 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Unite Against Terror
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:28 AM Read it, sign it. No ifs no buts no excuses. Communities United Against Terror |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: jacqui.c Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:29 AM This one's on the Perception thread as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 08:33 AM Yes, I put it there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Lepus Rex Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:07 AM Ooh, a petition! That'll show 'em! I, like, already want to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, or buy it a Coke, or some shit like that! What a load. Knee-jerk anti-Muslim propaganda trying reaaaallly hard not to look like knee-jerk anti-Muslim propaganda. Why don't you bitches take responsibility for your actions, and admit that your foreign and domestic policies are the reason you're a target? Oh, I forgot: "They hate us for our freedom." Never mind. :P ---lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:09 AM Typical, you didn't get past the title. Your comment tells more about you than the the petition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:22 AM It seems a wee bit selective in what is recognised as terror, and that's not quibbling, because being blind to any kind of terror, including that carried out by agents of governments, is to collude in it, and is to give the wheel another spin. Here's a bit from a song I once wrote: And those who'd kill us were once our brothers, and those who help us may yet be foes, to take their turn place on this wheel of hatred, that drives us out down those endless roads. And so it goes, will it be forever till the wheel stops and the madness ends? Look down in pity on this world of exiles, and teach us some way we can start again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:31 AM Well I read it and decided not to sign it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Donuel Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:32 AM The military has the intention to Ignite against terror for the next 20 years. Hell, the last Gulf War started only 20 years ago. We will be wandering the desert for 40 years and 40 fights in a great flood of war. On CNN, the US defense contractors are airing commercials like crazy. I don't know any consumers who are buying weapons as a result of these ads but; Lockheed, McDonel Douglas, Halliburton* and others are happier than a pig in shit to spend many millions of dollars on their ads. *Technically Halliburton is a foriegn owned corporation and not subject to US taxation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:38 AM Ummm - this all really started back on Nov. 4, 1979 - the take-over of the Tehran embassy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:40 AM MoH, did you read the section "Why I signed" ? Many people are against the US/UK intervention in Iraq but still find it important to recognise this for what it is. For people like LR, who can't even read let alone comprehend, it probably is a waste of time: maybe mudcat should start a junior section for people who reaaaallly need one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 09:43 AM Jon Well I read it and decided not to sign it. Why not, if you took the time to read it please say what was in there you didn't like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Jon Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:00 AM Pretty much on the same lines as McGrath observed in his post. It reads more to me as "government defined" terrorism/ spin and I belive we need to look at the full reasons for terrorism which IMO includes our own actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:03 AM But aren't we respnsible for the Govt? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: jacqui.c Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:13 AM I'm against any form of violence to get a point of view across. I don't care what the label is - it's all obscene whether or not any government condones it or what cause it purports to support. I signed on that basis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Amergin Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:13 AM Yes and this piece of online crap will show them terrorists that we are united against them....yawn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:22 AM And what will your comments show them Amergin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:28 AM Many people are against the US/UK intervention in Iraq but still find it important to recognise this for what it is. It's not just the Iraq invasion, it's all the other campaigns of terror carried out by governments round the world. The massacre at Srbrenica, ten years ago the other day, was carried out by informed representatives of a government; the genocide in Ruanda was carried out on behalf of a government. (I intentionally avoid mentioning any examples that might be contentious.) If we are against terror we are against all terror, not picking and choosing. If picking and choosing is OK, why not welcome Al Qaida into the big tent? After all you can be sure there are examples of terror to which they would be happy to denounce. JMuyst nit te ones caried out by themselves and their friends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:29 AM Many people are against the US/UK intervention in Iraq but still find it important to recognise this for what it is. It's not just the Iraq invasion, it's all the other campaigns of terror carried out by governments round the world. The massacre at Srbrenica, ten years ago the other day, was carried out by informed representatives of a government; the genocide in Ruanda was carried out on behalf of a government. (I intentionally avoid mentioning any examples that might be contentious.) If we are against terror we are against all terror, not picking and choosing. If picking and choosing is OK, why not welcome Al Qaida into the big tent? After all you can be sure there are examples of terror to which they would be happy to denounce. Just not the ones carried out by themselves and their friends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:31 AM Many people are against the US/UK intervention in Iraq but still find it important to recognise this for what it is. It's not just the Iraq invasion, it's all the other campaigns of terror carried out by governments round the world. The massacre at Srbrenica, ten years ago the other day, was carried out by iniformed representatives of a government; the genocide in Ruanda was carried out on behalf of a government. (I intentionally avoid mentioning any examples that might be contentious.) If we are against terror we are against all terror, not picking and choosing. If picking and choosing is OK, why not welcome Al Qaida into the big tent? After all you can be sure there are examples of terror to which they would be happy to denounce. Just not the ones carried out by themselves and their friends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: JennyO Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:37 AM You can say that again, McGrath :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:40 AM The reason this site will be hard to accept for a number of people here is that if you read the front page and the reasons for signing you will notice that there is a secondary - to the stand against terrorism - thread. This secondary thread is the utter rejection of those parts of the left who are in complete denial. e.g. Peter Tatchell - who's not known for supporting government. I used to be proud to call myself a leftist. Now I feel shame. Much of the left no longer stands for the values of universal human rights and international socialism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:47 AM Tatchell and Livingstone are worrying a few people. Once they were followed blindly by those so set in their ways they relied on them to think for them. Now they find themselves in fundamental disagreement with them. Both have risen in my estimation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:50 AM Tatchell and Livingstone ... Both have risen in my estimation. Absolutely, but I always had a bit of a liking for red Ken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:04 AM MoH, Thomas Cushman, Professor of Sociology, Wellesley College, USA, Editor, Journal of Human Rights explains it better than I will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:06 AM Much of "the left" has never stood for the values of universal human rights and international socialism. Life is more complicated than implied by simple labels like that. But the same goes for the "alliance" represented by that petition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:19 AM Well my glass is half full. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:33 AM Shakey they were both high in my estimation, they have just reached new heights. Sorry,I didn't want you to think I was anti them before. And yes, I signed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jul 05 - 01:44 PM Unite for Peace. Unite for brotherhood. Unite for equality. Unite for mutual respect. It would be much more effective. Gandhi did not fight against the British, he fought for India's national sovereignty. To be against someone or something is to believe in separation and division. It is to seek a victory over an imagined opponent. Such a victory will be won only at the cost of many lives, at the cost of great sorrow, and it will invevitably sow the seeds of future conflict. To be against is to work from a position of anger, even hatred. To be for is to work from a position of love. "By opposing an enemy, you give him strength." - Lao Tse I sympathize with some aspects of the petition, yet do not agree with others. Therefore, I did not sign it. The way to make peace in the World is to BE peaceful...not just in your actions, but also in your thoughts. It is to focus on the similarities between yourself and others, rather than the differences. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 01:48 PM So are you telling us that we never have to make a stand. "It is to seek a victory over an imagined opponent." Did we all imagine the attacks that have taken place |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 01:52 PM If an earlier generation hadn't made a stand against fascism you would have written that remark in German or Japanese. Oh, then again you wouldn't have had the opportunity would you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Amergin Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:14 PM It won't show them a bloody thing...because that supposed petition is not going anywhere. did you expect it to go right in Bin Laden's mailbox? Did you really and truly think that he and his followers would see that and say oh ok...let us all hug and quit this. People signed a faux petition against us and now we gotta stop....again..yawn... as long as there is poverty and oppressive regimes there will be terrorism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 02:19 PM As long as there are people who support, defend and excuse it there will be fascists and terrorism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:25 PM Shakey....Take your patronising petition and shove it. I'll bet theres not one person on this forum who supports terrorism but we don't need a load of waffle presented by a self-confessed Labour party hack and a Blairite to boot, to prove it. Take your petition and present it to Mr Blair. Get him to sign it before he decides to illegally attack another country and bring more shit down on our heads. The folk of Mudcat may be a bit "bolshie"....But were not stupid! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:29 PM Just which of these can't you sign up to ake?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Metchosin Date: 25 Jul 05 - 03:38 PM For what its worth.....hooray for our side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:10 PM The material posted with the petition looks to me more like an excuse to promote state sponsored terrorism than a blanket condemnation of all terrorism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:17 PM So Carol which of the 6 points won't you accept? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: dianavan Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:18 PM Shakey - Do you send chain letters, too? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:25 PM So dianavan which point do you not accept? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Donuel Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:31 PM Unite against revolution is just as ambiguous as unite against terror. When ethnic/religious cleansing is involved I am all for fighting it. But in the course of human events... well, a revolution is sometimes required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:33 PM Points from the UAT site that deal with item 2 (see above)
Look in the mirror, does the cap still fit? Shakey Proud (again) to be left wing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:35 PM This terrorist violence is not a response by 'Muslims' to the injustices perpetrated upon them by 'the west'. Western democracies have been responsible for some of the ills of this world but not for the terrorist murders of these deluded Bin-Ladenists. This bit, for one. It underplays the role of state sponsored terrorism in the current state of affairs (and in so doing, implies approval of it). These terrorists do not hate what is worst in the societies they attack, but what is best. They despise individual liberty, critical thought, gender equality, religious tolerance, the rights of minorities and political pluralism. They do not criticize democracy because it sometimes fails to live up to its principles; they oppose those principles. This bit as well. The people at the highest levels may indeed be motivated by these things, but most of the rank and file, so to speak, would probably not be available recruits for the people at the highest levels had not governments of Western countries practiced state sponsored terrorism in many of their home countries. I condemn ALL uses of "terror" as a strategy for controling people, regardless of whether it is done by governments, or by paramilitary organizations. I think it's unfortunate that the people sponsoring the petition don't do the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:41 PM You've no need to look in the mirror Carol, trust me the cap fits. ...the useful idiots of the Islamofascists |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:44 PM Shakey - Do you send chain letters, too? This from someone who's made about a zillion postings, come come. What's wrong has somebody stolen <>your forum? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: dianavan Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:55 PM Who will this petition be sent to? Why do they need donations? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 04:56 PM That term, "useful idiots" was cooked up by propagandists in the US in during the cold war. The useful idiots are the ones who believe government propaganda. And I think you need to take some time to learn the definition of "fascist". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:04 PM Speaking on BBC News 24 at this moment, ex CIA operative Ben McGovern "The figures speak for themselves, since the war, over 500 suicide bombs in Iraq....before the war, 0 suicide bombs . We must drain the swamp of grievances in the Middle East over the policies of Mr Bush and Mr Blair. This is the only way to keep our people safe" Shove it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:05 PM Well according to the front page all donations are being sent to a bomb relief fund, and while it says the London fund, I hope and believe it will be wider than that because that's the way we are here. Where will it be sent, who knows, who cares. It's an affirmation that individuals can make, and helps us see that we're not alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:14 PM Ake, at least Carol is useful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:20 PM And I think you need to take some time to learn the definition of "fascist". Carol on the UAT site about 45 people give their reasons for signing, the word fascist appears 41 times. I forgot, you're right the rest of the world is wrong. PS don't bother google or wicki with this, Oh, but then you'd have nothing to say would you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:27 PM It's an odd sort of petition, more of a manifesto. It starts out as an article, and winds up with a series of points such as you might find in a petition. So in signing it you aren't just agreeing to those six points, you are agreeing to the preliminary article with its analysis which appears to exclude some of the most appalling types of terrorism in the present world. I am wholly and unreservedly against all kinds of terrorism. In the last resort it seems to me that this manifesto is not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:36 PM 41 people using the word doesn't mean they know what it means. You have been using it, and you clearly don't. Fascism is an economic system in which government and private corporations become essentially one and the same entity. That's not my own personal definition... it is the definition given by the people who created the system of fascism. Useful idiots indeed... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:36 PM I understand your reservations. Would you refuse to sign am anti mugging petition because it wasn't also against social injustice. Sometimes there has to be no buts. From your postings I wouldn't say that item 2 is your stumbling block but it sure as hell is for some here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:36 PM Excuse me... 45 people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:40 PM Your response was predictable, anonymous one. Here is my explanation: There is a time to fight. Several times, in fact, and here are some of them... When you see someone attacking a woman, a child, an animal, or any innocent victim...stop them! Use whatever force is necessary. Resist? Hell, yes. When a foreign army pours across your borders and a foreign airforce violates your skies...fight them. Hell, yes. As long as it is feasible to, fight them. If they are undefeatable, you have some choices in front of you...bide your time...fight a guerilla war against them...fight them from the shadows...or, if you choose, live with them for the time being (as millions of people did with the Romans, the British, the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Americans). Which of those options you choose will depend on your individual temperament, and the degree of your anger, I expect. It's up to you. When someone physically attacks you for no good reason...fight him. Hell, yes. When someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night...fight him. (if you feel up to it...I leave that to your own judgement). When your own government puts storm troopers in the streets and violates the civil rights of many of your own citizens....fight them (if you are willing to risk the consequences...I leave that up to you). I am in no way suggesting that one NOT defend oneself against a genuine attack BY someone else. I am suggesting that one not live by the philosophy and practice OF attack. The USA is forever preparing for its next target of opportunity, and those targets are always located in strategic territory...as regards oil, trade routes, and military considerations. The USA routinely terrorizes other countries, verbally threatens them, and attacks them on false premises (such as nonexistent WMD's). It promises democracy, but delivers puppet governments and dictatorships. Those are not defence iniatives by the USA, they are attack iniatives. The US Department of Defence was not defending any Americans when it invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. 911 was an incident requiring police action on an international level, not military action. Al Queda is not a country, it is a secret organization. Secret organizations are fought by covert means...police action on an international basis...not by invading whole countries and subjugating them. To invade either Afghanistan or Iraq because of Al Queda was not a response which could conceivably yield the result which it sought...and the action was NOT taken to eliminate Al Queda...it was taken to secure strategic positions in regards to Caspian oil and Middle Eastern oil. What does all that add up to? ATTACK. Attack for direct financial and strategic gain. I am opposed to attack. I am not opposed to legitimate defence of a nation, a community, or an individual. I regard the petition as intended to stir up more anger and paranoia in people who are already angry and afraid. That will not help anyone. Al Queda is probably happy to spread around similar petitions (from the opposite angle) to fire up the next generation of suicide bombers. Everyone is against terrorism! Everyone. The only problem is, they don't call it terrorism when they are the ones doing it. They are blind to their own contributions in that regard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:42 PM My problem with it is that the lack of inclusion of a condemntation of state sponsored terrorism in the petition, combined with some of the other language in the petition, makes the petition itself vulnerable for use by governments specifically for the purpose of trying to justify state sponsored terrorism. I most emphatically do not want to help them do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Bobert Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:43 PM Screw this petition! Upwards of 100,000 innocent Iragis have died to keep yer neighbors SUV's in gas and your corrupt politicans stealin' from the workling class.... Bush and Blair are the biggest terrorists in the world.. Bring me a petition that adresses their greed and lust for power at the cost of killin' innocent children, women and old folks and I'll be the first to sign on... And, NO, I'm not apologizing fir no oone elses sins... Jus' trying to put things in perspective here... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:45 PM All from the wicki Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life Modern colloquial usage of the word has extended the definition of the terms fascism and neofascism to refer to any totalitarian worldview regardless of its political ideology, although scholars frown on this. * exalts the nation, (and sometimes the race or culture) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme. * stresses loyalty to a single leader. * uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition. * engages in severe economic and social regimentation. * engages in syndicalist corporatism. * implements totalitarian systems. Which I belive is your favourite source, one that you believe is usually better than more biased ones. Useless idiot indeed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Piers Date: 25 Jul 05 - 05:51 PM The organisers of this petition are pro-war bloggers and pundits and some of the people behind 'Labour Friends of Iraq' - the suicide bomber are terrorists but shock and awe isn't brigade, the same old lot who go around accusing anyone who does not support the invasion/occupation of Iraq of supporting terrorists - 'if you are not with us you are against us'. Their selective condemnation of some terrorism is indicative of the position of the organisers. It also states no prescription for action just to being against terrorism, as if this is some revelation. But what to do about it? Its political significance is likely to be zilch. The statement indicates that this terrorism is due to extremist Islamists and nothing to do with competition between Western capitalist backing 'democracy' and the arabian capitalists (like Osama Bin Laden) and aspirant capitalists that command Al Queada over the oil booty. This is the basis of the 6 points and why wouldn't I sign it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:01 PM Looks about right to me, Shakey. Perhaps you can tell me in what way the people you are calling "islamofascists" are engaging in "syndicalist corporatism". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: greg stephens Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:07 PM On a side issue, is "useful idiots" really a phrase developed by American cold war propagandists? If so, they've succeeded with me, because I've alway believed it as being a phrase of Lenin's. So, was the Lenin attribution planted by the CIA or something? And, Little Hawk, do you really in all seriousness believe the French should have resisted the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944? Because if you do, I think you're completely barmy. But that is what you've just argued for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:19 PM Useful Idiot (more from Wikipedia) "In political jargon, the term "useful idiot" was used during the Cold War by certain anticommunists to describe communists in western countries (particularly in the United States). The implication of the insult was that the communist in question was naive, and that he or she was being cynically used by the Soviet Union or another Communist state, thus unwittingly being a traitor to his or her home country. The term is sometimes claimed to have been coined by Vladimir Lenin to describe those western reporters and travellers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West. This story is apocryphal, since no reference to a communist being called a "useful idiot" was made in the United States until 1948, and not until decades later would the attempts to attribute the phrase to Lenin be made. Lenin never wrote it in any published document, no one has ever claimed to have heard him say it, and it also contradicts almost every document Lenin wrote and every speech he made in reference to the Comintern." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:31 PM syndicalist corporatism I haven't a clue what this means, but I have a feeling I will soon. <truce> Isn't the wiki wonderful, by the way Carol I do hope you're a contributor, if not you probably should be </truce> |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:35 PM I haven't a clue what this means, but I have a feeling I will soon. No, I think I'll just leave you in the dark. You seem to be quite happy there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:37 PM But if that's you, Sakey, and you are serious about a truce, I accept. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:38 PM *Shakey* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:41 PM That was pretty good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 06:45 PM There is only one shakey but I have several machines only one of which has the cookie. And I was serious about the wiki, it's a wonderful project, I assume you know that anyone can contribute, of course I'll be checking and editing it later :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:05 PM And if you believe that I believe the French should have resisted the Allied invasion in '44, you are entirely (and, I think, deliberately) missing my point, Greg. ;-) Mind you, there were a very small number of French nationals (as well as Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, Czech, and other nationals in Nazi-invaded lands) who joined the SS and helped the Germans fight the Allies during WWII. You can look it up in the histories of the SS formations. They were nonconformists of their time, I suppose, and it proves that every side can find some people who will back it during a war, even among the invaded. No, Greg, I do not think the French should have resisted a relief force sent into their country to throw out an already present foreign invader. Hardly. Why would I think that? Why would anyone? Do not, in attempting to win an argument, stoop to absurd reasoning...it's an unworthy debating technique. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:36 PM My sticking point is the expression "...are worth defending with all our strength", which in the context of this manifesto, and in the absence of any kind of qualification, appears to implicitly approve activities which are essentially terrorist in nature. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 25 Jul 05 - 07:56 PM MoH Well of course you are entitled to your own interpretation of what isn't actually there, ie appears to implicitly approve , all I can say in defence is that I didn't read it that way and there is a large, and growing, group of people who didn't either. I'm sure you know some of the names on the site and imagination would have to be stretched to the limit to think of them as war-mongers. By the way Carol I noticed that you had 4 posts in a row, I must have dozed off, anyway my response of That was pretty good. was to your jibe at me at 25 Jul 05 - 06:35 PM It ocurred to me that you thought it was a reply to one of the others. Nope, I respect a good jibe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,clint keller Date: 25 Jul 05 - 10:07 PM Years ago someone gave me a handsome brochure which spoke against world hunger. He asked for money to support the cause. I asked him where the money went. He said it went to print more brochures and like publicity to raise hunger awareness. None for food, directly or indirectly? No, he said, they were Uniting People Against Hunger. This petition's not even as smart as the Hunger Awareness movement. It's about as effective as that yellow magnetic ribbon stuck on the butt of your car. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:05 PM Uh-huh. About that smart. Well, like I said, who isn't against terrorism? Anyone being terrorized is against it, aren't they? Only problem is, they only think it's terrorism when it's done TO them or their chosen friends, not when it's done BY them or their chosen friends. All deliberate aggressions on other people and all attempts to cow other people into yielding their way of life to yours are terrorism. The number one proponents OF terrorism are and always have been national governments, and their mechanism for practicing it is warfare...economic warfare, diplomatic warfare, and full scale military warfare. Their common objective: material gain. When the British romped all over Africa in the 1800's, for instance, massacring Native tribes with fast-firing Martini rifles...they were committing terrorism. Ask the Natives about it. They were certainly terrified. When the USA bombs people with B-52s the same thing is happening. Terrorism. For the USA to declare a "War On Terrorism" is as ironical as Stalin declaring a "War on Totalitarianism" would have been. It's a major case of the pot calling the kettle black. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Peace Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:23 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 25 Jul 05 - 11:33 PM It's Chicago's Bughouse Square all over again! I love it. But there was always wisdom in that lovely ranting, and there is much logic here as wello. Once again: What will happen is what will be. - And what will be is what will happen!!--- The strong will prevail. Hopefully, it will be the "good" strong-----and not the "bad" strong that makes the rules when the chaos quiets some. Here is a paraphrase of Alan Sherman: God rest ye merry gentlemen---let nothing you dismay, Dis May has been a rotten month--so what more can I say? Let's hope next May is better, and good things will come your way, And you won't have a feeling of dis-may---next May. Or whenever... My wish for us all is that we escape the worst of the fire and the flying debris. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:09 AM Hmmm. Well, yeah. My wish for us all is that we live in freedom, peace, and mutual respect. That requires tolerance and it requires a measure of social justice too. That starts at home, not on the other guy's territory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: dick greenhaus Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:20 AM Why does this remind me of old-ime politicos in the US who took a firm stand opposing the Johnstown Flood? Unite against tsunamis? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jul 05 - 12:29 AM Why not just "Unite Against Evil"? I'm surprised that the White House has not come up with that slogan, as it is one that would persuade and encourage almost any violent faction imaginable to add their support to the cause (of killing "bad" people). They did come up with an "Axis of Evil", though, and that's pretty close. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 05 - 05:34 AM moronic anti-Americanism, school-playground pacifism and outright fascist sympathising. There are those who, by their equivocation, effectively regard such victims as "legitimate targets" in their idiot's war against "imperialism". Western apologists continue to do Jihadists' PR Take your pick LittleHawk |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jul 05 - 05:37 AM A bit gnomic that last one... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 26 Jul 05 - 05:47 AM When the British romped all over Africa in the 1800's, for instance, massacring Native tribes with fast-firing Martini rifles...they were committing terrorism. I think things have moved on a touch since. But if you want to stick with it, I believe the British also invaded what is now Canada, so what the hell are you still there for, get out, give it back to it's rightful owners. Grow up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 26 Jul 05 - 05:54 AM A bit gnomic that last one... Well MoH,as I'm sure you know gnomic has several meanings, as you have left it conveniently open I'll choose one of them. expressing what is generally or universally true |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 05 - 06:56 AM War is bad When Americans do it. Blowing up civilians is understandable As long as you're really, really unhappy about something Like poverty Or democracy Or women driving cars Or homosexuals breathing Or Jews existing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 05 - 07:07 AM piss off |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 05 - 07:18 AM That was clever. Shouldn't you be at school? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:14 AM All those GUESTs evidently agree on the thing. Don't use a name or a label. Or perhaps it's multi-personality disorder, and there's just one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:16 AM All those GUESTs evidently agree on big thing. Don't use a name or a label. Or perhaps it's multi-personality disorder, and there's just one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:18 AM But if they truly had a multi-personality disorder would there actually be just one of them. Just wondering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:26 AM I'm in Canada because I was born here, Shakey. ;-) I think of myself as human, not British. I think of other people as human too, and that is why I am inclined to treat them decently, and as equals. I have not invaded anyone. War is bad When anyone does it (provided that they started it). (it's a failure to communicate effectively) Blowing up civilians is wrong no matter who does it. And it is not justified because you are really unhappy about something... Nobody is unhappy about democracy, except for the odd politician who wants total control of his society. Jews are humans, exactly like other humans, and they would do well to focus on the similarities rather than the differences between themselves and other humans. Ditto for Palestinians. One's humanity is a far more significant matter than one's superficial cultural label. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:26 AM Ake said We must drain the swamp of grievances in the Middle East over the policies of Mr Bush and Mr Blair Times today, Mr Blair has just received his second highest poll rating ever and there is a growing movement to persaude him not to stand down. I may be a lone voice here but in the real world it appears not: guess which is the more important! Have a nice day Shakey Opposing terrorist sympathisers and useful idiots everywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:34 AM Littlehawk you brought up matters of history so the fact still remains that, unless you are of the First Nation, you are taking advantage of an indigenous people that your forbears subjugated. Yes I know it's nonsense but so is blaming everything that happened a long time ago on todays politicians. War is bad When anyone does it (provided that they started it) Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way round, did we do something wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:35 AM Whoops that was me, sorry MoH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:35 AM "Useful idiot" is a logical contradiction, and it was popularized quite a bit during the McCarthy era in the USA, a Communist witchhunt. Joe McCarthy was himself a fascist. His general approach...innuendo, false accusation, libel, and destruction of the careers of decent people...all of these were tactics that have been used in various totalitarian systems, such as Stalin's Russia. Fortunately, McCarthy did not succeed in taking it quite as far as Joe Stalin did or a few million Americans would have died in internment camps on their own land. (Stalin was a fascist too...masquerading as a socialist. Socialists can easily be fascists if they are so inclined. So can capitalists. Fascists seek total power by any means, legal or illegal, and they are willing to kill plenty of people to get it.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Redhorse at work Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:36 AM Maybe Im missing the point. A petition against terrorism that isn't going to be submitted to anyone. So who is it petitioning? Its only purpose appears to be to allow the signers to bathe in the smug glow of their own self-regard. And no, although I am against terrorism (since if I'm in favour of any type of violence I'm hardly going to call it terrorism) I won't be signing sometimes I despair of Mudcatters nick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 05 - 10:02 AM If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, pseudo-leftism is now the first. A typical pseudo disdains the past yet perpetuates it at every turn by addiction to their ideological dogma; whilst the mirror image of the pseudo, the typical rightist or reformist perpetuates the present by ignoring it, at least our typical rightist is consistent, i.e. he doesn't pretend to effect a feel of futurity while conserving attitudes and values essential to keep things just as they are; Mssr Pseudo does just that; hypocrites who are moving forward into the past and want to take the rest of us with them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 05 - 10:08 AM What category does that put you in, 10.02? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 26 Jul 05 - 11:34 AM LOL Guest, 26 Jul 05 - 10:02 AM is engaging in one of fascism's favorite tactics... demonizing the "other". Guest, 26 Jul 05 - 10:02 AM must be a fascist tryng to disguise him/herself as... well as something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 26 Jul 05 - 08:43 PM And then, most depressingly, after September 11, 2001, you defined your position until it was not just with sometimes, or without sometimes, but actually against quite a bit of the left�people who thought jihadism was in some way an expression of anti-imperialism. There was the reflexive view that somehow the jihadists must represent a grievance or protest against poverty or oppression. Everybody knows what the grievances of the jihadists arethey're very easy to identify. They grieve for the loss of the caliphate. They're not anti-imperialists�they're pro-imperialists. There's an empire they lost and want back. They're offended�deeply, grievously offended�by the sight of an undraped woman or the existence of a Shiite Muslim, or a Christian, or a Jew. These things they consider to be offensive. They believe God gives them the right to erase these things. Let's not understate the fact that they do have deep-seated grievances. But to hear this ventriloquized on the left as some sort of perverse populism was too much for me.more... Christopher Hitchens |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jul 05 - 09:16 PM I doubt that they are all exactly the same, Shakey. We aren't. Why would they be? There are insane reasons for people to oppose American foreign policy and sane ones. There are insane responses to American military actions and sane ones. Suicide bombings are an insane response. Do not, on that basis, assume that everyone who opposes America's war in Afghanistan/Iraq is insane. Not so. Some of them are no doubt just as sane as you are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Jul 05 - 09:23 PM 100! Now get off this thread and unite against Trevor! He MUST be stopped! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Bobert Date: 26 Jul 05 - 10:05 PM Well, Shakester, you have raised some interstin' questions but one thing that you fail to take into consideration is that right here in the good ol' US o' A, we have folks very much like the jahadists... Yes, the American Taliban is alive and well and livin' throughout America... They belive that God will come and take all the good people in one fowl swoop and leave all the heathens... Talk about a messed up deal, like what's that all about? Well, I'll tell ya what it's all about... It about racism an' sexism an' fundementalism (Tilabanism), whatever that is??? Yeah, seems that this war is between one extreme right against the other with everyone else gettin' gunned down in the crossfire... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 26 Jul 05 - 10:13 PM Yeah, and our "jihadists" have nukes and they're talking about using them. Our "jihadists" have an "end times" scenario they'd expect to see fulfilled during their lifetimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:50 AM This is not about all muslims it's about jihadists . You may disagree with the original invasion of Iraq, many people do, but what is happening there now is not a struggle between Iraqis and the US. Millions of decent people there are trying to build a democracy - read some of the iraqi bloggers - and AQ is trying, at all costs to stop them. It's muslims who are dying and they are being killed by fanatics. What people here are saying is that we abandon these good people to the murderers. Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed but your hatred of him is blinding you to what is really going on. As for the fundimental christians, I fully agree. However, while they may blow up the odd clinic here and there they are not in the same league. Whatever flawed decisions have been made does not change the fact that this is a struggle between democracy and totalinarianism. They don't really want a settlement in Gaza, they don't want the US out of Iraq, they don't want any of these problems solved because it gives them excuses and, yes, it helps with their recruitment. We need to settle some of these issues, not because they demand it, because it's the right thing to do. But be under no illusion this will not satisfy them because their aims are far more. Littlehawk, you can support Trevor all you want but one day, when there is a chemical or biological bomb in London, Paris, Madrid, New York, Toronto or whereever I hope he's still around so that he can tell us all what to do next. This isn't a game |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 27 Jul 05 - 07:01 AM Sorry the one above was me as well, as if you didn't know. Yeah, and our "jihadists" have nukes and they're talking about using them. Our "jihadists" have an "end times" scenario they'd expect to see fulfilled during their lifetimes. Carol, in all honesty I expect better than this from you. Who are "our jihadists" and just who are they going to nuke. If there are parts of the US policy you don't agree with then fight those points but don't get sucked into "my enemy's enemy is my friend" nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Bobert Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:07 AM Yo, Shakster... Ahhhhh, "democarcy v. totalinarianism"? Like which side is which? Like exactly why do you think that the US is so democratic? Some 85% of the representatives now represent "safe districts" that have been so jerrimandered that these folks purdy much have a *pass for life* unless they get caught in a motel room with the wrong person or run over a kid while driving drunk... Which, of course just mean that someone else from the same party will inherit the job... Like how democartic is that??? Or how democartic is it for a Supreme Court, disporportionately appointed by one party call off a recount that would have more than likely elected a president from the opposing party??? Yeah, I love it when Bushheads get out their flags and wave them and talk about what a free and democratic society we live in... Yeah it's free and democartic fir them but they don't represent the majority's wishes but their own little petty agendas... But you go on wavin' that flag if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:38 AM Bobert, I'm not waving any one's flag. So you have a flawed democracy, so does the UK, but there is no comparison with what we have and what the fanatics want. I repeat: Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed but your hatred of him is blinding you to what is really going on. I maybe wrong, but as far as I know the US is the longest lasting republic there has ever been, surely this is something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:38 AM Both sides are so busy screaming at each other, entrenched in their own outdated beliefs, that neither care about the Iraquis in the middle who crave change. It's easy to ignore those who have no voice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 27 Jul 05 - 09:07 AM Guest 8:38 Yes, the Iraqis crave change. That's the point I've been trying to make. From above: You may disagree with the original invasion of Iraq, many people do, but what is happening there now is not a struggle between Iraqis and the US. Millions of decent people there are trying to build a democracy - read some of the iraqi bloggers - and AQ is trying, at all costs to stop them. It's muslims who are dying and they are being killed by fanatics. What people here are saying is that we abandon these good people to the murderers. But you make it seem that the two sides are equally right, equally wrong. I have to disagree. It's democracy or the fascism of the jihadists. I don't believe that democracy is outdated. Read the blogs from Iraqis, especially the female ones, they are DESPERATE that democracy succeeds in Iraq. We can help them or leave them to the murdering bastards who will tread on them as they always have done. AQ doesn't want to punish us for our mistakes, they want to destroy us for what we've got right. Would it be clearer for people here if the jihadists wore brown shirts and jackboots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 27 Jul 05 - 09:11 AM But you make it seem that the two sides are equally right, equally wrong. No, only the extremists on both sides. They are the ones shouting loudest. I agree with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 27 Jul 05 - 09:21 AM I agree with you Well that's me, you, two others on MC and my dog. Stll. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 11:03 AM Guest of 27 Jul 05 - 06:50 AM ... You made some good points there. I can agree with a lot of what you said. Ordinary Iraqis are in a very bad spot now, caught between an occupying foreign army and a fanatical bunch of guerrilla fighters representing many different factions. If the USA and Britain were to leave Iraq now, there would no doubt be an extended period of internal warfare in that country between various factions which would take many more lives and cause even greater misery. Iraqis are between a rock and a hard place. I would prefer that the USA had not invaded Iraq in the first place. I believe that was a mistake. Now that they are there, it's very difficult for them to withdraw. I frankly don't know what the solution is. It's a very bad situation. And so is the Afghani situation, which is slowly getting worse as time goes by. We've got a strong possibility here of two endless guerilla wars festering on and on...as happened with the Soviets when they were occupying Afghanistan. Then there's the risk of chemical, biological, and even nuclear attacks by terrorists on western cities in the USA, the UK, Canada, etc...and, yes, it's a very real possibility. You and I can't do a darned thing about it. Our leaders are the ones who can do something about, but will they? My feeling is that simply upping the ante of retaliation...by invading more countries and smashing up more real estate (the method tried so far)...will simply NOT yield a useful result. It will encourage more and more desperate counter-strikes on the western populace by terrorist cells. The conflicts in the World are driven mainly by poverty and gross inequality. The Have-Nots are fighting against the Haves, and the Haves are controlling the show, because they HAVE THE MONEY AND THE HIGH-TECH WEAPONS. It is gross inequality that fuels the hatred and discord in this World. Religion is just an excuse to mobilize fighters for the cause. What are we going to do about it? As long as "the bottom line" (profit) rules every major policy decision made by our western leaders...this tragic situation will not and cannot change for the better. When will they decide to serve not money, but humanity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 27 Jul 05 - 11:49 AM Religion is just an excuse to mobilize fighters for the cause. No,No,No. A single degenerated version of a religion is the aim, it's both imperialist and fascist (in the wider sense), as I stated above the excuses are Isreal / Afganistan / Iraq etc. My feeling is that simply upping the ante of retaliation...by invading more countries and smashing up more real estate (the method tried so far)...will simply NOT yield a useful result. It will encourage more and more desperate counter-strikes on the western populace by terrorist cells. Well this is partly my point also. Fighting, in the literal sense, is very difficult when you cannot see your opponent, but AQ has an ideology and it is this that must be fought. There are "serious" writers in UK papers that support the attacks on US/UK soldiers in Iraq. Why? The invasion is over, people are trying to build a democracy , just tell me in who's interest is it that these murderers win. OK, the west isn't perfect, big deal. Blair, through the G8, was trying to push Africa center stage, one day later what the f* happens. Have a luck at a map since 7/7, 21/7 and sharm el shiekh, Africa is about as big as Malta. And to all the pundits that say we brought it on ourselves, Blairs participation in Iraq did increase the chances of the UK being attacked. From 100% to 200%, go figure. Shakey |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:11 PM I realized that, as you put it, "A single degenerated version of a religion is the aim" in the eyes of some of the combatants (specially among the Muslim fighters). That's true. I don't think it's the aim of the larger geo-political forces that are shaping these events, however. Those forces are concerned primarily with oil and other strategic considerations. If they can inflame religious hatreds in order to provoke further conflict, so that they can then occupy desired areas of land and continue to satisfy lucrative contracts, they will do so. Corporations have a life of their own. It goes beyond national loyalty, beyond human considerations, and beyond morality. It's an imperative to forever enlarge, enrich, and extend the corporation itself...which is a fictional entity, but an entity which is very real in that it has financial power over the lives of many people. A corporation is an artificial mind, and it seeks to enlare itself by any means possible. It hungers for more. This is not a good situation in human affairs, to say the least. Have you seen the movie, "The Corporation"? I haven't, but I've been hearing about it. People should not have invented such a thing in the first place, because it takes on a life of its own. Abraham Lincoln warned about what could happen when huge business interests took over America. He saw it beginning to happen in his own time. I consider it an even larger danger than organized religion, but they are BOTH very dangerous. Money is a religion too, you know. It's a god, and people serve it thoughtlessly every day of their lives. And it's a totally made-up god that people themselves created, thinking it would serve them. Now they serve it. We elect governments, thinking they will serve us. They don't. We serve them. Think about it. Who really has the power? Do you? And if not, how are you going to empower yourself? Be glad, at least, that your thoughts are still private... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,The Phantom of the Uproar Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:28 PM I'm sure if we all sign this petition and get our all our friends and family to sign it, it will have al Qaeda quaking in their boots. Why are you so insistent, Shakey? Do you seriously think this will do anything at all? An empty gesture. A bit pathetic, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 27 Jul 05 - 12:46 PM Phantom, it maybe an empty gesture if you quickly peruse the front page and then sign-up, maybe also for me - I read all the "why I signed" stuff: I was already in agreement, but for some people it's a rubicon, one they thought they would never cross, some still can't. It's about recognising this danger for what it is, in your own mind. No, it's not about dealing with the threats it's about facing up to the fact that these threats are real despite Bush. It's a very small step but obviously far too big for some. pathetic maybe "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Ghandi |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:02 PM Who are "our jihadists" and just who are they going to nuke. GW Bush and his right wing fundamentalist Christian string pullers (also the neocons, but they are "jihadists" of a different sort, some Christian, some not). don't get sucked into "my enemy's enemy is my friend" nonsense. Please show me where I have done that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Tiocfaidh Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:07 PM "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Ain't that the truth, Shakey.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:14 PM Tiocfaidh, I assume you're referring to things closer to home. You're right it should never have got that far, there always was something to negotiate about: here there isn't. Gunmen have killed at least 12 Iraqi workers travelling home by bus from a factory in the western outskirts of the capital, Baghdad. At least five people were killed and up to 10 were wounded in a suicide bomb blast outside a Baghdad hospital. A group claiming to be al-Qaeda in Iraq says it has killed two Algerian diplomats This is just today. Sure it's all about Bush |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:22 PM Forgot to answer this bit... and just who are they going to nuke In the case of the neocons, pretty much anybody who gets in the way of their ambitions of global domination. The right wing fundamentalist Christian fantasy is to bring about armageddon in the Middle East to hasten the second coming of Christ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 01:44 PM Well, I'm a great admirer of Gandhi and all that he did, Shakey. His statement is a good one. It could be misused, though, in some cases. Let's suppose that Adolf Hitler had said, in 1920, ""First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." He would have been absolutely right! That's what happened...up until around about the battle of Stalingrad. First the German public ignored the fledgling Nazi Party, then they laughed at them, then they fought in the streets (Communists and socialists etc did...) against the Nazi brown shirts, and THEN the Nazis won! Hoo, boy.... You can win and still be wrong. And if you are massively, horrendously wrong, you may win TODAY, but you will lose somewhere further down the line. Now I didn't say all that as a refutation of your position on things. I just said it because it's kind of interesting. So don't take it