Iran president's ignorance
Acarya
Ahmadinejad, asked why Iran should stop an activity (nuclear enrichment) in
which the United States and Britain were also engaged.
Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S. and Britain
are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of nuclear
proliferation.
Robin T Cox
> Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation
That is neocon crap.
The facts are as follows.
========================
Nuclear Weapons
UN for nuclear-weapons-free zone in Middle East
URL of this article:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/index.php Sep 21, 2007
VIENNA: The UN atomic agency adopted a non-binding resolution on a nuclear
weapons-free-zone in the Middle East with Israel and the US voting against
and EU states except Ireland abstaining.
The lack of consensus weakened the impact of the measure, at a general
conference of the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
diplomats told AFP.
The Egyptian-sponsored resolution was backed by 53 votes, with two against
and 47 abstentions.
The IAEA has a tradition of adopting resolutions by consensus but the
Middle East issue has become highly politicized, even though Israel backs
a nuclear weapons-free-zone (NWFZ) within the framework of a Middle East
peace settlement.
Some Western and non-aligned diplomats said the problem this year was that
Iran was agitating behind the scenes for a showdown over Israel, in order
to distract from its own nuclear programme.
One Western diplomat said the large abstention vote, which included
Australia, Canada, Georgia, Ghana and Zambia, "shows that the world is
hanging together on these matters."
But the Iranian speaker blasted the vote as putting into question the
views of "some members that full-scope safeguards" need be complemented by
wider inspection measures, as Israel, which has not signed the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) seemed to be exempt from this.
An Irish diplomat said his country had voted for the text since Ireland
favored a NWFZ in the Middle East. "It's as simple as that," the diplomat
said.
The general conference approves broad policy lines for the 144-member
IAEA, the verification arm of the NPT.
But the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors makes decisions for the agency
on how policy is implemented.
The contested resolution contained two new paragraphs that were added to
past texts and which Israel felt expanded the scope of the resolution too
much, diplomats said.
The first called on "all states of the region, pending the establishment
of the zone, not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear
weapons or permit the stationing on their territories ... of nuclear
weapons."
The second new paragraph urged "nuclear-weapons states and all other
states to render assistance in the establishment of the zone."
Israel neither confirms nor denies it has nuclear weapons.
The Arab states insist, however, that the Jewish state does have such
weapons and is a danger to peace and stability in the Middle East.
Traditionally at the IAEA's general conference, Arab states introduce a
separate resolution on the Israeli nuclear threat but in the face of
strong Western opposition withdraw it.
It is then postponed to the following year in return for Israel agreeing
to a call for a NWFZ in the Middle East.
This arrangement fell apart for the first time at last year's general
conference, when the NWFZ resolution was adopted by a vote of 89-2.
This year Egypt refused to compromise on the text, even though the
Europeans and the United States offered a consensus on the previous year's
version of the resolution.
"They could have had consensus but look at the hash they have made of it
now," a non-aligned diplomat said.
US ambassador Gregory Schulte said he was disappointed at the lack of
consensus.
Israel's atomic energy chief Gideon Frank said that "for 14 years until
last year, Israel has supported a consensus resolution" but could not this
year due to Egypt's unwillingness to negotiate on the hardened text, as
well as on the resolution condemning Israel as a nuclear threat.
This second resolution has not yet been presented to the general
conference, which ends Friday.
Egyptian ambassador Ehab Fawzy said the weapons-free-zone text had "not
been amended for the last 15 years" and even so consensus failed to be
reached last year.
William Black
"Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S. and Britain
> are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of nuclear
> proliferation.
Well...
No...
Both the US and the UK have people locked up without charge or trial, which
Iran doesn't.
As for strict regulation of nuclear proliferation.
The UK and the US were directly responsible, through poor security, of
allowing the late and unlamented USSR get hold of nuclear weapons.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
genaro
>
> "Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>> Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S. and Britain
>> are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of nuclear
>> proliferation.
>
> Well...
>
> No...
>
> Both the US and the UK have people locked up without charge or trial, which
> Iran doesn't.
>
-------
The US and UK have people locked up for very good reason. Iran is hanging
people in droves for far less.
-------
> As for strict regulation of nuclear proliferation.
>
> The UK and the US were directly responsible, through poor security, of
> allowing the late and unlamented USSR get hold of nuclear weapons.
-------
No argument on your point about poor security, but is that a reason to not
now oppose Iran's attempts to use nuclear weapons to control the people,
the ideology, and the oil in the middle east?
Knowing a bit about Islamic extremism would they be satisfied with achieving
just those goals? Of course they would not as evidenced in many parts of
the world.
-------
FACE
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk>, wrote
>Both the US and the UK have people locked up without charge or trial, which
>Iran doesn't.
Don't read much, do you...............
Robin T Cox
Iran has no history of invading other countries, or of dropping nuclear
weapons on them, unlike the two states who recently opposed the UN
resolution to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone. Apparently those
two states claim the right to be the only states in the region to hold,
and to threaten to use, nuclear weapons, in order presumably to control
the region's oil reserves.
The stories about Islamic extremism do not wash. They are merely a cover.
William Black
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.09.22....@warp.speed...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:00:39 +0100, William Black wrote:
>
>>
>> "Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>> Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which
>>> supports
>>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S. and
>>> Britain
>>> are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of nuclear
>>> proliferation.
>>
>> Well...
>>
>> No...
>>
>> Both the US and the UK have people locked up without charge or trial,
>> which
>> Iran doesn't.
>>
> -------
> The US and UK have people locked up for very good reason. Iran is hanging
> people in droves for far less.
> -------
No they don't.
They have them locked up because they haven't the proof to put them in front
of a court and try them.
If they had any evidence that would stand up they would put them in front of
a properly constituted court and have them locked away for a very long time.
>> As for strict regulation of nuclear proliferation.
>>
>> The UK and the US were directly responsible, through poor security, of
>> allowing the late and unlamented USSR get hold of nuclear weapons.
> -------
> No argument on your point about poor security, but is that a reason to not
> now oppose Iran's attempts to use nuclear weapons to control the people,
> the ideology, and the oil in the middle east?
Obviously not.
Nobody screamed blue murder when China and the USSR got nukes.
Why should they because Iran has them?
Unlike the USA and the UK, Iran hasn't invaded anyone or attacked anyone
directly for many years.
They're no more sponsors of terror than any one of a dozen states,
including the USA.
Chris Hills
<gen...@warp.speed> writes
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:00:39 +0100, William Black wrote:
>
>>
>> "Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>> Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S. and Britain
>>> are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of nuclear
>>> proliferation.
>>
>> Well...
>>
>> No...
>>
>> Both the US and the UK have people locked up without charge or trial, which
>> Iran doesn't.
>>
>-------
>The US and UK have people locked up for very good reason.
Gitanamo in mate have been illegally detained and not charged
More civilians have be killed by US forces than the Irainans have killed
in a very long time
>-------
>> As for strict regulation of nuclear proliferation.
>>
>> The UK and the US were directly responsible, through poor security, of
>> allowing the late and unlamented USSR get hold of nuclear weapons.
>-------
>No argument on your point about poor security, but is that a reason to not
>now oppose Iran's attempts to use nuclear weapons to control the people,
>the ideology, and the oil in the middle east?
>
>Knowing a bit about Islamic extremism would they be satisfied with achieving
>just those goals? Of course they would not as evidenced in many parts of
>the world.
Unlike Islamic extremism the US government has unilaterally bombed 21
countries since 1946. Included half a dozen and killed thousands of
civilians
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris Hills
<harin...@yahoo.com> writes
Neither one the above statements are true
Iran is not fascist.
Iran does not support terrorists any more the the USA does.
The US has probably broken more human rights and international law in
the last 10 years than Iran has.
John D Salt
news:ygrWUfBD...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk:
[Snips]
> The US has probably broken more human rights and international law in
> the last 10 years than Iran has.
I rather doubt it: See the Human Rights Watch docs on Iran.
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=iran
All the best,
John.
genaro
> In message <pan.2007.09.22....@warp.speed>, genaro
> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:00:39 +0100, William Black wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>>> Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>>>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S. and Britain
>>>> are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of nuclear
>>>> proliferation.
>>>
>>> Well...
>>>
>>> No...
>>>
>>> Both the US and the UK have people locked up without charge or trial, which
>>> Iran doesn't.
>>>
>>-------
>>The US and UK have people locked up for very good reason.
>
> Gitanamo in mate have been illegally detained and not charged
>
-------
If it is as you say illegal to detain those fighting against us then
surely it must be illegal to kill those fighting against us. As Senator
Webb from VA said, it is impossible to fight a war and debate it at the
same time. I think it is wiser to suffer the legal criticism and focus on
winning the war.
-------
> More civilians have be killed by US forces than the Irainans have killed
> in a very long time
>
-------
When war is waged civilians die either by accident or by design. If you
believe the US military is killing civilians by design, be advised that
simply saying it does not make it so.
-------
>
>>-------
>>> As for strict regulation of nuclear proliferation.
>>>
>>> The UK and the US were directly responsible, through poor security, of
>>> allowing the late and unlamented USSR get hold of nuclear weapons.
>>-------
>>No argument on your point about poor security, but is that a reason to not
>>now oppose Iran's attempts to use nuclear weapons to control the people,
>>the ideology, and the oil in the middle east?
>>
>>Knowing a bit about Islamic extremism would they be satisfied with achieving
>>just those goals? Of course they would not as evidenced in many parts of
>>the world.
>
> Unlike Islamic extremism the US government has unilaterally bombed 21
> countries since 1946. Included half a dozen and killed thousands of
> civilians
-------
Based on what do you make your claims?
-------
Acarya
news:HvcJi.13146$aN2....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:28:28 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>
>> Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation
>
> That is neocon crap.
Atually it is you who is in deep do-do for bringing it up. Iran leaders have
been quoted in the media stating that nuclear technology should available to
all countries.
> The facts are as follows.
Your so-called facts do not even cover the actual dynamics of the present
Mideast situation vis-a-vis geopolitcal, historical, military and even
religious but instead dwells on the usual superficial views and unrealistic
concerns of the uneducated mundane world. The fact still remains that that
regime is a closed totalitarian government based on extremist sectarian
religious fundamentalism and supports proxy wars through international
terrorists as well.
Acarya
news:fd3l8j$3i6$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>> Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which
>> supports international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S.
>> and Britain are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of
>> nuclear proliferation.
>
> Well...
>
> No...
>
> Both the US and the UK have people locked up without charge or trial,
> which Iran doesn't.
Yeah they just chop of their heads.
Acarya
message news:4f268b6733use.feedb...@truefacts.co.uk...
nothing
Acarya
news:ygrWUfBD...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, Acarya
> <harin...@yahoo.com> writes
>>In an interview with British television Iran's president, Mahmood
>>Ahmadinejad, asked why Iran should stop an activity (nuclear enrichment)
>>in
>>which the United States and Britain were also engaged.
>>
>>Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>>international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S. and Britain
>>are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of nuclear
>>proliferation.
>
> Neither one the above statements are true
>
> Iran is not fascist.
You are in illusion. Religious fascism is materialistic and rascist what to
speak of violent.
> Iran does not support terrorists any more the the USA does.
More nonsense.
genaro
-------
Iran is known for launching attacks using terrorist groups it funds and
supplies. The Quds force or revolutionary guards and Hizbollah are the two
main groups that launch attacks and who take their orders from Iran's
supreme leader. Hizbollah is currently moving missiles to the
Lebanon/Israeli border. Iranian made weapons are being discovered in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Quds force agents are being captured in Iraq. For all
intents and purposes we are already at war with Iran.
The UN has neither the ability nor the intention of creating a
nuclear-free Middle East.
Islamic extremism is a reality. No "stories" can cover it up.
-------
genaro
-------
I believe China and the USSR realized that launching a nuclear attack
against the US would result in mutual annihiliation. There is a different
dynamic in play regarding Islamism which gladly welcomes death if
"infidels" are killed in the process. Basically they place much less value
on human lives than western civilizations do.
