London

[KaBar2]

The term "total war" does not even remotely apply in Iraq, if anything, exactly the opposite is true. "Total war" considers the civilian population to be a military asset, along with hospital facilities, water purification plants, sewage plants, electric power generating plants, all bridges, railroads and especially marshalling and clasification yards, etc. etc. If the United States was conducting "total war" against the Iraqi nation, we would be CARPET BOMBING the cities, as we did against both Nazi Germany and the Japanese, in WWII.

 

In fact, U.S. forces have explicitly attempted to avoid hitting hospitals, schools, mosques and civilian centers of all kinds, and used vastly more expensive laser-guided munitions in an attempt to employ "precision bombing" and reduce collateral damage. Saddam's armed forces callously sited military assets and equipment next to hospitals and schools, in an attempt to deter the U.S. air strikes against them. It did not work, of course, but it did result in a great deal of collateral damage to hospitals and schools. Whose fault is that? If they cared about these facilities and the people within them, they would have sited their air defense assets well away from places like civilian neighborhoods, hospitals and schools. Saddam knew the air defense positions would be destroyed, and that there would be serious damage to the surrounding areas. He bears the responsibility, because he knew that the minute those ADA units turned on their radar a smart bomb would follow that radar right back to it's source.

 

The U.S. is rebuilding damaged facilities at a furious pace. The power would have been reliable months ago, except for the "insurgents" continuing to use explosives against power pylons and generating stations. They do NOT WANT life to return to "normal." They want life in Iraq to be impossible, in a effort to forstall the democratically elected government of Iraq from consolidating it's progress and extending the government's authority into the Sunni Triangle. Only three provinces out of eighteen are experiencing violence and terror on a frequent basis. The remainder of the country has very little violence.

 

Here's what will happen eventually, though, if the Sunnis don't put the brakes on the terrorist attacks. Eventually, the Iraqi government will go in after the "insurgents" within the Sunni Triangle with an eye to eliminating them and the mileau which supports and encourages them. U.S. forces will most likely serve as the "anvil," and the Iraqi forces as the "hammer," with U.S. artillery and air support. The U.S. forces will be dug in, in a perimeter around the Sunni Triangle, and as the "insurgents" (and probably large groups of refugees) flee from the Iraqi government forces, they will be fleeing right into the Marines and Airborne cordon. There will be a horrible, massive amount of casualties. The cities and towns of the Triangle will be flattened, worse than Fallujah. The refugees will be "bottled up," and not permitted to disperse. Iraqi governmental authority throughout Iraq will be cemented, albeit, at a terrible cost.

 

Could this be avoided? Certainly. The Sunnis need to put a muzzle on the "insurgents" within their area, and need to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Iraqi government. They need to cease attacking patrols and end all intimidation murders and terrorist activity. They need to stop interfering with government efforts to restore power, water, order and police functions. They need to stop kidnapping foreigners who are coming there to assist in alleviating suffering and to assist in distributing international aid.

 

In short, they need to accept that the war is over, that Saddam and his forces lost, and that the newly elected government of Iraq is the only legitimate national power within the country. If they persist in terrorist activity, there will eventually be exactly the retaliation that they fear so much.

 

Once the government of Iraq can stand on it's own, the U.S. and other forces will happily depart, and the Iraqis can run their own affairs. The Shiites are the majority, and will control Iraq politically. The Sunnis are the minority. If they are smart, they will constitute the LOYAL OPPOSITION. But if they choose not to be loyal, they will be the "dead" opposition. What they are doing at present is a set-up for a very gory civil war, which they are virtually certain to lose.

 

And then of course, there are the Kurds, who are done taking shit off of anybody else in Iraq, and have formed a de facto Kurdistan in Northern Iraq, which they just about completely control.

[SF1]

Wow, if we use lazer guided bombs and drop food after we bomb them it isn't actually a war? :umm: :umm: :umm: :umm:

 

That reminds me of how the government tried to deny that Vietnam was an actual war. They called it a "conflict". :rolleyes2:

[SF1]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001+Jul 11 2005, 04:02 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Stereotype V.001 - Jul 11 2005, 04:02 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by SF1@Jul 10 2005, 09:09 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Salafi_Zahrah@Jul 11 2005, 12:06 AM

I wear the face viel and all black...

Quoted post

 

Holy shit do you write??? That's the best disguise ever!

You could have a sidebag full of paint under your garb and the cops would never suspect you're out bombin! :haha: :haha:

Quoted post

 

Dude, that was a terrible choice of words. Yea, nooobody would suspect someone dressed in the authentic Muslim garb of bombing. Probably why many Muslims have such an easy time with airport security ect.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

 

Dude, you're an idiot. :dozey:

[hobo knife]

I'm not reading every sentance of every post, but man it seems like this debate is just going around in circles at this point.

