted, yet still
> got no peace.
>
> The Somali Islamists are the same kind, and on all
> indications using the same tactics. They are the enemy
> of all mankind, not just the enemies of Somalis, and all
> mankind should help those that fight them.
>
Non sequitur, the Soviets were at least as much "the enemy
of all mankind," and yet you wouldn't presumably sign up with
the Nazis.
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
* Except in the euphemistic sense.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > > > So what is the non terrorist faction of the
> > > > "resistance"?
"Michael Price"
> > > Those who simply want revenge for US attacks for a
> > > start. Those who simply want the US out for a
> > > second.
James A. Donald:
> > In other words, you cannot name a single
> > "resistance" organization or faction that does not
> > engage in terror against ordinary Iraqis.
"Michael Price"
> They don't leave me their names and phone numbers.
These organizations issue communiques on the web, they
send videos to Aljazeera.
Let us see what the "resistance" did yesterday in
Baghdad:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/18/iraq.main/
: : a car bomb detonated around 4:15 p.m.,
: : killing four people.
: :
: : at least 14 gunmen stormed a Baghdad bakery
: : around 8:45 a.m. and kidnapped 10 workers
: :
: : Iraqi police found nine bodies dumped in
: : various parts of Baghdad, all shot in the
: : head with six of them showing signs of
: : torture.
Notice who is not on the list: American troops.
Notice who else is not on the list: Any combatants
whatsoever.
No matter how bad the US government is, you have to stop
taking positions and making claims that put you on side
with these guys.
James A. Donald:
> > > > Nation building is always stupid. Altruistic
> > > > wars always turn bad. But we have enemies who
> > > > seek to destroy us, seek to enslave pretty much
> > > > everyone, and destroying such enemies is wise
> > > > and good.
"Michael Price"
> > > And yet everywhere it's tried it leads to bad
> > > results.
James A. Donald:
> > In Afghanistan, it led to excellent results.
"Michael Price"
> Utter rubbish, the intervention in Afghanistan has
> achieved localised control of Kabul and the
> destabilisation of the atrocious, yet preferable to
> the alternative, Pakistani regime.
The only bad thing about the intervention is it
established a government in Kabul. What is there to
object to about the results in the rest of Afghanistan?
As for destabilizing Pakistan, yet another good outcome.
If the intervention failed to destabilize it, I would
favor nuking their nuclear facilities. If you are an
anarchist, why are you worried about the Kabul
government only controlling Kabul? Surely your
objection should be that Kabul is too much.
James A. Donald
> [The Taliban] won because they had a coherent ideology
> assumed meant make it more peaceful. They were able
> to mostly unify the country but, as you point out,
> that hardly meant pacify it*. Their progress in this
> way is very similiar to Chinese Nationalists and
> Communists of various countries. They won by offering
> an alternative that seemed better.
They won by killing enough people that the survivors
were prepared to concede - which is how wars are usually
won. They burnt people's houses, cut down their
orchards, poisoned the wells by throwing people into
them, and destroyed the irrigation systems, and they
just kept on doing this until people conceded. I would
like to say that their method of making war and winning
the war shows how evil they are, but in fact it does
not. That is how you win wars, and their tactics were
fairly ordinary. It was their peace, not their war, that
showed them to be remarkably evil.
They applied the same tactics that we are now seeing in
Baghdad - see my previous post - or today's newspaper.
> the Soviets were at least as much "the enemy of all
> mankind," and yet you wouldn't presumably sign up with
> the Nazis.
The Soviets were no better than the Nazis, arguably
worse. We signed up with Soviets rather than the Nazis
because they were less immediate threat, not because
they were the lesser evil. Right now the Islamists are
the most immediate threat, irrespective of whether they
are the greatest evil.
War is the health of the state - in large part because
it reserves to itself the exclusive power to make war.
Back before world war I, its monopoly was less rigid in
the US: merchant ships tended to be heavily armed, and
Americans were free to wander to various countries and
lend a hand in various armed conflicts. So states are
overly inclined to look for trouble and launch big
public spirited projects like remaking the middle east.
Nonetheless, radical Islam, not any government, started
this war.
john smith (nom de guerre)
Joshua Holmes skrev:
... "it's a price we're willing to pay" ...
sec. of state, M. Albright on US iraq "policy"
... a policy of starving 500.000 iraqi children
to death during 10 years of embargo...
I guess they where "in the way" of US policy.
brique
Funny, the dreadful commie BBC seem to have noticed that two US troops had
gone missing in action, presumed seized by 'insurgents' after their
checkpoint was attacked.
>
> Notice who else is not on the list: Any combatants
> whatsoever.
How about the US soldier killed during that attack on the checkpoint?