-------
> Unlike the USA and the UK, Iran hasn't invaded anyone or attacked anyone
> directly for many years.
>
-------
Does it make Iran any less culpable launching its attacks indirectly?
-------
> They're no more sponsors of terror than any one of a dozen states,
> including the USA.
-------
Sometimes you have to support the little bad guy to defeat the big bad
guy.
-------
Alborz
There are not iraq war , Abu Gahrib and Gunatanamo bay jail
Indian , with Servant mentality , see everything of their US/British
Sahib Hooman
"Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Robin T Cox
> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:HvcJi.13146$aN2....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:28:28 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>>
>>> Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation
>>
>> That is neocon crap.
>
>
> Atually it is you who is in deep do-do for bringing it up. Iran leaders have
> been quoted in the media stating that nuclear technology should available to
> all countries.
>
>
And why should not nuclear technology be available to all countries?
>> The facts are as follows.
>
>
> Your so-called facts do not even cover the actual dynamics of the present
> Mideast situation vis-a-vis geopolitcal, historical, military and even
> religious but instead dwells on the usual superficial views and unrealistic
> concerns of the uneducated mundane world. The fact still remains that that
> regime is a closed totalitarian government based on extremist sectarian
> religious fundamentalism and supports proxy wars through international
> terrorists as well.
Your use of long words that you do not understand shows that you are an
immature and uneducated student of these matters.
Check out the CIA Fact Book for Iran and you will not find its government
described as a closed totalitarian government. In fact Iran is a
theocratic republic, based on Islam, similar to that which has recently
been established in Iraq by the US and its allies following the 2003
invasion.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html#Govt
As to the influence of religion upon its politics, this is unfortunately
true of all too many countries today, including the USA.
As to the support of proxy wars, again regrettably these accusations might
also be made of other countries, including the USA, whose proxy wars via
Israel have recently been plain for all to see.
So I repeat: your rant was neocon crap.
Robin T Cox
> Iran is known for launching attacks using terrorist groups it funds and
> supplies.
Cite your evidence, please.
Chris Hills
<gen...@warp.speed> writes
>Iran is known for launching attacks using terrorist groups it funds and
>supplies.
As is the US in many parts of the world. Far more so than Iran
In the case of Iran they are funding local "freedom fighters" against an
illegal occupying army.
>The Quds force or revolutionary guards and Hizbollah are the two
>main groups that launch attacks and who take their orders from Iran's
>supreme leader.
I doubt that any more then the US directly controls Israel.
>Hizbollah is currently moving missiles to the
>Lebanon/Israeli border.
Is this the border Israel has a large army on? An Army that has invaded
Lebanon several times? Sounds like just cause to me.
>Iranian made weapons are being discovered in Iraq
>and Afghanistan.
And US ones.... for over a decade the US supplied weapons ot Afghanistan
to fight the legitimate government and the countries assisting them....
In Afghanistan the government had invited the Russians to help stoop the
terrorism. This time nether Afghanistan or Iraq asked for the US to go
in,.
> Quds force agents are being captured in Iraq.
So
> For all
>intents and purposes we are already at war with Iran.
So you admit the US is the aggressor again
>The UN has neither the ability nor the intention of creating a
>nuclear-free Middle East.
Why should it? Though the best place to start would be removing the
nuclear weapons from Israel.
>Islamic extremism is a reality. No "stories" can cover it up.
So too for Christian extremists of which there are more. Remember Waco,
godhatesFags, SBC, KKK etc etc.... strangely all US based.
Chris Hills
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:41:11 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> In message <pan.2007.09.22....@warp.speed>, genaro
>> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:00:39 +0100, William Black wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
No evidence whatsoever has been shown for ANY Gitamo inmate to prove
that ANY of them were engaged in terrorist acts this is why they have
not been charged and are being illegally held.
>then
>surely it must be illegal to kill those fighting against us.
No.
> As Senator
>Webb from VA said, it is impossible to fight a war and debate it at the
>same time.
CRAP.
> I think it is wiser to suffer the legal criticism and focus on
>winning the war.
Then you can not, and indeed are not winning the war. This is why your
generals are trying to get out with the least bad defeat just like
Korea, Vietnam etc etc
>> More civilians have be killed by US forces than the Irainans have killed
>> in a very long time
>>
>-------
>When war is waged civilians die either by accident or by design. If you
>believe the US military is killing civilians by design, be advised that
>simply saying it does not make it so.
No they car killing them by gross negligence. This has been shown as a
FACT many times. Courts have also ruled on this,
>> Unlike Islamic extremism the US government has unilaterally bombed 21
>> countries since 1946. Included half a dozen and killed thousands of
>> civilians
>Based on what do you make your claims?
Historical facts.
Usually by the US militaries own reports followed up my multiple on the
ground independent news reports.
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
[snip]
> If it is as you say illegal to detain those fighting against us then
> surely it must be illegal to kill those fighting against us.
You presume that those detained were 'fighting against us' when there is no
credible evidence to show that is true. That is what makes the situation and
relevent law different, and why simply pulling people off streets in foreign
lands is completely different to illing people on a battlefield.
> As Senator
> Webb from VA said, it is impossible to fight a war and debate it at the
> same time.
Then Webb is an idiot. Of course it is possible to debate while the war goes
on. The war does not have to be put on hold while any debate goes on.
> I think it is wiser to suffer the legal criticism and focus on
> winning the war.
Why is that the 'wise' course of action ? If you are perapared to act
illegally in order to execute your war in pursuit of the moral highground
against the illegality of warfare used by the terrorists, then you are no
better than the terrirsts themselves.
> When war is waged civilians die either by accident or by design. If you
> believe the US military is killing civilians by design, be advised that
> simply saying it does not make it so.
Be advised that simply saying that America does not does not make it so.
There is of course a difference between killing civilians deliberately, and
not caring if civilians are killed. This is usually wrapped up in soft terms
like 'collateral'. The US seems to care as little about the collateral
damage as the terrorists do.
William Black
They have trials.
William Black
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote in message
> Iran is known for launching attacks using terrorist groups it funds and
> supplies.
So does the USA.
William Black
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote in message
I'll have to tell my friend, the ex soldier with only one arm and only one
eye, that the IRA who blew him up are only 'little bad guys' and the UK is a
'big bad guy'.
I'm sure he'll understand.
Chris Hills
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote in message
>news:pan.2007.09.23....@warp.speed...
>
>> Iran is known for launching attacks using terrorist groups it funds and
>> supplies.
>
>So does the USA.
The US does more of it but less successfully....
Chris Hills
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:46f5d382$1$7444$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:fd3l8j$3i6$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46f550bc$0$26365$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>>> Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which
>>>> supports international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S.
>>>> and Britain are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of
>>>> nuclear proliferation.
>>>
>>> Well...
>>>
>>> No...
>>>
>>> Both the US and the UK have people locked up without charge or trial,
>>> which Iran doesn't.
>>
>>
>> Yeah they just chop of their heads.
>>
>Nope.
>
>They have trials.
This is true. The US has detention, kidnapping and torture in
contravention of many international laws...
Acarya
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:44:37 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>
>> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>> news:HvcJi.13146$aN2....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:28:28 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>>>
>>>> Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>>>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation
>>>
>>> That is neocon crap.
>>
>>
>> Atually it is you who is in deep do-do for bringing it up. Iran leaders
>> have
>> been quoted in the media stating that nuclear technology should available
>> to
>> all countries.
>>
>>
>
> And why should not nuclear technology be available to all countries?
Sorry not to terrorists with a death wish to go to their heaven by mass
murdering men, women and children.
And so go the rest of your garbage.
dank
> In an interview with British television Iran's president, Mahmood
> Ahmadinejad, asked why Iran should stop an activity (nuclear enrichment) in
> which the United States and Britain were also engaged.
>
> are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of nuclear
> proliferation.
But China is a communist totalitarian regime which kills more people with
its defective consumer products than all international terrorist acts
combined, and it is permitted to enrich uranium. Russia isn't much better,
and they also enrich uranium. And by "regulation of nuclear proliferation"
you mean preventing countries hostile to the USA and UK from acquiring
nuclear weapons. Countries friendly to the USA and UK are allowed to
proliferate as they please, such as when the country that is harboring
Osama bin Laden tested a nuclear device and paraded its "izlamist bomb"
through the streets for all the world to see, or one of Iran's neighbors
which refuses to allow any IAEA inspection of its nuclear weapons program.
genaro
> "genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
>
> [snip]
>
>> If it is as you say illegal to detain those fighting against us then
>> surely it must be illegal to kill those fighting against us.
>
> You presume that those detained were 'fighting against us' when there is
> no credible evidence to show that is true. That is what makes the
> situation and relevent law different, and why simply pulling people off
> streets in foreign lands is completely different to illing people on a
> battlefield.
>
-------
There is no credible evidence about which you are aware. Much of that
evidence is classified and exposing it in a civil court would not only
endanger the lives of many people including the families of those accused,
but also tip off the enemy as to who, what, where, and how. Telling the
enemy what you are doing and unnecessarily causing the deaths of innocent
folks is no way to fight a war.
BTW, in case you haven't noticed the streets ARE the battlefield in
foreign lands.
-------
>
>> As Senator
>> Webb from VA said, it is impossible to fight a war and debate it at the
>> same time.
>
> Then Webb is an idiot. Of course it is possible to debate while the war
> goes on. The war does not have to be put on hold while any debate goes
> on.
>
-------
Webb's exact quote was, "If I had one lesson that stands out in my mind,
it is that you cannot fight a war and debate it at the same time." What I
would say is that it is very difficult to win a war and debate it at the
same time. If Muslim extremists were having as much debate about killing
infidels as the west is about killing terrorists it is quite certain they
would not be doing "as well" as they are.
-------
>
>> I think it is wiser to suffer the legal criticism and focus on winning
>> the war.
>
> Why is that the 'wise' course of action ? If you are perapared to act
> illegally in order to execute your war in pursuit of the moral
> highground against the illegality of warfare used by the terrorists,
> then you are no better than the terrirsts themselves.
>
-------
Well that's the whole point isn't it? If military effectiveness is
hindered by the many and confusing legalities of how to proceed against an
enemy that does not restrict itself as it kills, the disadvantage is
obvious. Islamic extremism does not qualify as a force to be reckoned with
on a moral basis in my opinion and the moral equivalence arguments fail
when one considers the intolerance and inhumanity displayed by Muslims
misguided by religion that forbids listening to the Beatles.
As for who is better than whom, I seriously doubt whether a coalition
troop is considering moral high ground when he comes face to face with an
enemy who is about to take his life. Faced with the choice between two
evils, suffering those who consider me immoral is more appealing than
death.
-------
>
>> When war is waged civilians die either by accident or by design. If you
>> believe the US military is killing civilians by design, be advised that
>> simply saying it does not make it so.
>
> Be advised that simply saying that America does not does not make it so.
>
-------
Then there is the policy issue. It does not follow from the Mi Lai
massacre that the targeting of innocents is US gov't. policy as
demonstrated by the courts martial that followed. When was the last time
you heard of an Islamic extremist prosecuted by Suni or Sharia law for
killing innocent folks? You haven't because it IS the policy of Islamism
to kill innocents.
-------
> There is of course a difference between killing civilians deliberately,
> and not caring if civilians are killed. This is usually wrapped up in
> soft terms like 'collateral'. The US seems to care as little about the
> collateral damage as the terrorists do.
-------
Most collateral damage, an accurate term, occurs when the enemy places
itself within a group or community of innocent folks knowing that the
"infidels" will hesitate to fire for fear of killing innocents, something
Islamic extremists do not worry about.
-------
Robin T Cox
> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:hOpJi.33100$ka7....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:44:37 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>>
>>> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:HvcJi.13146$aN2....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:28:28 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>>>>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation
>>>>
>>>> That is neocon crap.
>>>
>>>
>>> Atually it is you who is in deep do-do for bringing it up. Iran leaders
>>> have
>>> been quoted in the media stating that nuclear technology should available
>>> to
>>> all countries.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And why should not nuclear technology be available to all countries?