 

Just to step back for a second... America has become a capitalistic empire, right? We are the biggest superpower the world has ever seen. With the strongest military the world has ever seen. We are the country with the wealthiest most powerful multi-national corporations by far. Our corporations are deeply intertwined with our "democratic" gov't and military. With power and money comes greed, we can't deny that our people in control have become very very greedy.

 

We have been sticking our nose in other peoples business for a while. We are seeing some slight resistance these days. We dont' belong in Iraq.

[KaBar2]

SF1---If you toss around words and phrases lightly, they lose all meaning. If you use the word "genocide" to describe something like requiring people to actually qualify for public assistance, then what word does one use to describe Auchwitz and Treblinka? If you use the word "fascism" to describe patriotism during wartime, then how does one describe General Pinochet's government in Chile, or the Nazis in Germany, or the forced deportation of Asian merchants from Uganda?

 

This tendency to exaggerate undermines credibility.

 

The mode of warfare conducted by the U.S. in Iraq is NOT "total war." Total war is warfare designed to completely destroy a country and it's INHABITANTS, both civilian and military. The war conducted against Nazi Germany and Japan was total war. The Allies carpet bombed entire cities. Berlin was reduced to smoking rubble. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized off the face of the earth, as an object lesson to the Japanese as to what was coming if they did not surrender.

 

The goal of the United States and the coalition is A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT AND NORMAL LIFE for Iraq. That is far, far from "total war." We want schools for all Iraqi children. We want to rebuild the damaged and destroyed facilities there.

 

You should take a look at photographs of East Berlin in say, 1955, ten years after WWII ended. It looks like the last Nazi surrendered yesterday. Rubble, destroyed buildings, streets with huge bomb craters, ten years after the war ended. Today, those areas of Iraq where there is no "insurgency" are quickly returning to normal.

 

If anything, the U.S. has FAR TOO FEW TROOPS IN IRAQ. It's not "total war." It's "low budget war."

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Jul 11 2005, 11:48 AM

The mode of warfare conducted by the U.S. in Iraq is NOT "total war." Total war is warfare designed to completely destroy a country and it's INHABITANTS, both civilian and military. The war conducted against Nazi Germany and Japan was total war. The Allies carpet bombed entire cities. Berlin was reduced to smoking rubble. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized off the face of the earth, as an object lesson to the Japanese as to what was coming if they did not surrender.

 

The goal of the United States and the coalition is A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT AND NORMAL LIFE for Iraq. That is far, far from "total war." We want schools for all Iraqi children. We want to rebuild the damaged and destroyed facilities there.

 

You should take a look at photographs of East Berlin in say, 1955, ten years after WWII ended. It looks like the last Nazi surrendered yesterday. Rubble, destroyed buildings, streets with huge bomb craters, ten years after the war ended. Today, those areas of Iraq where there is no "insurgency" are quickly returning to normal.

 

If anything, the U.S. has FAR TOO FEW TROOPS IN IRAQ. It's not "total war." It's "low budget war."

Quoted post

 

And now to keep this debate going in circles....

 

The goal of the US is to economicaly control Iraq. We've already been doing it for decades with our support of Saddam in the 80's and then war and sanctions in the 90's. You're right kabar this isn't "total war" as in total destruction...We don't want to destroy a country with such vast resources. We want to have complete economic control over their resources. That is the goal of the U.S. to have economic control of the world. Money equals power. We want to keep our status as the most powerful country to ever exist. Therefore we will make sure every economy is either with us or against us. If you're against us financially you're seen as an enemy state (whether you're actualy a threat or not doesn't matter, if you don't accomodate us econimicaly you're an enemy)...

 

Our military is how we persuade countries to be our business partners, (therefore we name bombing campiagns stuff like "shock and awe" to show the world our capabilities) every so often it benefits our business intrests to show off our military. We tend to look for business opportunities and if a coutry's gov't stands in the way it is a chance to boost the military industrail complex as well as show the world how powerful we are.

 

So all this BULLSHITTTTT about bringing democracy to Iraq and making it a better country for the sake of Iraqis needs to be forgotten. True, one outcome of this war MIGHT be that Iraq is better off in some ways...but the intended outcome is much different.

[villain]

Who the hell said it was total war? Nobody.

Is this long-winded, labyrinthine rebuttal to a nonexistant argument meant to divert our attention? To damage my character?

You know very well what civilian infrastructure has been destroyed that I'm referring to. Don't play games.

 

And don't be so sure the Sunni would be crushed in a civil war. With the instability in Iraq, it could easily become a vacuum and draw other countries in. After all, ethnic differences are clearer than the arbitrary political borders drawn up by the colonial powers.

[flacomedina]

god damn, there is some ignorant shit up on here. wake up, people!

 

want to know about Daniel Pearl. go fucking read this:

 

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP209A.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.j...icle=essaysaeed

 

he was investigating the involvement of the Pakistani ISI (their CIA) which was deeply involved in funding Al-Qaeda and 9/11. the ISI pretty much runs the drug trade in that area of the world. most likely, he got too close to some sensitive areas of international corruption and that was why he was killed.