Or the seven US soldiers wounded whilst searching for the missing troops?
>
> No matter how bad the US government is, you have to stop
> taking positions and making claims that put you on side
> with these guys.
Seems you should adopt a posiiton of total blinkered ignorance, safe in the
knowledge that GWB and his advisors know best. Which is a frightening
thought sufficient to invalidate James whole position on its own.
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > > > Nation building is always stupid. Altruistic
> > > > > wars always turn bad. But we have enemies who
> > > > > seek to destroy us, seek to enslave pretty much
> > > > > everyone, and destroying such enemies is wise
> > > > > and good.
>
> "Michael Price"
> > > > And yet everywhere it's tried it leads to bad
> > > > results.
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > In Afghanistan, it led to excellent results.
>
> "Michael Price"
> > Utter rubbish, the intervention in Afghanistan has
> > achieved localised control of Kabul and the
> > destabilisation of the atrocious, yet preferable to
> > the alternative, Pakistani regime.
>
> The only bad thing about the intervention is it
> established a government in Kabul. What is there to
> object to about the results in the rest of Afghanistan?
The Taliban is still there, still shooting at US and other occupying troops.
On that ground alone, James's 'nation-smashing' has failed to achieve its
desired objectiveof eliminating the taliban and Al-Queda in Afghanistan. Of
course, it has also killed a lot of non-taliban, non-Al-Queda muslims, so,
for James, that is probably justification enough.
> As for destabilizing Pakistan, yet another good outcome.
> If the intervention failed to destabilize it, I would
> favor nuking their nuclear facilities. If you are an
> anarchist, why are you worried about the Kabul
> government only controlling Kabul? Surely your
> objection should be that Kabul is too much.
So that's why the USA announced increased co-operation on nuclear technology
with Pakistan. Lulling them into a false sense of security, eh?
James A. Donald
> > Let us see what the "resistance" did yesterday in
> > Baghdad:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/18/iraq.main/
> >
> > : : a car bomb detonated around 4:15 p.m., killing
> > : : four people.
> > : :
> > : : at least 14 gunmen stormed a Baghdad bakery
> > : : around 8:45 a.m. and kidnapped 10 workers
> > : :
> > : : Iraqi police found nine bodies dumped in various
> > : : parts of Baghdad, all shot in the head with six
> > : : of them showing signs of torture.
> >
> > Notice who is not on the list: American troops.
brique:
> Funny, the dreadful commie BBC seem to have noticed
> that two US troops had gone missing in action,
> presumed seized by 'insurgents' after their checkpoint
> was attacked.
I selected one day at random. If you cherry pick your
days, you will find some days they do something against
combatants, but most days, it is around five or ten
random innocents murdered, most of them tortured.
brique
> James A. Donald
> > > Let us see what the "resistance" did yesterday in
> > > Baghdad:
> > > http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/18/iraq.main/
> > >
> > > : : a car bomb detonated around 4:15 p.m., killing
> > > : : four people.
> > > : :
> > > : : at least 14 gunmen stormed a Baghdad bakery
> > > : : around 8:45 a.m. and kidnapped 10 workers
> > > : :
> > > : : Iraqi police found nine bodies dumped in various
> > > : : parts of Baghdad, all shot in the head with six
> > > : : of them showing signs of torture.
> > >
> > > Notice who is not on the list: American troops.
>
> brique:
> > Funny, the dreadful commie BBC seem to have noticed
> > that two US troops had gone missing in action,
> > presumed seized by 'insurgents' after their checkpoint
> > was attacked.
>
> I selected one day at random. If you cherry pick your
> days, you will find some days they do something against
> combatants, but most days, it is around five or ten
> random innocents murdered, most of them tortured.
I 'cherry-picked' the same day as yourself, James, Sunday, 18th June 2006.
Michael Price
Given the repeated attempts on Musharraf's life nothing can get the
government
of Pakistan into a sense of security, false or not. In fact Pakistan
is damn close
to being lost to the Islamists, pretty much solely because of the
actions of the
Bushrangers. I mean giving India more nukes after beating up a muslim
country
for having them? That's not going to make the Pakistanis very
paranoid.
James A. Donald
> > > > Let us see what the "resistance" did yesterday
> > > > in Baghdad:
> > > > http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/18/iraq.m
> > > > ain/
> > > >
> > > > : : a car bomb detonated around 4:15 p.m.,
> > > > : : killing four people.
> > > > : :
> > > > : : at least 14 gunmen stormed a Baghdad bakery
> > > > : : around 8:45 a.m. and kidnapped 10 workers
> > > > : :
> > > > : : Iraqi police found nine bodies dumped in
> > > > : : various parts of Baghdad, all shot in the
> > > > : : head with six of them showing signs of
> > > > : : torture.