>
>
> Sorry not to terrorists with a death wish to go to their heaven by mass
> murdering men, women and children.
>
> And so go the rest of your garbage.
Which has what, exactly, to do with the availability of nuclear technology?
Robin T Cox
> But China is a communist totalitarian regime which kills more people with
> its defective consumer products than all international terrorist acts
> combined
Presumably this is why Mattel, the huge American toy combine, has just had
to apologise to China for product recalls.
Your post was simply more neocon crap.
genaro
> In message <pan.2007.09.23....@warp.speed>, genaro
> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>Iran is known for launching attacks using terrorist groups it funds and
>>supplies.
>
> As is the US in many parts of the world. Far more so than Iran
> In the case of Iran they are funding local "freedom fighters" against an
> illegal occupying army.
>
-------
Ah, so that's what Iran is doing in Lebanon. Thanks for clearing that up.
-------
>>The Quds force or revolutionary guards and Hizbollah are the two
>>main groups that launch attacks and who take their orders from Iran's
>>supreme leader.
>
> I doubt that any more then the US directly controls Israel.
>
-------
You can doubt it all you like.
-------
>>Hizbollah is currently moving missiles to the
>>Lebanon/Israeli border.
>
> Is this the border Israel has a large army on? An Army that has invaded
> Lebanon several times? Sounds like just cause to me.
-------
Do you know what touched off last years' mini-war between Israel and
Hizbollah?
-------
>
>>Iranian made weapons are being discovered in Iraq
>>and Afghanistan.
>
> And US ones.... for over a decade the US supplied weapons ot Afghanistan
> to fight the legitimate government and the countries assisting them....
> In Afghanistan the government had invited the Russians to help stoop the
> terrorism. This time nether Afghanistan or Iraq asked for the US to go
> in,.
>
-------
You really need to change the context when you digress 30 years into the
past. The US didn't need permission to go after bin Laden and Saddam
brought invasion on himself.
-------
>> Quds force agents are being captured in Iraq.
> So
>
-------
So you agree coalition forces are fighting Iran in Iraq.
-------
>> For all
>>intents and purposes we are already at war with Iran.
>
> So you admit the US is the aggressor again
>
-------
I'd say we are very restrained for an agressor. I don't believe we've seen
all-out agression just yet.
-------
>>The UN has neither the ability nor the intention of creating a
>>nuclear-free Middle East.
>
> Why should it? Though the best place to start would be removing the
> nuclear weapons from Israel.
>
-------
Right, followed shortly thereafter by its annihilation, yes?
-------
>>Islamic extremism is a reality. No "stories" can cover it up.
> So too for Christian extremists of which there are more. Remember Waco,
> godhatesFags, SBC, KKK etc etc.... strangely all US based.
-------
All of which are strongly and openly criticized by the Christian
community. Not nearly enough do we hear criticism from the Muslim
community for its extremists.
-------
genaro
-------
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/08/iranians_disgru.php
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Mideast/story?id=2189860
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1148
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101105.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012359.php
-------
Chris Hills
<gen...@warp.speed> writes
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:45:08 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> In message <pan.2007.09.23....@warp.speed>, genaro
>> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>>Iran is known for launching attacks using terrorist groups it funds and
>>>supplies.
>>
>> As is the US in many parts of the world. Far more so than Iran
>> In the case of Iran they are funding local "freedom fighters" against an
>> illegal occupying army.
>>
>-------
>Ah, so that's what Iran is doing in Lebanon. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well the Iranians are assisting the Lebanese against an army that
regularly invades and commits war crimes.
>-------
>>>Hizbollah is currently moving missiles to the
>>>Lebanon/Israeli border.
>>
>> Is this the border Israel has a large army on? An Army that has invaded
>> Lebanon several times? Sounds like just cause to me.
>-------
>Do you know what touched off last years' mini-war between Israel and
>Hizbollah?
Israel.
>>>Iranian made weapons are being discovered in Iraq
>>>and Afghanistan.
>>
>> And US ones.... for over a decade the US supplied weapons ot Afghanistan
>> to fight the legitimate government and the countries assisting them....
>> In Afghanistan the government had invited the Russians to help stoop the
>> terrorism. This time nether Afghanistan or Iraq asked for the US to go
>> in,.
>>
>-------
>You really need to change the context when you digress 30 years into the
>past. The US didn't need permission to go after bin Laden and Saddam
>brought invasion on himself.
The US acted illegally under international law. If the US need no
permission than neither does Iran. You can't have it both ways. If the
US does not play by the rules then neither will others,
The problem is tat as the US is breaking the rules it looses the moral
high ground and is no better then the terrorists.
>>> Quds force agents are being captured in Iraq.
>> So
>>
>So you agree coalition forces are fighting Iran in Iraq.
NO. Not at all. No more than Hezbolla are fighting the US in Israel
>>> For all
>>>intents and purposes we are already at war with Iran.
>>
>> So you admit the US is the aggressor again
>I'd say we are very restrained for an agressor. I don't believe we've seen
>all-out agression just yet.
The US is very aggressive and has broken many of the international laws
on fighting. As a peace keeping force the US is a dead loss. It is TOO
aggressive at the wrong times.
For example when the UK sailors were taken it wanted to employ
completely the wrong tactics which would have made matters far worse..
This is what the Revolutionary guard were hoping for but by handling if
correctly the Brits changed the balance of power in Iran.
>>>The UN has neither the ability nor the intention of creating a
>>>nuclear-free Middle East.
>>
>> Why should it? Though the best place to start would be removing the
>> nuclear weapons from Israel.
>>
>-------
>Right, followed shortly thereafter by its annihilation, yes?
No. However the whole problem in the Middle East is caused by behaviour
of Israel. If the Jews were removed from the West bank and they stopped
shelling the Palestinian areas thongs would improve. However whilst the
IDF are employing Waffen SS tactics on the Palestinians things will not
get any better.
It is interesting to note that the US is trying to offload Israel....
>-------
>>>Islamic extremism is a reality. No "stories" can cover it up.
>> So too for Christian extremists of which there are more. Remember Waco,
>> godhatesFags, SBC, KKK etc etc.... strangely all US based.
>-------
>All of which are strongly and openly criticized by the Christian
>community. Not nearly enough do we hear criticism from the Muslim
>community for its extremists.
However the Christian community in the US does not put the same
pressure, surveillance and arbitrary detention of them. Remember
things like Oklahoma, Waco were Christian. You have as much to fear
from Christian extremists
your own Christian extremists as any others
Chris Hills
<gen...@warp.speed> writes
>
>
>> "genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> If it is as you say illegal to detain those fighting against us then
>>> surely it must be illegal to kill those fighting against us.
>>
>> You presume that those detained were 'fighting against us' when there is
>> no credible evidence to show that is true. That is what makes the
>> situation and relevent law different, and why simply pulling people off
>> streets in foreign lands is completely different to illing people on a
>> battlefield.
>>
>-------
>There is no credible evidence about which you are aware.
No. There is no credible evidence. ALL the detainees when released to
other friendly governments have not bee detained BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE. The US security forces showed the UK security forces their
"evidence" and it was not accepted and they had to be released.
> Much of that
>evidence is classified and exposing it in a civil court would not only
>endanger the lives of many people including the families of those accused,
However the US military legal representatives of the detainees also have
not seen any credible evidence apparently . This is why there have
been no military tribunals.
>but also tip off the enemy as to who, what, where, and how. Telling the
>enemy what you are doing and unnecessarily causing the deaths of innocent
>folks is no way to fight a war.
You mean this evidence is still crucial after 5 years!!!! BOLLOX
>BTW, in case you haven't noticed the streets ARE the battlefield in
>foreign lands.
NO! That is the problem they are not a "battlefield" IT is a
police/pewace keeping action until you recognise that you can never win.
>>> I think it is wiser to suffer the legal criticism and focus on winning
>>> the war.
>>
>> Why is that the 'wise' course of action ? If you are perapared to act
>> illegally in order to execute your war in pursuit of the moral
>> highground against the illegality of warfare used by the terrorists,
>> then you are no better than the terrirsts themselves.
>>
>-------
>Well that's the whole point isn't it? If military effectiveness is
>hindered by the many and confusing legalities of how to proceed against an
>enemy that does not restrict itself as it kills, the disadvantage is
>obvious.
Yes which is why you need a professional military of the type the US has
NOT got. Remember counter insurgency wars are only 10% military the
other 90% is political, hearts and minds, social etc.
>Islamic extremism does not qualify as a force to be reckoned with
>on a moral basis in my opinion and the moral equivalence arguments fail
>when one considers the intolerance and inhumanity displayed by Muslims
>misguided by religion that forbids listening to the Beatles.
They you have no hope of winning this war. Until you understand the
enemy you can no beat him. The Moslem fanatics are as moral as any
other extremist religious group. I think you will find the Armish, SBC
and many Christian groups campaigned against "rock and roll" and
specifically the Beatles.
If you take the like you are then Christianity has a pretty poor record.
However to make this fight religious mean you can not win it.
>As for who is better than whom, I seriously doubt whether a coalition
>troop is considering moral high ground when he comes face to face with an
>enemy who is about to take his life. Faced with the choice between two
>evils, suffering those who consider me immoral is more appealing than
>death.
You are not arguing like with like. The US forces are very well know for
shooting first and suggesting what ever was hit was a suspected
terrorists.
You seem to be arguing that any shot fired by US forces is justified.
Untill you change that attitude the US forces will (and are) seen by the
majority of the world as in competent and a liability.
>>> believe the US military is killing civilians by design, be advised that
>>> simply saying it does not make it so.
>>
>> Be advised that simply saying that America does not does not make it so.
>>
>-------
>Then there is the policy issue. It does not follow from the Mi Lai
>massacre that the targeting of innocents is US gov't. policy as
>demonstrated by the courts martial that followed.
However there have been VERY MANY such incidence since. The majority of
cases involving friendly personnel the US has lied, with held evidence
and refused to seriously prosecute it's own people.
> When was the last time
>you heard of an Islamic extremist prosecuted by Suni or Sharia law for
>killing innocent folks? You haven't because it IS the policy of Islamism
>to kill innocents.
When was the last time it happened or the last time it was reported on
US tv Not the same thing.
>> There is of course a difference between killing civilians deliberately,
>> and not caring if civilians are killed. This is usually wrapped up in
>> soft terms like 'collateral'. The US seems to care as little about the
>> collateral damage as the terrorists do.
>-------
>Most collateral damage, an accurate term, occurs when the enemy places
>itself within a group or community of innocent folks knowing that the
>"infidels" will hesitate to fire for fear of killing innocents, something
>Islamic extremists do not worry about.
However the US use this pathetic excuse for indiscriminate shooting by
indisciplined troops and killing civilians. It is just an excuse to
cover-up the massive failings in the US military.
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:18:22 +0000, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>
>
> > "genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> If it is as you say illegal to detain those fighting against us then
> >> surely it must be illegal to kill those fighting against us.
> >
> > You presume that those detained were 'fighting against us' when there is
> > no credible evidence to show that is true. That is what makes the
> > situation and relevent law different, and why simply pulling people off
> > streets in foreign lands is completely different to illing people on a
> > battlefield.
> >
> -------
> There is no credible evidence about which you are aware. Much of that
> evidence is classified and exposing it in a civil court would not only
> endanger the lives of many people including the families of those accused,
> but also tip off the enemy as to who, what, where, and how. Telling the
> enemy what you are doing and unnecessarily causing the deaths of innocent
> folks is no way to fight a war.
Rubbish. It is perfectly possible to hold civil court trials where
confidential and secret evidence is disclosed but not put into the public
domain. America and most other countries have done that in the past. You are
just excuse making in an attempt to hide the lack of credible evidence.
> BTW, in case you haven't noticed the streets ARE the battlefield in
> foreign lands.
I know you think America's unilateral declaration of war on the etherial
concept of international terrorism gives America inalienable rights to do
whatever it damn well pleaes, but international law says otherwise.