 

as for london, perhaps nobody has heard of the exercises going on simultaneously or the fact that netanyahu was warned IN ADVANCE of the bombings.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...ngexercises.htm

(yeah alex jones, whatever)

here's the bbc audio: http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/090705exercise_clip_2.mp3

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_serv...service_id=9211

 

and 9/11?

 

http://www.911truth.org/index.php

http://wtc7.net/

 

START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE!! THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS LYING TO YOU. WE ARE ALREADY LIVING A 1984 FASCIST NIGHTMARE, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT YET.

[KaBar2]

Hobo Knife---

ALL countries seek to become dominant powers economically. The U.S. is not doing anything that the rest of them have not done or will be doing in the future. Do you imagine that Bolivia and Austria and Sri Lanka wouldn't like to be the dominant economic powerhouse in their part of the world? Of course they would.

 

Iraq is sitting on an ocean of petroleum. We want to be their new best friend. That oil is too valuable to allow it to remain in the hands of an insane murderer like Saddam Hussein. Of course, if Saddam had continued to be friendly with the U.S., just like dictators in other Middle Eastern countries, we would have tolerated him. All alliances are essentially temporary. Today, the U.S. is close allies with UK, but in times past, say around 1800, we were bitter enemies with Great Britain. They were the hot shit world power, and we were the provincial backwater. Who is to say the U.S. will be top dog forever?

 

Iraq and the Iraqi people are far better off with a functioning democratic government than with a dictatorship. Eventually, they will be a stabilizing, civilizing force on politics in the Middle East. Why back a tyranny and live in a shithole when you could follow Iraq's example, become a democracy and live a normal, decent life style? Iraq has a long way to go. They need a stable economy. To do that, they need the oil industry up and running. To do that, they need a stable government. To do that, they need a functioning army and police force. To do that, the "insurgency" must be suppressed enough to allow a democratic government to recruit and field an army and a police force.

 

We are slowly getting there. The problems are compounded by tribalism, corruption, religious extremism, foreign jihadist infiltrators and so on. But eventually, Iraq will be a normal, representative constitutional republic with a democratic form of government. In an Iraqi sort of way, of course. The reason the "insurgency" is fighting so hard is that they fucked everybody else in Iraq over for so long, they are scared shitless that now it's their turn to be tortured, murdered and so on. They can't believe that payback isn't coming.

 

Villiain---Look up the stack several posts. You said "The U.S. military has a doctrine for this. It's "Total War." All I'm saying is that "total war" is a real thing, and it's not being applied at all in Iraq. The doctrine in Iraq is what is known as the "Three-block war." (Fighting insugents on one block, providing aid and assistance on another block, building the new government and developing relationships on a third block.) "Total war" meaning eliminating all enemy life and completely destroying the country. In short, "annihilation." We aren't doing that, but we were in Germany and in parts of Japan, until they surrendered. "Total war" on the other end means completely dedicating all resources, civilian and military, to the war effort. The U.S. never truly did that in the U.S., but the Soviet Union pretty much did so. Kids starved so that the resources could go to the Army.

[villain]

word flaco....

word....

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Jul 11 2005, 12:52 PM

Hobo Knife---

ALL countries seek to become dominant powers economically. The U.S. is not doing anything that the rest of them have not done or will be doing in the future. Do you imagine that Bolivia and Austria and Sri Lanka wouldn't like to be the dominant economic powerhouse in their part of the world? Of course they would.

 

Iraq is sitting on an ocean of petroleum. We want to be their new best friend. That oil is too valuable to allow it to remain in the hands of an insane murderer like Saddam Hussein. Of course, if Saddam had continued to be friendly with the U.S., just like dictators in other Middle Eastern countries, we would have tolerated him. All alliances are essentially temporary. Today, the U.S. is close allies with UK, but in times past, say around 1800, we were bitter enemies with Great Britain. They were the hot shit world power, and we were the provincial backwater. Who is to say the U.S. will be top dog forever?

 

Iraq and the Iraqi people are far better off with a functioning democratic government than with a dictatorship. Eventually, they will be a stabilizing, civilizing force on politics in the Middle East. Why back a tyranny and live in a shithole when you could follow Iraq's example, become a democracy and live a normal, decent life style? Iraq has a long way to go. They need a stable economy. To do that, they need the oil industry up and running. To do that, they need a stable government. To do that, they need a functioning army and police force. To do that, the "insurgency" must be suppressed enough to allow a democratic government to recruit and field an army and a police force.

 

We are slowly getting there. The problems are compounded by tribalism, corruption, religious extremism, foreign jihadist infiltrators and so on. But eventually, Iraq will be a normal, representative constitutional republic with a democratic form of government. In an Iraqi sort of way, of course. The reason the "insurgency" is fighting so hard is that they fucked everybody else in Iraq over for so long, they are scared shitless that now it's their turn to be tortured, murdered and so on. They can't believe that payback isn't coming.