> > > >
> > > > Notice who is not on the list: American troops.
brique:
> > > Funny, the dreadful commie BBC seem to have
> > > noticed that two US troops had gone missing in
> > > action, presumed seized by 'insurgents' after
> > > their checkpoint was attacked.
James A. Donald:
> > I selected one day at random. If you cherry pick
> > your days, you will find some days they do something
> > against combatants, but most days, it is around five
> > or ten random innocents murdered, most of them
> > tortured.
brique:
> I 'cherry-picked' the same day as yourself, James,
> Sunday, 18th June 2006.
No Americans were captured or killed on that day. The
"insurgents" are primarily fighting against Iraqis.
James A. Donald
> Given the repeated attempts on Musharraf's life
> nothing can get the government of Pakistan into a
> sense of security, false or not.
Why are you worried about attempts on Musharraf's life?
My worry is that he manages to survive. We should have
killed him for what he did to Afghanistan.
Why are you, an anarchist, so terribly worried about the
stability of governments?
> In fact Pakistan is damn close to being lost to the
> Islamists,
Islamists are only a serious problem when they control
the government, as the Taliban did, and as the Islamists
in Somalia may well do, or as in Saudi Arabia strongly
influence the government. Thus, for example, the
remnants of the Taliban hiding in caves along the border
of Afghanistan are no great problem for us, however much
a problem they are for the locals. The implication is
that we should destroy governments that are controlled,
or unduly influenced, by Islamists.
brique
> Michael Price:
> > Given the repeated attempts on Musharraf's life
> > nothing can get the government of Pakistan into a
> > sense of security, false or not.
>
> Why are you worried about attempts on Musharraf's life?
> My worry is that he manages to survive. We should have
> killed him for what he did to Afghanistan.
yep, stealing US money and funding all those islamic terrorist training
camps, oh, hang on, that was when they were heroes fighting communism....
>
> Why are you, an anarchist, so terribly worried about the
> stability of governments?
Maybe you can explain, James, given your unceasing devotion to rpeservign
the american way of life an dpraising tis governemnt at all opportunites (
except tax-filing time, naturally).
>
> > In fact Pakistan is damn close to being lost to the
> > Islamists,
>
> Islamists are only a serious problem when they control
> the government, as the Taliban did, and as the Islamists
> in Somalia may well do, or as in Saudi Arabia strongly
> influence the government. Thus, for example, the
> remnants of the Taliban hiding in caves along the border
> of Afghanistan are no great problem for us, however much
> a problem they are for the locals. The implication is
> that we should destroy governments that are controlled,
> or unduly influenced, by Islamists.
Shouldn't an anarchist feel that any government, whether controlled by
islamists, christians or martians requires destroying?
James A. Donald
> > Why are you worried about attempts on Musharraf's
> > life? My worry is that he manages to survive. We
> > should have killed him for what he did to
> > Afghanistan.
"brique"
> yep, stealing US money and funding all those islamic
> terrorist training camps, oh, hang on, that was when
> they were heroes fighting communism....
No that was not when they were heroes fighting
communism. Pakistan created the Taliban, funded it and
armed it, long after the Soviet Union had fallen.
brique
> James A. Donald
> > > Why are you worried about attempts on Musharraf's
> > > life? My worry is that he manages to survive. We
> > > should have killed him for what he did to
> > > Afghanistan.
>
> "brique"
> > yep, stealing US money and funding all those islamic
> > terrorist training camps, oh, hang on, that was when
> > they were heroes fighting communism....
>
> No that was not when they were heroes fighting
> communism. Pakistan created the Taliban, funded it and
> armed it, long after the Soviet Union had fallen.
Just after all these Taliban landed from Mars, was it?
James A. Donald
> > Pakistan created the Taliban, funded it and armed
> > it, long after the Soviet Union had fallen.
"brique"
> Just after all these Taliban landed from Mars, was it?
They were not Taliban, and for the most part were not
veterans the war with the Soviets. Taliban literally
means "student" - the Taliban rank and file were
recruited from the religious schools, not from veterans
of the war with communism.
brique
> James A. Donald
> > > Pakistan created the Taliban, funded it and armed
> > > it, long after the Soviet Union had fallen.
>
> "brique"
> > Just after all these Taliban landed from Mars, was it?
>
> They were not Taliban, and for the most part were not
> veterans the war with the Soviets. Taliban literally
> means "student" - the Taliban rank and file were
> recruited from the religious schools, not from veterans
> of the war with communism.
It wasn't the Taliban who landed from Mars? Then who was it? Al-Queda?