> -------
> >
> >> As Senator
> >> Webb from VA said, it is impossible to fight a war and debate it at the
> >> same time.
> >
> > Then Webb is an idiot. Of course it is possible to debate while the war
> > goes on. The war does not have to be put on hold while any debate goes
> > on.
> >
> -------
> Webb's exact quote was, "If I had one lesson that stands out in my mind,
> it is that you cannot fight a war and debate it at the same time."
As I said, Webb is an idiot.
> What I
> would say is that it is very difficult to win a war and debate it at the
> same time.
Well you're an idiot as well then.
> If Muslim extremists were having as much debate about killing
> infidels as the west is about killing terrorists it is quite certain they
> would not be doing "as well" as they are.
Simply ridiculous assertion.
> -------
> >
> >> I think it is wiser to suffer the legal criticism and focus on winning
> >> the war.
> >
> > Why is that the 'wise' course of action ? If you are perapared to act
> > illegally in order to execute your war in pursuit of the moral
> > highground against the illegality of warfare used by the terrorists,
> > then you are no better than the terrirsts themselves.
> >
> -------
> Well that's the whole point isn't it? If military effectiveness is
> hindered by the many and confusing legalities of how to proceed against an
> enemy that does not restrict itself as it kills, the disadvantage is
> obvious.
> Islamic extremism does not qualify as a force to be reckoned with
> on a moral basis in my opinion and the moral equivalence arguments fail
> when one considers the intolerance and inhumanity displayed by Muslims
> misguided by religion that forbids listening to the Beatles.
So, if terrorists can be evil, then so can ( indeed must ) the US.
> As for who is better than whom, I seriously doubt whether a coalition
> troop is considering moral high ground when he comes face to face with an
> enemy who is about to take his life. Faced with the choice between two
> evils, suffering those who consider me immoral is more appealing than
> death.
What happens 'at the moment' is entirely different as to why that soldier is
there in the first place.
Robin T Cox
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:52:06 +0000, Robin T Cox wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:09:38 -0400, genaro wrote:
>>
>>> Iran is known for launching attacks using terrorist groups it funds
>>> and supplies.
>>
>> Cite your evidence, please.
> -------
> http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2007/08/iranians_disgru.php
>
>
No evidence of support for launching attacks using terrorist groups it
funds and supplies in that article.
> http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Mideast/story?id=2189860
>
>
Nor in the above article.
> http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1148
>
>
Biased and unreliable. According to SourceWatch:
<quote>
The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is
a powerful Boston-based lobby group that tries to curb criticism of Israel
in US media.
</quote>
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CAMERA
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101105.html
>
Nothing in the above article that evidences support for launching attacks using terrorist groups it
funds and supplies.
> http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012359.php -------
Quotes an article from the neocon New York Sun, which in turn quotes
hearsay from unnamed Jordanian officials about the launch of rockets into
Israel by Hezbollah.
Nothing in the above article that evidences support for launching attacks using terrorist groups it
funds and supplies.
In short, your cites do not provide any evidence of this claim, but simply
repeat the same allegations as those made by you, without substantiating
any of them.
genaro
-------
It is plain to see from your statements that you are more invested in
criticizing the US military than countering terrorism. Have a nice day.
-------
genaro
Are you at all concerned about the clear and present threat from Islamic
extremists or merely invested in the amount of criticism you can dish out
against a country attempting to defeat it?
Assuming we are agreed that terrorist acts are a threat to both of us
would it not be a better usage of time defining the threat, identify where
it's coming from, and promoting ways and ideas to counter it?
-------
Chris Hills
<gen...@warp.speed> writes
>It is plain to see from your statements that you are more invested in
>criticizing the US military than countering terrorism. Have a nice day.
I see you don't like reality. For the record I have combated terrorism
in Europe and the middle east since the mid 1970's whilst serving in HM
forces.
My view of the US forces is from having worked with them in action.
John D Salt
news:pan.2007.09.24....@warp.speed:
[Snips]
> Assuming we are agreed that terrorist acts are a threat to both of us
> would it not be a better usage of time defining the threat, identify
> where it's coming from, and promoting ways and ideas to counter it?
Consider that one of the main principles of terrorism as a technique is the intention
to provoke a reaction from the target audience.
One of the most fruitful ways of frustrating the terrorists' intentions, therefore,
is to ensure that reactions to them are not those they will gain advantage from
provoking.
What you seem to see as partisan whining about US policy and tactics is, properly
viewed, a set of suggestions that would help defeat the terrorists by denying them
the aid and comfort of mistaken US reaction. Unfortunately, the direly misdirected
response of the current administration so far has given the terrorists such a
colossal free lunch that it will take years to make back the advantage conceded to
them.
All the best,
John.
Acarya
"dank" <da...@nugget.org> wrote in message
news:cwyJi.206$P21...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Acarya wrote...
>> In an interview with British television Iran's president, Mahmood
>> Ahmadinejad, asked why Iran should stop an activity (nuclear enrichment)
>> in which the United States and Britain were also engaged.
>>
>> Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which
>> supports international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S.
>> and Britain are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of
>> nuclear proliferation.
>
> But China is a communist totalitarian regime which kills more people with
> its defective consumer products than all international terrorist acts
> combined, and it is permitted to enrich uranium.
Bad joke. They do not support international terrorism to further their
political doctrine.
Russia isn't much better,
> and they also enrich uranium.
They also do not support international terrorism.
And by "regulation of nuclear proliferation"
> you mean preventing countries hostile to the USA and UK from acquiring
> nuclear weapons. Countries friendly to the USA and UK are allowed to
> proliferate as they please, such as when the country that is harboring
> Osama bin Laden tested a nuclear device and paraded its "izlamist bomb"
> through the streets for all the world to see, or one of Iran's neighbors
> which refuses to allow any IAEA inspection of its nuclear weapons program.
Presently all countries with nuclear technology are against international
terrorist organizations. If they are associated with terrorists they are
taking care of their problem.
But Iran arms and supports Hezbollah and Hamas which are internationally
accepted terrorist organizations. They also call for the forceful
destruction of a UN nation state.
Robin T Cox
> But Iran arms and supports Hezbollah and Hamas which are internationally
> accepted terrorist organizations. They also call for the forceful
> destruction of a UN nation state.
What state would that be?
Give us a clue ...
genaro
> In message <pan.2007.09.24....@warp.speed>, genaro
> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>It is plain to see from your statements that you are more invested in
>>criticizing the US military than countering terrorism. Have a nice day.
>
>
> I see you don't like reality. For the record I have combated terrorism
> in Europe and the middle east since the mid 1970's whilst serving in HM
> forces.
>
> My view of the US forces is from having worked with them in action.
-------
And now you are working against them, and moreover, the US.
-------
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote...
[snip]
> Are you at all concerned about the clear and present threat from Islamic
> extremists or merely invested in the amount of criticism you can dish out
> against a country attempting to defeat it?
I'm interested in both the terrorist threat ( wherever it comes from ) and
countering it, and the same with any bollocks which is uttered in the name
of fighting terrorism.
> Assuming we are agreed that terrorist acts are a threat to both of us
> would it not be a better usage of time defining the threat, identify where
> it's coming from, and promoting ways and ideas to counter it?
Our time is best spent in dealing with all aspects of this so-called war on
terrorism, and this includes addressing the responses to terrorism which are
self defeating, ineffective or work to the terrorists advantage.
Criticism of and debate on the so-called war on terror is entirely legimate
and aboslutely essential in formulating a response to ongoing terrorist
threat. To say that debate cannot be had 'while the war is being waged' is
as ludicrous as saying it is not possible to debate the best route to take
once a journey has started, as dangerous as not being able to change course
in the light of new information revealed.
The Happy Hippy
"Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> Presently all countries with nuclear technology are against international
> terrorist organizations. If they are associated with terrorists they are
> taking care of their problem.
Someone had best tell GWB so he can take North Korea of his Axis of Evil
list.
Acarya
Israel
genaro
-------
I could appreciate resorting to psychology when dealing with a rational
opponent but I seriously doubt whether a "set of suggestions" will deny or
divert Muslim extremists from their intentions which include slicing off
heads and hanging burned dead bodies from bridges.
I'm quite certain that the best way to frustrate terrorists is to kill
them before they kill us, as difficult as that may be for some to accept.
-------
John D Salt
news:pan.2007.09.24....@warp.speed:
[Snips]
> I could appreciate resorting to psychology when dealing with a
> rational opponent but I seriously doubt whether a "set of suggestions"
> will deny or divert Muslim extremists from their intentions which
> include slicing off heads and hanging burned dead bodies from bridges.
Those are not the intentions; those are the means by which they carry out
their intentions (as some people seem quite determined to see everything
in military terms, think of the difference between the "commander's
intent" and "tasks" sections of a five-paragraph order).
You also seem to have got the wrong end of the stick as to the
motivations for criticising institutional mishandling of counter-
terrorist policy. The target audience for US reaction is not the
terrorists themselves, many of whom are probably never going to see the
error of their ways. Leaving aside the fatuous simplicities of Bush's
rhetoric, there are lots of parties involved in this beyond just "us" and
"them".
What's more, even though I suspect your dismissal of the enemy as
"irrational" is based on your failure to understand them rather than
their own characterisitics, I am not aware of any principle of psychology
that says it is apllicable only to the rational.
I really do not think that muddled thinking to the extent you have just
displayed is likely to anything other than highly damaging to the fight
against terrorists.
> I'm quite certain that the best way to frustrate terrorists is to kill
> them before they kill us, as difficult as that may be for some to
> accept. -------
You clearly have very little understanding of how terrorism works. This
is precisely the kind of foolishness on which the terrorists rely for
such success as they can achieve; for, unless you have an impossibly
reliable system for identifying the terrorists, such a policy is
practically certain to hit the wrong people, make the terrorists'
opponents look bad, and gather more support and recruits for the
terrorists' cause.
Further, if the enemy are seeking martyrdom -- wasn't it George Bernard
Shaw who said that martyrdom was the only way a man could become famous
without ability? -- then putting the little shits before a court and
throwing them in gaol once convicted will be a very much more effective
way of frustrating their intentions and damaging their prestige than
killing them and giving them automatic promotion to "shahid".
I recommend a read of Louise Richardson's "What Terrorists Want" for a
primer on terrorist motivation. Here she is speaking herself:
http://www.iptv.org/video/detail.cfm/451
Frank Kitson's "Low Intensity Operations" and Richard Clutterbuck's
"Living With Terrorism" are both well worth a read, too, if a little
dated by now.
All the best,
John.
Jim E
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:28:28 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>
>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation
>
You are limey liberal cat shit.
Jim E
genaro
-------
To summarize your statements:
Iran is assisting Lebanon
Israel started the war last year with Hezbollah
You concede Iran is sending bombs to Iraq to kill Americans
You praise international law as if it is relevant
You are indifferent to Qods being captured in Iraq
You criticize the US when British sailors are captured
You blame the entire middle east problem on Israel
And you equate Christian extremists with Islamic extremists
I strongly disagree with all your points except the third. C'mon now,
you're slipping.
-------
genaro
-------
Ok, take it right from the horses mouth:
Nasrallah admits Iran supplies Hezbollah with arms
By Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondent
Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah has said it is no secret that Iran is
aiding Hezbollah by sending money and weapons via Syria.
In remarks published in an interview in the weekend issue of the Kuwaiti
newspaper Al-Rai Al-Aam, Nasrallah also is willing to receive aid not only
from Iran but also from Muslim countries that have diplomatic ties with
Israel, such as Egypt, and states that are considered moderate, such as
Saudi Arabia.
The interviewer, Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, said he met Nasrallah several
days ago in Lebanon. Ibrahim, a vocal critic of the Egyptian regime, is
the chair of Cairo's Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/821548.html
If you are still unconvinced perhaps, in the interest of truth, you can
explain where Hezbollah gets its Katyusha missiles and from whom Hamas
receives its Qassam rockets.
-------
Jim E
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:44:37 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>
>> news:HvcJi.13146$aN2....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:28:28 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>>>
>>>> Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>>>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation
>>>
>>> That is neocon crap.