Quoted post

 

First of all No shit, most countries would want to be in the same position as the US...seriously, you didn't enlighten me there, but thanks for stating the obvious. What I'm trying to get across is that the U.S. is not trying to benefit the Iraqis. We are trying to benefit american companies and the american economy. We don't care about Iraqis. We never did.

 

Also thanks for the history lesson on the post-american revolution era. The concept that global politics changes over centuries was really hard to understand before. But YOU should re-read my post, I never said the US would be the top dog forever. But we are the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. And we will do everyting in our power to keep it that way.

 

How is that you can predict the future and say our war in Iraq will lead to such a peaches and cream democracy? is it because you believe all the right wing propaganda which says the EXACT same thing? Or you just have so much faith in guns and ammo that surely we can kill enough people to "suppress" Iraq into an American "corprotocracy"

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Originally posted by flacomedina@Jul 11 2005, 12:50 PM

 

START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE!! THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS LYING TO YOU. WE ARE ALREADY LIVING A 1984 FASCIST NIGHTMARE, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT YET.

Quoted post

 

 

Word!!!

 

Of course, if by "thinking for yourself" you mean going along with whatever alternative news sites provide.

 

Agendas are everywhere, you just don't know it yet.

[RumPuncher]

this thread has the highest words:posts ratio I've ever seen!

 

 

I'm just going to go WAY back to a point someone said:

i do blame our foreign policy but i'm starting to get seeeeeriously angry with the way these fucks do direct action.

Targetting civilians is like beating up some guys little sister when he pisses you off.

 

The IRA's been doing it for years.

Indescriminate killing is how the world works these days, unfortunately.

[Dawood]

Grand Mufti and Others Denounces London Bombings

 

The Kingdom's grand mufti yesterday strongly denounced the deadly blasts

that rocked London, saying Islam strictly prohibits the killing of

innocent people. He also censured the terrorists for tarnishing the

image of Islam by attaching their heinous crimes to the religion.

 

The explosions that ripped through central London's transport system on

Thursday, "targeting peaceful people, are not condoned by Islam, and are

indeed prohibited by our religion," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh said in

a statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency.

 

"Attributing to Islam acts of individual or collective killings,

bombings, destruction of properties and the terrorizing of peaceful

people is unfair, because they are alien to the divine religion," said

the mufti, who also heads the Council of Senior Islamic Scholars, Saudi

Arabia's highest religious authority.

 

"Islam is a religion of reforms and righteousness. It envisages the

progress of humanity and takes it from darkness to light. It also calls

for respecting agreements and prohibits their violation," the mufti said

referring to accords binding governments. "Causing corruption on earth

is one of the biggest crimes in Islam," he explained.

 

Sheikh Abdul Aziz said respectable Muslim scholars all over the world

have stated that such outrages bear no relation to Islam.

 

Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Obaikan, a senior Saudi scholar and a Shoura

member, said there was no justification, whatsoever, for the killing of

innocent people. Speaking to MBC television, he urged all members of the

Muslim community in Britain to cooperate with British authorities in

tracking down the criminals behind the attacks.

 

...

refer to the following url for further fataawa related to terrorism:

http://www.fatwa-online.com/worship/jihaad/jih004/index.htm

 

 

just some info I though would be useful

[KaBar2]

THANK YOU. Now, we're beginning to get somewhere. This propaganda about this being a war on Islam, blah, blah, blah is just so much bullshit.

 

Hobo Knife---Your sarcasm does little to bolster your argument. The U.S. wants to have a reliable source of oil in the Middle East. Iraq will probably be that reliable source of oil. The Iraqis will become filthy fucking rich on U.S. petrodollars. They will use that money to flood Iraq with food, new schools, hospitals, clinics, a modern Army and police force, better roads, better, more reliable electric power, etc., etc.

Will they need the fourth largest Army in the world? No. Will they need hundreds of second-rate Soviet tanks? No. Will they need an Air Force capable of attacking Israel? No. Will they need hundreds of Scud missles armed with NBC warheads? No.

 

They need to become a safe, peaceful, self-supporting, democratic, constitutional republic that showcases "freedom of religion," "universal suffrage," "liberalized rights for women and children, including divorce and child support," and a bill of rights that guarantees that the people of Iraq control the government and not the other way around.

 

PROPS, MAJOR PROPS to Shiek Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh. The Grand Mufti is showing some serious leadership and statesmanship. I hope he's got some excellent bodyguards.

[Salafi_Zahrah]

A Letter to the British People from a daughter of Iraq

 

I’m sending this letter to the British people and in particular to the residents of London. For a period of hours, you have lived through moments of desperate anxiety and horror. In those hours you lost a member of your family or a friend, and we wish to tell you in total honesty that we too grieve when human lives pass away. I cannot tell you how much we hurt when we see desperation and pain on the face of another person. For we have lived through this situation – and continue to live through it every day – since your country and the United States formed an alliance and laid plans to attack Iraq.

 

The Prime Minister of your country, Tony Blair, said that those who carried out the explosions did so in the name of Islam. The Secretary of State of the United States, Condaleezza Rice, described the bombings as an act of barbarism. The United Nations Security Council met and unanimously condemned the event.

 

I would like to ask you, the free British people, to allow me to inquire: in whose name was our country blockaded for 12 years? In whose name were our cities bombed using internationally prohibited weapons? In whose name did the British army kill Iraqis and torture them? Was that in your name? Or in the name of religion? Or humanity? Or freedom? Or democracy?

 

What do you call the killing of more than two million children? What do you call the pollution of the soil and the water with depleted uranium and other lethal substances?

 

What do you call what happened in the prisons in Iraq – in Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca and the many other prison camps? What do you call the torture of men, women, and children? What do you call tying bombs to the bodies of prisoners and blowing them apart? What do you call the refinement of methods of torture for use on Iraqi prisoners – such as pulling off limbs, gouging out eyes, putting out cigarettes on their skin, and using cigarette lighters to set fire to the hair on their heads? Does the word “barbaric” adequately describe the behavior of your troops in Iraq?

 

May we ask why the Security Council did not condemn the massacre in al-Amiriyah and what happened in al-Fallujah, Tal‘afar, Sadr City, and an-Najaf? Why does the world watch as our people are killed and tortured and not condemn the crimes being committed against us? Are you human beings and we something less? Do you think that only you can feel pain and we can’t? In fact it is we who are most aware of how intense is the pain of the mother who has lost her child, or the father who has lost his family. We know very well how painful it is to lose those you love.

 

You don’t know our martyrs, but we know them. You don’t remember them, but we remember them. You don’t cry over them, but we cry over them.

 

Have you heard the name of the little girl Hannan Salih Matrud? Or of the boy Ahmad Jabir Karim? Or Sa‘id Shabram?

 

Yes, our dead have names too. They have faces and stories and memories. There was a time when they were among us, laughing and playing. They had dreams, just as you have. They had a tomorrow awaiting them. But today they sleep among us with no tomorrow on which to wake.

 

We don’t hate the British people or the peoples of the world. This war was imposed upon us, but we are now fighting it in defense of our selves. Because we want to live in our homeland – the free land of Iraq – and to live as we want to live, not as your government or the American government wish.

 

Let the families of those killed know that responsibility for the Thursday morning London bombings lies with Tony Blair and his policies. Stop your war against our people! Stop the daily killing that your troops commit! End your occupation of our homeland!

 

Iman al-Saadun, Friday, 8 July 2005

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Jul 13 2005, 02:20 AM

Hobo Knife---Your sarcasm does little to bolster your argument.

They need to become a safe, peaceful, self-supporting, democratic, constitutional republic that showcases "freedom of religion," "universal suffrage," "liberalized rights for women and children, including divorce and child support," and a bill of rights that guarantees that the people of Iraq control the government and not the other way around.

Quoted post

 

Ok, I'm sorry, but you can't predict the future. In fact what you can do, is look at our history of nation building. You can look at how unsuccessful we've been at creating puppet gov'ts.

 

You've got a lot of great ideas there "freedom of religion" and "universal suffrage"....you almost sound like thomas jefferson or george washington!

 

But Kabar, the reality is that we have never been successful at nation building. I can't predict the future either but i can sure as hell tell you american bombs and troops don't equal democracy.

 

Seriously, you're dreaming if you think Iraq will be "safe" anytime soon. Oh and that the people of Iraq will control the gov't??? wtf? we dont even control our gov't. You sound like Rush Limbaugh.

[POIESIS]

HEY EVERYONE, BEFORE WE PROCEED, LETS ALL GIVE A BIG ROUND OF

APPLAUSE TO THE FINGERTIP CONVENIENCE PROVIDED TO ALL OF US 'EXPERTS'

BY PAGE AND BRIN [CLAPPY CLAP].

 

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Jul 10 2005, 08:14 PM

that doesn't change the fact that it isn't the official US policy. As long as there are politicians and media, that won't be a reality on a large scale at all.

Quoted post

 

this statement is amazing..

partly becuz you claim to know 'official US policy' when in fact

your implication, in my eyes, and in conjuction with your following words, barely jives with nearly all of its external behaviour..

partly becuz i would like to know what you define as 'large scale'..

and partly becuz you seem to be putting weirdly dated faith in a failing, pathetic media

and politicians(both parties) that are barely containing their contempt for democracy..