>>
>>
>> have
>> been quoted in the media stating that nuclear technology should available
>> to
>> all countries.
>>
>>
>
> And why should not nuclear technology be available to all countries?
>
>
Because ninth century retards should not be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Jim E
Jim E
There is nothing quite as entertaining as watching a leftist adjust it's
blinders.
You really are a goofy shit.
Jim E
Docky Wocky
dealing with the nice Talibanese, had a better read on these turkeys than
anyone else. Anyone notable on their local shit list was good enough to
terminated right on the scene.
They did things right back in 2001 when they simply packed their enemies
into those overseas shipping containers, then locked the hatches - so the
hundred or so boys inside could reflect on their sins and islamic rages
while pushing their cousin Mohammed, and their other cousin Mohammed's, feet
and asses out of their faces.
Amazing how some folks just cannot comprehend that this was the simple way
to handle any local grudges and what should have happened to every stinking
terrorist that ever ended up in US custody, and for which we are still
suffering for being influence by tear-jerkers more than practicality.
Ahmadinejob has his Kurds, and they just want to kill him as part of their
simple solution.
genaro
>
> "genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Are you at all concerned about the clear and present threat from Islamic
>> extremists or merely invested in the amount of criticism you can dish out
>> against a country attempting to defeat it?
>
> I'm interested in both the terrorist threat ( wherever it comes from ) and
> countering it, and the same with any bollocks which is uttered in the name
> of fighting terrorism.
>
-------
Agreed.
-------
>
>> Assuming we are agreed that terrorist acts are a threat to both of us
>> would it not be a better usage of time defining the threat, identify where
>> it's coming from, and promoting ways and ideas to counter it?
>
> Our time is best spent in dealing with all aspects of this so-called war on
> terrorism, and this includes addressing the responses to terrorism which are
> self defeating, ineffective or work to the terrorists advantage.
>
-------
Before you perform all this analysis you have to decide what it is you're
analyzing. If it's not a war on terrorism then what is it?
-------
> Criticism of and debate on the so-called war on terror is entirely legimate
> and aboslutely essential in formulating a response to ongoing terrorist
> threat. To say that debate cannot be had 'while the war is being waged' is
> as ludicrous as saying it is not possible to debate the best route to take
> once a journey has started, as dangerous as not being able to change course
> in the light of new information revealed.
-------
Hey I'm all for formulating an effective strategy for countering
terrorism. The debate Webb was referring to was about democrats wanting to
pull out of Iraq and republicans wanting to finish what they started. If
there is any debate to be had after the order is given, it should be about
how to succeed, not withdraw in defeat.
-------
Chris Hills
The same way the US is assisting Israel
> Israel started the war last year with Hezbollah
Yes.
> You concede Iran is sending bombs to Iraq to kill Americans
No. Iran is helping Iraq to remove the invaders and occupying army.
It's not Iran's fault the aggressor is the US military. The Iranian
backed fighters is also killing British forces.... in face the same
regiment I served in.
BTW hasn't the US backed terrorists/fighters in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq,
Central America, Veitnam, etc etc
> You praise international law as if it is relevant
You ignore International law and wonder why the whole world sees you in
the same light as the other law breakers.
> You are indifferent to Qods being captured in Iraq
Not at all
> You criticize the US when British sailors are captured
Yes... The US nearly screwed up the whole thing. The British way of
handling it changed the balance of power in our favour. The US was going
to make things MUCH worse. (As usual VERY short sighted US reaction).
> You blame the entire middle east problem on Israel
So does everyone else. Remove Israel and the majority of the problems
will go too.
> And you equate Christian extremists with Islamic extremists
A bit unfair... over the last couple of hundred years the Christians
have been worse than the Islamic ones.
>I strongly disagree with all your points except the third. C'mon now,
>you're slipping.
OK so you don't accept reality. Not my problem
Chris Hills
<gen...@warp.speed> writes
>On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:32:52 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> In message <pan.2007.09.24....@warp.speed>, genaro
>> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>>It is plain to see from your statements that you are more invested in
>>>criticizing the US military than countering terrorism. Have a nice day.
>>
>>
>> I see you don't like reality. For the record I have combated terrorism
>> in Europe and the middle east since the mid 1970's whilst serving in HM
>> forces.
>>
>> My view of the US forces is from having worked with them in action.
>-------
>And now you are working against them, and moreover, the US.
Well the US is working against everyone else including it's allies.
What I am doing is point out the way forward to win. All you want to do
is knee jerk reactions and fall into the very trap the terrorists have
set for you. Self defeating.
Acarya
"The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fqXJi.5228$X%4.2...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
N Korea recently agreed to shut down their reactor and end their nuclear
enrichment program. The government of Pakistan is against Moslem terrorists
and is assisting in the war on terrorism by arresting top Alqaeda leaders.
Robin T Cox
> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:hOpJi.33100$ka7....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:44:37 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>>
>>> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:HvcJi.13146$aN2....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:28:28 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
>>>>> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation
>>>>
>>>> That is neocon crap.
>>>
>>>
>>> Atually it is you who is in deep do-do for bringing it up. Iran leaders
>>> have
>>> been quoted in the media stating that nuclear technology should available
>>> to
>>> all countries.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And why should not nuclear technology be available to all countries?
>>
>>
>
>
> Because ninth century retards should not be trusted with nuclear weapons.
>
> Jim E
Unfortunately it appears that they already have lots of them, doesn't it?
Robin T Cox
Oh come on, Jim. You can do better than that. Get off the fence for once,
and let's hear you express your real feelings for once, or people will
start thinking you fancy me.
Robin T Cox
Haaretz is an Israeli paper, is it not? And Ariadne in this news group has
many times said that their reports are unreliable.
What other sources do you have, other than neocon or Israeli sources, all
of which are as biased and propagandist as hell?
Robin T Cox
Would that be the UN nation state that consistently ignores the UN's
resolutions?
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
It's a good question; what is this 'war on terrorism' ? UK politicial
leaders, along with others in Europe and around the world have cast off the
term and even the US Administration appears to be moving away from it.
The problem is that the US currently has an end goal of erradicating
terrorists ( and for a significant part of the populace that means
erradicating Islam ). The end goal should be achieving peace and security,
for the US, the region and the world, and erradicating terrorists is just
one potential means of achieving that. One should not confuse a means with
an end, although it frequently is, encouraged along by the US
Administration.
By concentrating on erradicating terrorists the US is missing the big
picture and is bogged down in pursuing a goal which is not achieving the
real objective and nor is it ever likely to.
Another problem is that the US can only see goals in its own terms; the
imposition of western style democracy on a region which holds such things
( the Law of Man placed above the Law of God ) in contempt. Again, it's
doomed to failure, and is far from necessary to achieve peace.
So what exactly is the 'war on terrorism' ? I think we'd all like to know,
because the US has tried to roll so many objectives into the mission that it
is impossible to say.
> -------
> > Criticism of and debate on the so-called war on terror is entirely
legimate
> > and aboslutely essential in formulating a response to ongoing terrorist
> > threat. To say that debate cannot be had 'while the war is being waged'
is
> > as ludicrous as saying it is not possible to debate the best route to
take
> > once a journey has started, as dangerous as not being able to change
course
> > in the light of new information revealed.
> -------
> Hey I'm all for formulating an effective strategy for countering
> terrorism. The debate Webb was referring to was about democrats wanting to
> pull out of Iraq and republicans wanting to finish what they started. If
> there is any debate to be had after the order is given, it should be about
> how to succeed, not withdraw in defeat.
> -------
I have no reason to follow the intricacies of American domestic policy, so
when Webb is quoted as saying "it is impossible to fight a war and debate it
at the same time", I have to take it at face value that he is talking about
"debate" in its proper sense. What it appears he is saying is "now is not
the time to withdraw troops"; somewhat different, but nonetheless equally
flawed in concept.
Any debate after the order is given should be towards determining what the
best outcome for everyone is and how best to achieve that. It is entirely
acceptable for the mission to change once underway, and that may give a
better result than sticking blindly to the original mission.
Surely, if to withdraw from Iraq would provably give the US better security
than to stay the course then you would be in favour of withdrawal over
sticking to a course which caused damage to US security ?
I'm not asking you to accept that withdrawal is the best way forward, I'm
asking you to accept that IF it ( or any other course change for that
matter ) were a better way forward to achieving the ultimate end goal there
is nothing other than stubbornness standing in the way of doing what is
best.
The US is facing the same problem as the UK did in Northern Ireland, the
same as Spain faces with ETA. It needs to decide if its mission is to
eradicate terrorists or to bring peace and resolution. In the case of NI,
peace was not brought about by the wholesale eradication of terrorists. It
never is.
If the US pursues a course of eradicating terrorists as its primary mission,
and worse still does it in a manner which alienates and radicalises people
in the Middle East and around the world, which drives people into the arms
of terrorist recruiters, then there will be no success, and the situation
may, as has happened over recent years, deteriorate.
Current US foreign policy is acting as a recruiting sergeant for the
terrorist cause because it works against winning the hearts and minds of
people who need to be won over to win the fight. It is doing more damage
than good. Policy needs to change, and if it will not then it may indeed be
less damaging to American interests to withdraw than to continue the same
course.
We all want peace and security and when the US acts in a manner which puts
that further away then we have no choice but to speak out and criticise.
Look at it this way; if what America does is losing support in the west, it
is having a far worse effect in the areas where the US and their
interference is disliked to start with.
Finally, where is the sense in pursuing this war, to win the battle, if in
the process it destroys the relationships between the US and its western
allies ? That would be quite some pyrrhic victory. Don't expect the world to
congratulate the US for having achieved its goal while making the world a
worse place than it was in the process.
The Happy Hippy
"Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46f8c8d0$0$18999$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "The Happy Hippy" <the.happy....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:fqXJi.5228$X%4.2...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Acarya" <harin...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> >
> >> Presently all countries with nuclear technology are against
international
> >> terrorist organizations. If they are associated with terrorists they
are
> >> taking care of their problem.
> >
> > Someone had best tell GWB so he can take North Korea of his Axis of Evil
> > list.
>
>
> N Korea recently agreed to shut down their reactor and end their nuclear
> enrichment program.
Not the same thing is it, but you knew that.
genaro
> In message <pan.2007.09.24....@warp.speed>, genaro
> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:32:52 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>> In message <pan.2007.09.24....@warp.speed>, genaro
>>> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>>>It is plain to see from your statements that you are more invested in
>>>>criticizing the US military than countering terrorism. Have a nice
>>>>day.
>>>
>>>
>>> I see you don't like reality. For the record I have combated terrorism
>>> in Europe and the middle east since the mid 1970's whilst serving in
>>> HM forces.
>>>
>>> My view of the US forces is from having worked with them in action.
>>-------
>>And now you are working against them, and moreover, the US.
>
> Well the US is working against everyone else including it's allies.
>
> What I am doing is point out the way forward to win. All you want to do
> is knee jerk reactions and fall into the very trap the terrorists have
> set for you. Self defeating.
-------
Does a US withdrawal from Iraq have anything to do with your way forward?
Hasn't much of Europe fallen into terrorist traps through appeasement and
not enforcing immigration laws?
When Muslim clerics spout hate speech on the streets and from within
Mosques and then subways and people are blown up by Muslims, how does that
affect your way forward?
-------
Chris Hills
>On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:08:36 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> In message <pan.2007.09.24....@warp.speed>, genaro
>> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>>On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:32:52 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <pan.2007.09.24....@warp.speed>, genaro
>>>> <gen...@warp.speed> writes
>>>>>It is plain to see from your statements that you are more invested in
>>>>>criticizing the US military than countering terrorism. Have a nice
>>>>>day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see you don't like reality. For the record I have combated terrorism
>>>> in Europe and the middle east since the mid 1970's whilst serving in
>>>> HM forces.
>>>>
>>>> My view of the US forces is from having worked with them in action.
>>>-------
>>>And now you are working against them, and moreover, the US.