[SF1]

Originally posted by Salafi_Zahrah@Jul 13 2005, 01:29 PM

A Letter to the British People from a daughter of Iraq

 

I’m sending this letter to the British people and in particular to the residents of London. For a period of hours, you have lived through moments of desperate anxiety and horror. In those hours you lost a member of your family or a friend, and we wish to tell you in total honesty that we too grieve when human lives pass away. I cannot tell you how much we hurt when we see desperation and pain on the face of another person. For we have lived through this situation – and continue to live through it every day – since your country and the United States formed an alliance and laid plans to attack Iraq.

 

The Prime Minister of your country, Tony Blair, said that those who carried out the explosions did so in the name of Islam. The Secretary of State of the United States, Condaleezza Rice, described the bombings as an act of barbarism. The United Nations Security Council met and unanimously condemned the event.

 

I would like to ask you, the free British people, to allow me to inquire: in whose name was our country blockaded for 12 years? In whose name were our cities bombed using internationally prohibited weapons? In whose name did the British army kill Iraqis and torture them? Was that in your name? Or in the name of religion? Or humanity? Or freedom? Or democracy?

 

What do you call the killing of more than two million children? What do you call the pollution of the soil and the water with depleted uranium and other lethal substances?

 

What do you call what happened in the prisons in Iraq – in Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca and the many other prison camps? What do you call the torture of men, women, and children? What do you call tying bombs to the bodies of prisoners and blowing them apart? What do you call the refinement of methods of torture for use on Iraqi prisoners – such as pulling off limbs, gouging out eyes, putting out cigarettes on their skin, and using cigarette lighters to set fire to the hair on their heads? Does the word “barbaric” adequately describe the behavior of your troops in Iraq?

 

May we ask why the Security Council did not condemn the massacre in al-Amiriyah and what happened in al-Fallujah, Tal‘afar, Sadr City, and an-Najaf? Why does the world watch as our people are killed and tortured and not condemn the crimes being committed against us? Are you human beings and we something less? Do you think that only you can feel pain and we can’t? In fact it is we who are most aware of how intense is the pain of the mother who has lost her child, or the father who has lost his family. We know very well how painful it is to lose those you love.

 

You don’t know our martyrs, but we know them. You don’t remember them, but we remember them. You don’t cry over them, but we cry over them.

 

Have you heard the name of the little girl Hannan Salih Matrud? Or of the boy Ahmad Jabir Karim? Or Sa‘id Shabram?

 

Yes, our dead have names too. They have faces and stories and memories. There was a time when they were among us, laughing and playing. They had dreams, just as you have. They had a tomorrow awaiting them. But today they sleep among us with no tomorrow on which to wake.

 

We don’t hate the British people or the peoples of the world. This war was imposed upon us, but we are now fighting it in defense of our selves. Because we want to live in our homeland – the free land of Iraq – and to live as we want to live, not as your government or the American government wish.

 

Let the families of those killed know that responsibility for the Thursday morning London bombings lies with Tony Blair and his policies. Stop your war against our people! Stop the daily killing that your troops commit! End your occupation of our homeland!

 

Iman al-Saadun, Friday, 8 July 2005

Quoted post

 

 

In your face Kabar!

[Guest imported_El Mamerro]

Originally posted by POIESIS@Jul 13 2005, 09:00 PM

HEY EVERYONE, BEFORE WE PROCEED, LETS ALL GIVE A BIG ROUND OF

APPLAUSE TO THE FINGERTIP CONVENIENCE PROVIDED TO ALL OF US 'EXPERTS'

BY PAGE AND BRIN [CLAPPY CLAP].

 

 

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Brilliant.

[Dawood]

 

 

yeah, 1 demonocracy extra cheese, hold the pepperoni and sausage please,

 

thanks.

[KaBar2]

SF1---

 

A very eloquent letter, I must say, and like every impassioned statement, fairly effective. But most of those things mentioned can be laid right at the feet of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party. Yes, U.S. (and UN) policy blockaded Iraq. And why? Because Saddam Hussein would not abide by the UN sanctions. Yes, millions of Iraqi children died. And why? Because Saddam Hussein chose not to comply, and the Iraqi people suffered. Conflict between nations is a very bad thing. Open warfare is even worse.

 

Civilians die in every war. Children die in every war, as do women, elderly people and just about anyone who is unprepared, physically weak or ill, as well as large numbers of perfectly healthy soldiers. What do you expect? It's a WAR, for pete's sake. Millions of German children died in WWII. No tears shed in the Allied nations. We hear plenty of lamentations for the six million murdered Jews, but that about the THIRTY MILLION Russians killed by Stalin? Probably hundreds of thousands of Japanese children, Chinese children, etc., etc. in WWII. Again, it's awful. But it did not stop the war from being conducted, and the two million Iraqi children won't stop it either.

 

Did you know that after WWII there was a completely serious proposal to annihilate the German nation by forced sterilization? Louis Nizer lobbied hard, but he lost. They had it all planned out. They figured they would ask for volunteer doctors and nurses from Allied countries, and would need approximately 20,000 physicians. They figured three to six months to vasectomize all German men and boys, and another eight to twelve to finish tubal ligation of all German women and girls. As the German nation died off, the four Allies would resettle Displaced Persons in their stead. Germany would cease to exist. Poland, Czechoslavakia, Austria, etc. would just expand their borders. How's that for payback? (And we always thought that Jewish liberals abhorred genocide. LOL. Guess not.)

 

I think that the London bombs are a shameful example of terrorism, but we should not make too much of it. Yes, it's bad, but UK is at war, just like the U.S. is at war. The British people, and ESPECIALLY loyal British Muslims should expotentially increase their efforts at identifying and informing on anybody they see as a serious threat to national security. Hitler bombed London for months, and all he did was really piss off the British people. Something tells me that the Marines may have to open a new "British block" at Guantanamo Bay. I suspect that MI5 and MI6 are going to rapidly expand their size and ability. Something tells me that it's going to be a hell of a lot more difficult to immigrate into UK now, and there will be a upsurge in investigations of people who overstay their tourist visas or student visas, accompanied by an upsurge in summary deportations of anybody who looks the slightest bit suspicious, accompanied by loud official proclamations that nobody should discriminate against Muslims, that British Muslims have been excellent subjects of the Crown for years, etc., etc.

[oh so modern]

just thought up this little nugget:

 

the left has energy.

the right has power.

 

nothing to do with london.

everything to do with the continued SF-1 / Kabar2 debates.

although it really isnt a debate because

SF-1 is often rather embarassing

and kabar often seems disengaged.

one love.

[Stereotype V.001]

Originally posted by POIESIS@Jul 13 2005, 10:00 PM

this statement is amazing..

partly becuz you claim to know 'official US policy' when in fact

your implication, in my eyes, and in conjuction with your following words, barely jives with nearly all of its external behaviour..

partly becuz i would like to know what you define as 'large scale'..

and partly becuz you seem to be putting weirdly dated faith in a failing, pathetic media

and politicians(both parties) that are barely containing their contempt for democracy..

Quoted post

 

First of all I would like to say I try to keep all my posts amazing.

 

When I said "Official US policy" it was in reference to how we do not target non combatants. This was in response to the "total war" comment. But I'll humor you anyway, Tanto!

 

Believe it or not, killing civilians is not the official mandate. I would define a large scale basically as what Kabar described as total war earlier, carpet bombing the major cities and activly targeting non combatants during operations, checkpoints, ect. (PS- I know this because in Iraq, people are still walking around outside from time to time. If our official policy was infact to kill everything that moves, these people might be staying inside, or perhaps fleeing the country in mass numbers.)

 

But then again, maybe you ARE right. The media doesn't do its job at all. The whole Abu Ghraib situation wasn't played over and over on every news channel. The whole "flushing the Koran down the toilet" incident ALSO wasn't perpetuated by the media. These incidents also didn't stir up a shitstorm of anti-American sentiment at all. Right on soul brotha.

 

FYI, I don't get my information from the media (or politicians). Nor do I put my faith in them at all. But if we were killing Iraqi civilians en masse, I have a sneaking suspicion we might have heard a little something.

 

I love how people only hear what they want to on this website.

[Stereotype V.001]

And yes, thank God for google. Also, I'd be interested to know how many people actually googled "page and brin" to see who they are.

[POIESIS]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Jul 14 2005, 08:14 AM

Believe it or not, killing civilians is not the official mandate. I would define a large scale basically as what Kabar described as total war earlier, carpet bombing the major cities and activly targeting non combatants during operations, checkpoints, ect. (PS- I know this because in Iraq, people are still walking around outside from time to time. If our official policy was infact to kill everything that moves, these people might be staying inside, or perhaps fleeing the country in mass numbers.)

 

But then again, maybe you ARE right. The media doesn't do its job at all. The whole Abu Ghraib situation wasn't played over and over on every news channel. The whole "flushing the Koran down the toilet" incident ALSO wasn't perpetuated by the media. These incidents also didn't stir up a shitstorm of anti-American sentiment at all. Right on soul brotha.

 

FYI, I don't get my information from the media (or politicians). Nor do I put my faith in them at all. But if we were killing Iraqi civilians en masse, I have a sneaking suspicion we might have heard a little something.

 

I love how people only hear what they want to on this website.

Quoted post

 

and i love how your smarmy retorts and the info come exclusively from...books! of course!

i bet you didn't have to google those names, you heideggerin' motherfucker you!

 

 

so you highlighted 2 large things, which were covered initially by real

muckrackers like seymour hersh(newyorker), NOT the nytimes or the

wash.post, and that's your counter argument for the bang up job the major media is doing?

i didn't say the media didn't do it's job "at all", i said the media was 'failing'.

next time read thoroughly.

i have a feeling you haven't spent much time analysing the content, context, coverage,

lack of coverage, sources or anything related, but i'm sure you'll write back asking me

to write you an exclusive essay with a bibliography 4 pages in length to prove i'm no dilletante. furthermore, since you yourself don't put faith in the media 'at all',

or even get your information from the media(good one..no, really), what's your

stance on it hombre?