>>
>> Well the US is working against everyone else including it's allies.
>>
>> What I am doing is point out the way forward to win. All you want to do
>> is knee jerk reactions and fall into the very trap the terrorists have
>> set for you. Self defeating.
>-------
>Does a US withdrawal from Iraq have anything to do with your way forward?
The US is in a very difficult position. Withdrawal is not really an
option at the moment. However I don't think it is in a position to take
any of the more sensible alternatives.
>Hasn't much of Europe fallen into terrorist traps through appeasement and
>not enforcing immigration laws?
Very few. However we have been fighting terrorists (successfully) much
longer.
>When Muslim clerics spout hate speech on the streets and from within
>Mosques and then subways and people are blown up by Muslims, how does that
>affect your way forward?
It doesn't. You are focussing on the wrong thing. Until you get clarity
of vision you can not win.
The Happy Hippy
"Chris Hills" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote ...
genaro:
> >Does a US withdrawal from Iraq have anything to do with your way forward?
>
> The US is in a very difficult position. Withdrawal is not really an
> option at the moment. However I don't think it is in a position to take
> any of the more sensible alternatives.
One has to be very careful when talking of "withdrawal" as that can be
interpreted in two ways; unconditional withdrawal ( cut and run, and to hell
with it ), and withdrawal with a replacement draughted in to steer the
course for the future.
The counter to "withdrawal" is usually based entirely on the former, that
leaving Iraq to its own devices is to sow the seeds of imminent disaster and
that's possibly true although not necessarily certain. The alternative, far
preferable, solution is to withdraw those forces which are an obstacle to
peace and bring in those who can achieve it better.
It's too early to measure the success of it, but that is effectively what
the UK has done in Basra. There is however no reason that in the absence of
an Iraqi force capable of maintaining peace and security that the role
cannot be handed from the coalition to those who Iraqis would consider more
appropriate and productive in the task.
Acarya
Yes the one that hasn't in deed broken any.
Robin T Cox
> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:KY3Ki.2272$Qd2....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:08:45 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>>
>>> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:SBSJi.11757$yN2....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:26:50 -1000, Acarya wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But Iran arms and supports Hezbollah and Hamas which are
>>>>> internationally
>>>>> accepted terrorist organizations. They also call for the forceful
>>>>> destruction of a UN nation state.
>>>>
>>>> What state would that be?
>>>>
>>>> Give us a clue ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Israel
>>
>> Would that be the UN nation state that consistently ignores the UN's
>> resolutions?
>
>
> Yes the one that hasn't in deed broken any.
Hasn't complied with any, is the truth of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
http://tinyurl.com/2lo882
genaro
-------
Assuming you take the Islamist threat as seriously as I do, what you call
it is not as important as your willingness to oppose it at least as
strongly as you oppose the US. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. One can't
tell for sure from your commentary.
Is there anything coming from the Islamist side you find remarkable?
-------
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
No, I probably don't. I see it as over-exaggerated and frequently
manufactured and fabricated.
Yes, there is a threat, a serious and credible threat from a small minority.
Unfortunately what was a very small minority which was much more easily
containable has been enlarged and enraged by the actions of America and the
colaition which hangs on its coat tails over recent years.
We probably have very different ideas as to what "the threat" actually is,
and what "the threat" is designed to achieve.
> what you call
> it is not as important as your willingness to oppose it at least as
> strongly as you oppose the US. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. One can't
> tell for sure from your commentary.
>
> Is there anything coming from the Islamist side you find remarkable?
Indeed; remarkable restraint amidst the antagonism many Muslims face.
I suspect ( but correct me if I am wrong ) that you do not know that many
Muslims, that you do not have Muslim neighbours, that you don't have a
Mosque at the end of your street, that you have never heard a call to prayer
nor witnessed Muslims in worship, that you have rarely, if ever, engaged an
actual Muslim in conversation let alone debate.
It would follow therefore that your understanding of Islam and Muslims is
primarily based upon what you are told ( complete with prejudice, bigotry
and demonisation ) not on what you know from meeting with and living with
these people.
They face not just antagonism from westerners ( primarily I'm afraid to say
American, but also others on the right and particularly far right ) but
pressure from those who would radicalise them who point to the hatred the
west shows towards Muslims and Islam. They are damned if they do and they
are damned if they don't. Most walk a line between the abuse of a minority
of westerners and the enticement of a minority of Islamists.
It is remarkable to me that the overwhelming majority have not turned
towards radical Islam because that sure as hell is where many on the right
would like to see them go on this group and their talk of 'Eurostan',
'Londistan' and all other manner of derisory comments is designed to make
them feel, "if that's how they see us, we might as well be that ( better to
die on our feet than live on our knees )".
When I see the horrors wrought on Iraqi civilians and their country, the
blatant disregard for international law and legal due process, I am not far
from being radicalised with hatred of what America does, it would not
surprise me, when others see 'their own kind' treated so terribly, that they
would react more severely than I and others do.
It is remarkable that Muslims have generally shown great restraint and have
not turned wholesale on the west and those who have supported the
destruction and death in the Middle East. They have shown far greater
restraint than I would were my own kind being abused with such ferocity and
intensity, and I expect you would perhaps feel the same way were it a
foreign force treating you and what you considered your kith and kin the
same way, no ?
That is the truth of what we have, where Muslims who hold no truck with
terrorism are treated as terrorists regardless, labelled as terrorists and
abused for that. There is a minority who wants to radicalise those Muslims,
and it seems many here, and in the west, really want to help them do that.
It seems they are spoiling for a fight and will bring it on if they can.
Those who are alienating and demonising Islam and Muslims are a greater
danger than any Islamist recruiter.
genaro
It is very sensitive of you to sympathize with the community of moderate
Muslims. You might be surprised at how well the 2.5 million Muslims are
treated in the US. There are of course the incidents of rocks thrown
through windows. I myself will criticize peaceful Muslims for not being
more supportive of a nation that has afforded them the freedoms they enjoy
in a western democracy. Pehaps they are not aware how many Americans have
died so they could live in peace. Maybe they are not interested in the
history of the country they now call home. Or maybe they don't call it
home. Maybe they don't care to assimilate into American society. Who knows
when they rarely speak for anyone to hear them. Are they afraid to speak
for fear of retaliation from their Muslim brothers who would kill them for
befriending a non-Muslim? Would they be stoned for showing a little skin?
Finally, why do Muslims emigrate to a country where they will have a
better life but are too afraid to enjoy it? I think many Muslims are
frightened of that part of their culture that forbids them from having a
little fun or a different opinion, much like overly religious Christians
who shun something like gambling or alcohol.
But I wasn't asking you about peaceful Muslims. I was hoping you had
something to say about the non-peaceful ones. Surely the Muslim extremists
have caused enough death and destruction for you to have some thoughts
about it. Or will you too keep silent on the subject and direct all your
criticism at Bush and the US? That seems to be your pattern.
-------
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
Maybe they'rer afraid to speak because of those non-Muslims who denigrade
and even attack them ? Perhaps you should ask them ? It's pointless
theorising when you can so easily just knock on their doors and start
dialogue.
> Finally, why do Muslims emigrate to a country where they will have a
> better life but are too afraid to enjoy it? I think many Muslims are
> frightened of that part of their culture that forbids them from having a
> little fun or a different opinion, much like overly religious Christians
> who shun something like gambling or alcohol.
Well there's your answer isn't it.
No one is forced to indulge in all that a counry has to offer and that's the
fundamental concept of 'freedom' that one can choose not to. Which makes it
rather moot to say that some will not assimilate as others would desire when
they are granted the rights of freedom to assimilate however they want to.
> But I wasn't asking you about peaceful Muslims. I was hoping you had
> something to say about the non-peaceful ones. Surely the Muslim extremists
> have caused enough death and destruction for you to have some thoughts
> about it. Or will you too keep silent on the subject and direct all your
> criticism at Bush and the US? That seems to be your pattern.
No, the Muslims who go round killing innocent people are a bunch of cunts,
just as everyone is who goes around killing innocent people, and that is as
all encompassing as I mean it to be. I don't think I can be any more blunt
than that.
I have never kept silent on the subject, but it seems you are unaware of
what else I have said on it. You judge a 'pattern' on the basis of very
limited discussions and have come to a completely incorrect view.
genaro
-------
Hey, there's an idea. Excuse me Mohammed, what do you think of the US
attempts to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan?
Mohammed: What? Are you accusing me? Get off my property and don't bring
your face to my door again. Slam.
-------
>
>> Finally, why do Muslims emigrate to a country where they will have a
>> better life but are too afraid to enjoy it? I think many Muslims are
>> frightened of that part of their culture that forbids them from having a
>> little fun or a different opinion, much like overly religious Christians
>> who shun something like gambling or alcohol.
>
> Well there's your answer isn't it.
>
> No one is forced to indulge in all that a counry has to offer and that's the
> fundamental concept of 'freedom' that one can choose not to. Which makes it
> rather moot to say that some will not assimilate as others would desire when
> they are granted the rights of freedom to assimilate however they want to.
>
-------
Many Muslims are not assimilating at all. Cabbies are denying rides
because their fares have just purchased alcohol. Employees are demanding
extra breaks for prayer time. Students are demanding foot baths installed
in schools. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress demanded
he take the oath of office on the Koran. All of these demands have been
granted and when they aren't the ACLU is glad to defend them.
-------
>
>> But I wasn't asking you about peaceful Muslims. I was hoping you had
>> something to say about the non-peaceful ones. Surely the Muslim extremists
>> have caused enough death and destruction for you to have some thoughts
>> about it. Or will you too keep silent on the subject and direct all your
>> criticism at Bush and the US? That seems to be your pattern.
>
> No, the Muslims who go round killing innocent people are a bunch of cunts,
> just as everyone is who goes around killing innocent people, and that is as
> all encompassing as I mean it to be. I don't think I can be any more blunt
> than that.
>
-------
Well, I never thought I'd hear that from you. Excuse me while I go put the
flag out. Perhaps we'll see more balance in your criticism in the future.
God knows there's enough of it to go around.
-------
> I have never kept silent on the subject, but it seems you are unaware of
> what else I have said on it. You judge a 'pattern' on the basis of very
> limited discussions and have come to a completely incorrect view.
-------
Perhaps if I saw more of it I wouldn't be as unaware of it, but you have
broken the ice regarding Muslims who kill and I thank you for that.
-------
Acarya
You state onesided evidence from wikipedia. How boring. Everytime Israel
tries to comply with UN resolutions through the many peace processes hosted
by the U.S. and others then boom!!! another Islamic bomb kills more Israeli
civilians. You must be another jehadi posting mideast nonsense or just
another western intellectual pimp.
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
[snips]
> > Maybe they'rer afraid to speak because of those non-Muslims who
denigrade
> > and even attack them ? Perhaps you should ask them ? It's pointless
> > theorising when you can so easily just knock on their doors and start
> > dialogue.
> >
> -------
> Hey, there's an idea. Excuse me Mohammed, what do you think of the US
> attempts to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan?
> Mohammed: What? Are you accusing me? Get off my property and don't bring
> your face to my door again. Slam.
Sure, there's often deep suspicion from many Muslims when being engaged by
westerners because of the rhetoric they are exposed to, but that doesn't
mean you cannot build a relationship with Muslims and have such a debate.
Your response is quite prejudicial in assuming what the response will be
without knowing that is the case. You're really just using that as an excuse
not to actually enagage with Muslims in constructive dialogue.
> Many Muslims are not assimilating at all. Cabbies are denying rides
> because their fares have just purchased alcohol. Employees are demanding
> extra breaks for prayer time. Students are demanding foot baths installed
> in schools. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress demanded
> he take the oath of office on the Koran. All of these demands have been
> granted and when they aren't the ACLU is glad to defend them.
So what if Ellison took his oath on the Koran; that's his holy book is it
not ? Would you expect a Catholic to have to swear to keep the Protestant
faith ? Would you expect a Jew to swear on a Christian Bible ? Why are you
singling out a Muslim for criticism ?