 

in reference to your comments on total war, as i alluded, in my

view, given the results of virtually every american intervention post world war deux, sparring over the definition of total war is a useless exercise in semantics. even if there

is a technical definition within this thread, it's fucking useless commentary. large scale

death? some would consider 9/11 to be large scale, certainly most of the world did,

yet this tally of dead is a mere drop in the bucket comparatively speaking(and we'll skip

the whole reactionary morality thing for now).

same goes for your comments that targetting civilians is not 'official policy'.

here you take things literally.

the fact that the US has, for all intents and purposes, levelled whole cities and its inhabitants in numerous military

interventions probably doesn't fall under 'total war'. was the official policy to kill as close to zero innocents as possible? of course it was, it's 'official policy'. have they killed literally hundreds of thousands

of bystanders in their interventions? well, that's 'collateral damage', therefore the policy

stands. besides, it's WAAAAAAAR. shit happens brah. dig?

panama wasn't some puny little intervention.

nor were interventions in haiti, grenada, or

nicaragua, where civilians, in nicaragua's case, were targetted and slaughtered under the direction of the

same guy who was your ambassador to iraq, and is now your intel director. the panama invasion resulted

in perhaps a few thousand deaths*, but fuck me, those airstrikes weren't targetting urban

neighborhoods, were they!?

*incidentally, there is no official(meaning reported in the nytimes or the wash.post)

tally for the number of panamanian casualties cuz the american media just doesn't seem to give much of a shit.

 

now write soon, you cute little coquette you.

[Stereotype V.001]

Coquette? I dont speak no french boy.

 

Never said I don't use google. No, I don't think the major media is doing a good job for the most part, which is why I said I put my faith in them. But thanks for providing me with a counter argument. Your right, I spend little to no time analy"s"ing content. It gets in the way of my watching tv.

 

I suppose I wasn't so clear with my original posted internet message, but I meant I don't get my information about the goings on in Iraq because their coverage only actually covers very few things. Weird, how I would write about that in reference to the subject of my original post. Really makes you wonder...

 

"total war is a useless exercise in semantics"

You realize this, yet you continue on with a long drawn out essay, chock full of semantics. Faaaantastic.

 

"the fact that the US has, for all intents and purposes, levelled whole cities and its inhabitants in numerous military

interventions probably doesn't fall under 'total war'. was the official policy to kill as close to zero innocents as possible? of course it was, it's 'official policy'. have they killed literally hundreds of thousands

of bystanders in their interventions?

 

Well, that's 'collateral damage', therefore the policy

stands. "

 

Now your getting it!! Good job!

In actuality, if you want to blame anyone for our air strikes, tell it to the man who put military installations and high level targets infront of hospitals, schools, and residential areas in order that it might dissuade tommy Tomahawk from stopping by.

 

Non combatants might have gotten killed, but they weren't the "target." Kinda like how my original post said we weren't actively "targeting" them. Whoa, it's alllll coming back, maaan.

 

If you want take more things out of context, and read only what works for you from this post, feel free to PM me as to not clog this thread up. For some reason I think you might like the attention, making that notion not feasible.

[POIESIS]

hahaha, well now i know you really are a sucker..

i've got no probs cloggin' up the thread...especially since your counter arguments are an embarrassment and all you can do is riposte with sarcasm nobody could counter mixed with fuck-all substance.

[KaBar2]

Five yard penalty for ad hominem attack! (Fwweeet!) Ball goes to Stereo.

 

This is great.

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by Stereotype V.001@Jul 14 2005, 11:14 AM

But then again, maybe you ARE right. The media doesn't do its job at all. The whole Abu Ghraib situation wasn't played over and over on every news channel. The whole "flushing the Koran down the toilet" incident ALSO wasn't perpetuated by the media. These incidents also didn't stir up a shitstorm of anti-American sentiment at all. Right on soul brotha.

 

FYI, I don't get my information from the media (or politicians). Nor do I put my faith in them at all. But if we were killing Iraqi civilians en masse, I have a sneaking suspicion we might have heard a little something.

 

I love how people only hear what they want to on this website.

Quoted post

 

Let me get this straight...by saying - "...perpetuated by the media. These incidents also didn't stir up a shitstorm of anti-American sentiment at all."

 

Are you trying to blame some of the recent anti-american sentiment on the american media? Maybe incidents like these simply ADDED to the anti american sentiment already in place. Trust me, America developed a lot of hatred BEFORE we started torturing POW's. Then when news broke of torture and was actualy verifiable the media had a responsibility to report on it. I personally don't feel that they perpetuated the stories at all...the american media does perpetuate nonsense stories all the time (MJ trial, runaway bride, peterson case...) Allegations of torture should be taken very seriously.