Isn't this just anti-Muslim bullshit anyway ? According to what I can find,
NO ONE is sworn in to Congress using any religious book of any kind. It's a
simple matter of raising one's hand, swearing or affirming. Any Bibles waved
around after are purely for photo opportunity purposes.
Do you have any evidence at all that Ellison actually was sworn in using the
Koarn, or is that just anti-Muslim demonisation that you apear to have so
unquestionably bought into ?
All these issues you raise can be dealt with and resolved to everyone's
satisfaction. Your comments however reveal a deep seated prejudice against
Muslims and the ACLU. Why shouldn't the ACLU be prepared to fight any case
which is deemed to be related to civil liberties no matter from what
direction it arises ?
> >> But I wasn't asking you about peaceful Muslims. I was hoping you had
> >> something to say about the non-peaceful ones. Surely the Muslim
extremists
> >> have caused enough death and destruction for you to have some thoughts
> >> about it. Or will you too keep silent on the subject and direct all
your
> >> criticism at Bush and the US? That seems to be your pattern.
> >
> > No, the Muslims who go round killing innocent people are a bunch of
cunts,
> > just as everyone is who goes around killing innocent people, and that is
as
> > all encompassing as I mean it to be. I don't think I can be any more
blunt
> > than that.
> >
> -------
> Well, I never thought I'd hear that from you. Excuse me while I go put the
> flag out. Perhaps we'll see more balance in your criticism in the future.
> God knows there's enough of it to go around.
Unfortunately that balance will undoubtedly be seen as anti-American in some
quarters. Innocent people are by my definition those who have given no
legitimate cause for their eradication. That includes the overwhelming
majority of those killed on 9-11, the great majority which get killed on
Israeli buses in bomb attacks, and likewise with those killed in suicide
bombings. It also, however, includes those killed when some American cunt
( by earlier definition ) drops a bomb intended to kill some target and
kills innocent others in the process.
If we are to have balance then the killing of innocent people must be
considered the same whether they are killed by terrorists or Americans and
the coalition. If we want to play the guilt by association, collateral
damage is just unfortunate but legitimate, games then that must apply to
both sides.
I doubt you would be happy if USAF bunker-busted the restaurant you were in
and killed you and your entire family because some general *thought* Usama
had popped in for a bite to eat, so why should anyone elsewhere be happy
about that when the US does do that to other innocent families ?
It's not whether one cares or not that innocent people are killed, it's that
innocent people who do not deserve to die are being killed, and the US is as
guilty of that as the terrorists are. If America is allowed to hide behind
immoral excuses to legitimise such killing then so are the terrorists.
Balance means not having one rule for one side and another rule for the
other.
While you're putting the flag out, you might want to reflect on whether it
is actually 'balance' you are seeking, or just agreement when it comes to
criticising certain sections of the Muslim community ?
> -------
> > I have never kept silent on the subject, but it seems you are unaware of
> > what else I have said on it. You judge a 'pattern' on the basis of very
> > limited discussions and have come to a completely incorrect view.
> -------
> Perhaps if I saw more of it I wouldn't be as unaware of it, but you have
> broken the ice regarding Muslims who kill and I thank you for that.
> -------
Youre welcome.
Danzig
> In an interview with British television Iran's president, Mahmood
> Ahmadinejad, asked why Iran should stop an activity (nuclear enrichment) in
> which the United States and Britain were also engaged.
>
> Answer: Iranian government is a fascist totalitarian regime which supports
> international terrorism and nuclear proliferation whereas U.S. and Britain
> are based on human rights and maintains strict regulation of nuclear
> proliferation.
>
>
Your evaluation is just a tad tainted, particularly the squeaky clean
description of the latter.
Danzig
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:00:39 +0100, in uk.current-events.terrorism "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk>, wrote
>
>> Both the US and the UK have people locked up without charge or trial, which
>> Iran doesn't.
>
> Don't read much, do you...............
>
Has been exposed over and over
genaro
> "genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote in
> news:pan.2007.09.24....@warp.speed:
>
> [Snips]
>> I could appreciate resorting to psychology when dealing with a rational
>> opponent but I seriously doubt whether a "set of suggestions" will deny
>> or divert Muslim extremists from their intentions which include slicing
>> off heads and hanging burned dead bodies from bridges.
>
> Those are not the intentions; those are the means by which they carry
> out their intentions (as some people seem quite determined to see
> everything in military terms, think of the difference between the
> "commander's intent" and "tasks" sections of a five-paragraph order).
>
-------
So they don't "intend" to kill us. That's just something that happens on
their way to destroying our way of life and fulfilling their ancient
prophecies. Assuming it's too late to ask fundamental Muslims to stop
their prophet-based agression, what alternatives does that leave western
civilization? No, I don't want to convert.
-------
> You also seem to have got the wrong end of the stick as to the
> motivations for criticising institutional mishandling of counter-
> terrorist policy. The target audience for US reaction is not the
> terrorists themselves, many of whom are probably never going to see the
> error of their ways. Leaving aside the fatuous simplicities of Bush's
> rhetoric, there are lots of parties involved in this beyond just "us"
> and "them".
>
-------
If "criticizing institutional mishandling of counter-terrorist policy" is
a fancy way of saying Bush-bashing, then the motivation is to make the
current administration look bad in the run-up to the '08 elections. If it
is a constructive criticism of counter-terrorist policy, what are the
specifics? There hasn't been another 9/11 and suspected terrorists are
being thwarted and arrested daily. Iran is feeling pressure from all
directions, we're seeing progress in Iraq, Germany is onboard, and Sarkozy
is a welcome change after the hapless Chiraq. Things are looking up from
my point of view.
-------
> What's more, even though I suspect your dismissal of the enemy as
> "irrational" is based on your failure to understand them rather than
> their own characterisitics, I am not aware of any principle of
> psychology that says it is apllicable only to the rational.
>
-------
What's to understand? Doesn't "death to America" say it all? We can
understand them all you like but the fact is they are in the UK, US, and
many other countries plotting death and destruction. Western democracies
have given Muslims and all immigrants the opportunity for peaceful,
profitable lives. Does it not make sense to tighten security, question
suspicious behavior, and weed out those who want to kill us?
-------
> I really do not think that muddled thinking to the extent you have just
> displayed is likely to anything other than highly damaging to the fight
> against terrorists.
>
-------
How much damage can either one of us do to the fight against terrorism,
really? Say, you're not taking out any full-page ads condemning US
generals as betrayers are you?
-------
>> I'm quite certain that the best way to frustrate terrorists is to kill
>> them before they kill us, as difficult as that may be for some to
>> accept.
-------
>
> You clearly have very little understanding of how terrorism works. This
> is precisely the kind of foolishness on which the terrorists rely for
> such success as they can achieve; for, unless you have an impossibly
> reliable system for identifying the terrorists, such a policy is
> practically certain to hit the wrong people, make the terrorists'
> opponents look bad, and gather more support and recruits for the
> terrorists' cause.
>
-------
There are bound to be innocent folks hit within the course of such a
deceptive war. Keep in mind who is wearing the uniforms and identifying
themselves as the warriors, and who are positioning themselves in
communities putting innocent folks in danger. The term is human shields.
The tactic is cowardly.
-------
> Further, if the enemy are seeking martyrdom -- wasn't it George Bernard
> Shaw who said that martyrdom was the only way a man could become famous
> without ability? -- then putting the little shits before a court and
> throwing them in gaol once convicted will be a very much more effective
> way of frustrating their intentions and damaging their prestige than
> killing them and giving them automatic promotion to "shahid".
>
-------
I sincererly wish we could capture, prosecute, and imprison or execute all
the evil doers and we're doing the best we can at it, but it's
unreasonable to think there won't be much more bloodshed before
fundamental Muslims realize they are fighting a losing battle, aspiring to
unreasonable goals, or finally leave their very old ways behind and join
the new millenium.
-------
> I recommend a read of Louise Richardson's "What Terrorists Want" for a
> primer on terrorist motivation. Here she is speaking herself:
>
> http://www.iptv.org/video/detail.cfm/451
>
> Frank Kitson's "Low Intensity Operations" and Richard Clutterbuck's
> "Living With Terrorism" are both well worth a read, too, if a little
> dated by now.
>
> All the best,
>
> John.
-------
Thanks for the references.
-------
Robin T Cox
> There are bound to be innocent folks hit within the course of such a
> deceptive war. Keep in mind who is wearing the uniforms and identifying
> themselves as the warriors, and who are positioning themselves in
> communities putting innocent folks in danger. The term is human shields.
> The tactic is cowardly.
Do those kindly Blackwater folks wear military uniforms, then?
Should we classify them as warriors? Or cowards?
genaro
-------
Private Security Firm.
-------
John D Salt
news:pan.2007.09.29....@warp.speed:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:02:33 -0500, John D Salt wrote:
[Snips]
>> Those are not the intentions; those are the means by which they carry
>> out their intentions (as some people seem quite determined to see
>> everything in military terms, think of the difference between the
>> "commander's intent" and "tasks" sections of a five-paragraph order).
>>
> -------
> So they don't "intend" to kill us. That's just something that happens
> on their way to destroying our way of life and fulfilling their
> ancient prophecies. Assuming it's too late to ask fundamental Muslims
> to stop their prophet-based agression, what alternatives does that
> leave western civilization? No, I don't want to convert.
You seem to have a gift for non-sequitur. My point was that the killing
is merely the method chosen to achieve their overall aim, not the aim
itself. What this has to do with alternatives for "Western
civilization" I can't guess.
>> You also seem to have got the wrong end of the stick as to the
>> motivations for criticising institutional mishandling of counter-
>> terrorist policy.
[Snips]
> -------
> If "criticizing institutional mishandling of counter-terrorist policy"
> is a fancy way of saying Bush-bashing, then the motivation is to make
> the current administration look bad in the run-up to the '08
> elections.
Yes, and if Colman's mustard is a weapon of mass destruction, then I have
a WMD in my kitchen. You can produce conclusions of arbitrary fatuity by
starting from a counterfactual premise. I don't understand why you think
UK posters would be as fascinated by US party politics as you seem to
think, but even us Brits realise that Bush won't be getting another term,
so I can't imagine who you think is engaging in the behaviour you
describe.
> If it is a constructive criticism of counter-terrorist
> policy, what are the specifics?
See my previous post in reply to OAK. The biggest single point is, as it
has always been, adherence to the Master Principle of War.
> There hasn't been another 9/11
...and there probably wouldn't have been anyway. It was a one-off
special, in which the prepetrators got very lucky.
> suspected terrorists are being thwarted and arrested daily.
A very easy trick with *suspected* terrorists.
> Iran is
> feeling pressure from all directions, we're seeing progress in Iraq,
> Germany is onboard, and Sarkozy is a welcome change after the hapless
> Chiraq. Things are looking up from my point of view.
Strange point of view you have. Is the desired end-state in Iraq any
nearer? Has Osama been caught? Are the US and UK militaries any less
horrifically overstretched? You're whistling in the dark.
> -------
>> What's more, even though I suspect your dismissal of the enemy as
>> "irrational" is based on your failure to understand them rather than
>> their own characterisitics, I am not aware of any principle of
>> psychology that says it is apllicable only to the rational.
>>
> -------
> What's to understand?
The enemy.
> Doesn't "death to America" say it all?
What, like "Arbeit Macht Frei" says it all about the Nazis, and
"Proletarii vsekh stran, soyedinaityes'!" says it all about Communism? I
scarcely think they constitute a sufficient basis for a competent fightb
against any of them.
> We can
> understand them all you like but the fact is they are in the UK, US,
> and many other countries plotting death and destruction.
Once again, your facility for non-sequitur leaves me baffled. Are you
suggesting that it is better that we do *not* understand the motivations
of these people because they are plotting destruction? Why in the name
of Dagon the mighty fish-god of the Phillistines would you think that?
> Western
> democracies have given Muslims and all immigrants the opportunity for
> peaceful, profitable lives. Does it not make sense to tighten
> security, question suspicious behavior, and weed out those who want to
> kill us? -------
Non-sequiturs all over the place there. Do you not think it makes any
sense to try to avoid unnecessarily making people want to kill us?
>> I really do not think that muddled thinking to the extent you have
>> just displayed is likely to anything other than highly damaging to
>> the fight against terrorists.
>>
> -------
> How much damage can either one of us do to the fight against
> terrorism, really?
It's not you I'm criticising, it's the faulty thinking you seem to
subscribe to. This flavour of faulty thinking is, I think, to be found
among quite a few of the people who do have some pull in the question of
running the "war".
Even so, I wouldn't completely floccipaucinihilipilificate any one
person's role in fighting terrorism. We may not all be the target, but
we are certainly all the target audience.
> Say, you're not taking out any full-page ads
> condemning US generals as betrayers are you?
No, did you imagine for an instant that I was?
[Snips]
>> This is precisely the kind of foolishness on which the terrorists
>> rely for such success as they can achieve; for, unless you have an
>> impossibly reliable system for identifying the terrorists, such a
>> policy is practically certain to hit the wrong people, make the
>> terrorists' opponents look bad, and gather more support and recruits
>> for the terrorists' cause.
>>
> -------
> There are bound to be innocent folks hit within the course of such a
> deceptive war. Keep in mind who is wearing the uniforms and
> identifying themselves as the warriors, and who are positioning
> themselves in communities putting innocent folks in danger. The term
> is human shields. The tactic is cowardly.
So what? That it's gutless doesn't necessarily make it ineffective.
What's more, a better understanding of the enemy and the culture he
inhabits would probably give us much better levers for countering this
sort of thing. At any rate, simply remaining arrogantly ignorant of the
enemy's thought processes by dismissing him as a madman, a fanatic or a
coward (an odd term to use for suicide bombers, I'd say) does not seem to
help one bit.
[Snips]
> I sincererly wish we could capture, prosecute, and imprison or execute
> all the evil doers and we're doing the best we can at it, but it's
> unreasonable to think there won't be much more bloodshed before
> fundamental Muslims realize they are fighting a losing battle,
Again, your talent for non-sequitur astonishes. I don't imagine for a
moment that there won't be lots more bloodshed; I am just not in favour
of wading through blood as deep as possible as if this were somehow
constructive or operationally effective.
> aspiring to unreasonable goals, or finally leave their very old ways
> behind and join the new millenium.
I don't suppose it occurred to you that Muslims might use a different
calendar from the Christian one?
All the best,
John.
genaro
-------
Ok, while you are busy figuring out what motivates the fundamental Muslim
mind perhaps you will afford some support for those who are protecting
your freedom to perform such studies.
If you think you know something that hasn't already been documented by the
leading scholars of our time regarding radical Muslim agression to achieve
their overall aim, I urge you to inform your local gov't. officials as
soon as possible. You may just be saving some lives!
-------
Robin T Cox
> If you think you know something that hasn't already been documented by the
> leading scholars of our time regarding radical Muslim agression to achieve
> their overall aim, I urge you to inform your local gov't. officials as
> soon as possible.
Who would those scholars, be? People like Victor Davis Hanson, I suppose.
Neocons.
genaro
-------
I don't imagine there is anyone I could suggest since you appear to be of
the opinion that the problem is not with Islamic fundamentalists, but with
non-Muslims.
-------
John D Salt
news:pan.2007.10.03....@warp.speed:
[Snips]
> Ok, while you are busy figuring out what motivates the fundamental
> Muslim mind perhaps you will afford some support for those who are
> protecting your freedom to perform such studies.
My freedom to perform such studies isn't currently under threat from anyone
but the dim-witted monkeys in my own government, who persist in passing lame-
brained "anti-terrorist" legislation.
However, if your utterance indicates that you imagine I do not support the
Forces of the Crown, then you have once again committed a pretty gross non-
sequitur. Presumably you can see the distinction between supporting our
soldiers and agreeing with the crackpot policy of the idiot boy Blair that
foolishly sent them to Iraq?
> If you think you know something that hasn't already been documented by
> the leading scholars of our time regarding radical Muslim agression to
> achieve their overall aim, I urge you to inform your local gov't.
> officials as soon as possible. You may just be saving some lives!
I don't know a great deal about Islam, radical or otherwise, my experience
being limited to two years living in Saudi Arabia and half a dozen words of
Arabic. I do, however, know better than to waste my time talking to officials
when I should be talking to MPs. My own constituency MP is involved in
Defence, but unfrotunately such a loyal party man and with such a very safe
seat that I doubt it will ever be possible to get him to see reason. I might
give it a go some day, but I suspect I might get more mileage out of the Tory
MP for South Norfolk, who I have discovered has a splendid line in asking
difficult questions in select committee hearings.
All the best,
John.
genaro
> "genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote in
> news:pan.2007.10.03....@warp.speed:
>
> [Snips]
>> Ok, while you are busy figuring out what motivates the fundamental
>> Muslim mind perhaps you will afford some support for those who are
>> protecting your freedom to perform such studies.
>
> My freedom to perform such studies isn't currently under threat from
> anyone but the dim-witted monkeys in my own government, who persist in
> passing lame- brained "anti-terrorist" legislation.
-------
I don't see anything lame-brained about passing anti-terrorist
legislation. Even a terrorist wouldn't consider it lame-brained if he was
being honest with himself.
-------
>
> However, if your utterance indicates that you imagine I do not support
> the Forces of the Crown, then you have once again committed a pretty
> gross non- sequitur. Presumably you can see the distinction between
> supporting our soldiers and agreeing with the crackpot policy of the
> idiot boy Blair that foolishly sent them to Iraq?
>
-------
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe someone who says he
supports the troops yet condemns the mission they are sacrificing their
lives to accomplish. How does it follow that you could support a soldier
willing to pay the ultimate price to carry out orders with which you so
vehemently disagree?
-------
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
[snips]
> I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe someone who says he
> supports the troops yet condemns the mission they are sacrificing their
> lives to accomplish. How does it follow that you could support a soldier
> willing to pay the ultimate price to carry out orders with which you so
> vehemently disagree?
I'll leave John D Salt to answer for himself, but from my perspective that
is very easy to do.
Support for the soldier and support for the mission are two entirely
separate things. One doesn't have to agree with mission goals to say that a
soldier should get the best he needs to get a job done. That a soldier
should have all the ammo, weaponry and personal protection and as much
security as they need. That they should have access to the best medical care
and post-operation healthcare should the worse comes to the worse.
This, and all the rest, is the covenant between a country and its people and
those soldiers. They are prepared to put their lives on the line and do what
they are told, and it is not their role to question the politics of what
they signed up to do. It is encumbant on all of us however to fulfil that
covenant in return.
No one can criticise someone for doing what they are contractually obliged
to do, but one can be critical of those who decide what they should be
doing. Someone who sweeps litter day after day from the same street while
litter piles up in the rest of the town cannot be blamed for that when he
has been tasked with sweeping that one street alone and it would be a breach
of contract if he did otherwise. The blame for deploying this litter
sweeper in a less than useful or satisfactory way lies with those who set
the mission, not those who carry it out.
It's exactly the same when it comes to the soldiers and those who set their
missions.
Robin T Cox
> I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe someone who says he
> supports the troops yet condemns the mission they are sacrificing their
> lives to accomplish. How does it follow that you could support a soldier
> willing to pay the ultimate price to carry out orders with which you so
> vehemently disagree?
It's convenient for the Bush administration to keep urging people to
'support the troops',in order to encourage people like you (who can't see
the distinction between support for the troops and support for the
mission) to support whatever mission the Bush administration cares to send
them on.
It's just another version of the call to 'rally round the flag'. And
patriotism of this kind, as someone said, is the last refuge of the
scoundrel.
genaro
-------
Very well stated and I couldn't agree more. What fuels my suspicion
regarding those who claim to support the troops is the NY Times ad paid
for at a big discount by Media Matters and those democrats who didn't have
the balls to denounce it. If they indeed supported the troops, why have
they not voiced their opposition to such slander?
What does it say about Hillary Clinton, who claims to be one of the
founders of Media Matters, if she cannot denounce such a widely spread
smear of the troops?
And what does it reveal about the millions who continue to use Media
Matters and the NY Times as a source of information?
It tells me they don't give a shit about the US Military.
-------
genaro
-------
It is convenient for you to oppose the unpopular and ignore the huge
benefits that would come from the successful completion of that mission.
I will indeed rally with millions of Iraqis who are just this year
beginning to identify the real invader and stand up against it. I urge you
to do likewise if you have any hope for freedom and peace in the middle
east and beyond.
-------
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote ...
Quite a loaded question there and presupposes that the advert slanders the
troops and that democrats should denounce it and don't have the balls to do
so. There's no doubt about what you want to hear, but why should you get
that ?
I presume we are talking about the "General Betray Us" Advert ?
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/moveon_Petraeus_NY
Tad.pdf
It critices the Adminstraion's policy and it critices General Petreaus, but
I don't see it criticising "the soldiers". Unless you are going to
extrapolate any criticism of an individual ( from grunt through General
through C in C ) as an attack on each and every soldier, I do not see any
accusation slandering "American troops" as a collective. It certainly
doesn't level one word of criticism of day-to-day operational parctices on
the ground in Iraq, except to say the operations being engaged in are not
working, and that is not the fault of those tasked to carry out such
operations byut those who determine what those operations will be.
Does it slander Petreaus or anyone else? Perhaps, perhaps not, but that can
be assessed by comparing what is written with the facts.
As for the "discount" as best I can tell this has been blown out of all
proportions. An advert was to be placed, the rate was stated, that was
agreed and the advert ran. Seems to me that a contract was entered into,
both sides fulfilled their contractual obligations and that's the end of it.
If someone in the NYT ballsed-up by asking the wrong rate then that's a
matter for the NYT internally.
Maybe the law is different in the US ( I cannot believe it is ) but if
someone sells me something at an agreed price that's it, final, deal done.
They cannot say they undersold later and expect more money.
> And what does it reveal about the millions who continue to use Media
> Matters and the NY Times as a source of information?
That they have a different view than yourself.
> It tells me they don't give a shit about the US Military.
You're as entitled to your opinion as everyone else is.
What about those complaints from the ranks in Iraq that the US was not
providing the troops with the protective equipment that troops believed they
needed ? Was that Rumsfeld & Co not supporting the troops ? Was that
Rumsfeld not giving a shit about the US military ?
What about the abysmal state of the Walter Reed Medical Center, allowing it
and the most deserving of the US forces to languish until public attention
forced something to be done ? Was that the Administration not supporting the
troops ? Was that the Administration not giving a shit about the US Military
?
I find it impossible that someone who does believe in supporting American
troops cannot raise a complaint about such treatment as that. I presume you
were outraged by such failings ?
The Happy Hippy
"genaro" <gen...@warp.speed> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.04....@warp.speed...
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:27:12 +0000, Robin T Cox wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:17:49 -0400, genaro wrote:
> >
> >> I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe someone who says he
> >> supports the troops yet condemns the mission they are sacrificing their
> >> lives to accomplish. How does it follow that you could support a
> >> soldier willing to pay the ultimate price to carry out orders with
> >> which you so vehemently disagree?
> >
> > It's convenient for the Bush administration to keep urging people to
> > 'support the troops',in order to encourage people like you (who can't
> > see the distinction between support for the troops and support for the
> > mission) to support whatever mission the Bush administration cares to
> > send them on.
> >
> > It's just another version of the call to 'rally round the flag'. And
> > patriotism of this kind, as someone said, is the last refuge of the
> > scoundrel.
> -------
> It is convenient for you to oppose the unpopular and ignore the huge
> benefits that would come from the successful completion of that mission.
I think it would be excellent for all of us if you could actually define
what this mission is. Then we can measure success against it and determine
how successful the mission has been or not, and whether it is moving closer
to success or failure. We'll also be sure we are all talking about the same
thing.
It's all very well to talk in generic terms about "the mission" but what
exactly is the mission, what are its objectives and goals ?