personally, okay? Now, regarding the terrorist threat. Is it real? Darned right it is! And here's another threat that's real: the possibility that the USA and Britain may attack Iran one of these days and the possibility that they may be in Iraq for a long time, not to help Iraqis but to control the oil. Shoud we be concerned about the terrorist threat on our home ground? YES! Should Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans, and many other Muslims be concerned about the corporate Anglo-American threat to their sovereignty over their own lands and strategic resources? YES! We have at least 2 major groups of people here under grave threat, Shakey...and be each other, so maybe you should suggest a 2nd petition as well. ;-) Just to be fair, I mean. Ever had your city bombed by squadrons of F-16's? Ever had your neighborhood flattened by Abrams tanks? You would not like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Tír Eoghain Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:03 PM Is it just me, or are the National boundaries of Iraq a bit too straight? I speak here of the territory of the Kurds, the Turkmans, The Sunnis, The Shia, and Uncle Tom Cobbley's crowd as well... The place as it now stands, can only be 'successfully' ruled by a dictatorship... that is if you're going to try and achieve a bit of peace and security there. There's too many vested interests within the present confines of Iraq for it to work otherwise. That was why Saddam (and the rest of the oligarchs out there) were and are so bloody handy for the West. They kept the locals down while they pumped the oil. Bush and Blair have taken on a number of Civil and potential Civil Wars, here. And it is going to go on, and on, and on, and on, unfortunately. Insurgency really has to be addressed around a negotiating table, whether there's ceasefires going on, or not. There are too many standards that the West publicly adhere to, yet we all know that they disregard them all the time across the stage of World conflict. Unless 'Armageddon' is what is being prepared for (and I find that too severe a penalty for the innocents of this World to pay, for what in effect is achievable through negotiation and compromise...); if it is part of a 'hidden agenda', the dissident voices of the populace must make themselves heard in ways that will be more expedient in achieving truces and ceasefires. That should be the goal of the people at the minute. It does not take away from any sense of National pride in one's country to say "Ok... how do we sort this out?" Repeating the defiant statements from our leaders about 'Not negotiating with terrorists', 'We are not afraid', 'Bring it on', and the likes, is counter-productive. Surely we've all arrived at that point, by now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:07 PM Very well said, Tir! Good post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:18 PM Repeating the defiant statements from our leaders about 'Not negotiating with terrorists', 'We are not afraid', 'Bring it on', and the likes, is counter-productive. And really, that sort of approach is sloganeering, another favorite tactic of "fascists" for controling people (instead of actually solving problems). No, I think the real fascists in this scenario are the governments who do the bidding of the mega-corporations at the expense of the people they are "elected" to serve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,The Phantom of the Uproar Date: 27 Jul 05 - 02:47 PM Shakey, I am fully aware of the danger that al Qaeda—and other terrorist groups—present to the rest of the world, and, for that matter, to me personally. I don't need to sign some petition to take that into my soul. I do find, however, that when I sign petitions, I often wind up on someone's list to receive spam, junk snail-mail, and solicitations for contributions to "aid the cause," all of dubious nature. The best things that I can do as a private citizen is to keep my eyes open when I amn around and about, and keep my cell phone charged and the numbers of the relevant authorities handy in case I see something that I think looks suspicious. I still see signing some petition as an empty gesture, and I still wonder why you're so adamant that we should all do this. The Phantom "He who focusses on swatting flies fails to see the leopard creeping up from behind." Old jungle saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:36 PM What keeps on being ignored is that the war in Iraq is a triumph for the fanatics of September 11th. It's helped them, it continues to help them. It might get presented as a "war against terror" but in real terms it is a war engineered by terrorists as a way of extending and deepening their power and influence. This isn't football, it's chess. You win football by pushing forward and scoring. You win chess by out-thinking your opponent, thinking ahead and being willing to sacrifice pieces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 27 Jul 05 - 03:43 PM Surprised to see this tread still on the page. What an insult to those who protested the folly of Iraq both here on Mudcat and on the streets. One of the main planks of our protest, was that the war would encourage terrorism, and make the UK more vulnarable to attack. We are now expected to prove our credentials to a pro-war New Labour acolite in the shape of "Shakibus" to whom anything is acceptable,as long as its passed by the Blessed Tony. He dares to lecture us on "patriotism",but if Shakibus and his war-mongering buddies get their way,its possible the country that many of us are so proud of will be unrecognisible to our grandchildren. Be brave Mudcats, dont allow yourselves to be "spun" by this small group of fanatics. As George Galloway said to the Senate Committee, we were RIGHT on every point on the Iraq War and they were WRONG. Dont let these people blackmail you with taunts of "apologist", the real Left were against the war, and their opinions on increased terrorism voiced then, have been fully vindicated by the atrocities of 7/7. Everyone here is against terrorism, be it Islamic suicide bombers, or the troops who broke into houses in Fallujah and shot whole families in their beds. As a footnote, spin is not confined to the pages of Mudcat. The Americans today, have stopped talking about the "War on Terror", it is apparently now to be called the battle against "violent extremists". Thats a laugh!! Many of the most violent extremists are hiding within the American and British administrations....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jul 05 - 04:07 PM At best, trying to combat terrorism with a conventional invasion, especially of the wrong country, is a bit like trying to combat hornets by going around with a baseball bat and hitting everything in sight, including (more by accident than anything else) an occasional hornet's nest. All invading Iraq did (other than creating a helluva mess!) was hand a propaganda victory to al Qaeda. Can you say "counterproductive?" I agree with the Phantom. Staying alert and able to notify the authorities is the best thing the man or woman on the street can do. Eyes everywhere. Signing some cockamammie petition hardly seems like an effective countermeasure to suicide bombers and such. Get a grip! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 27 Jul 05 - 04:19 PM Phantom make your own mind up, I'm sure you're able.BTW the spam argument is at least novel. Ake, come back when you've started shaving. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 04:43 PM Ake has a five O'clock shadow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:08 PM Hawk, I'm thinking of growing the "full Monty" ....Just to annoy Shakibus...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:17 PM You figure he's teribus' brother? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:23 PM I think they're very closely related :0( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,The Phantom of the Uproar Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:29 PM I am and I have, Shakey. I feel no need to sign someone's petition to attest to the fact that I am a moral, peace-loving person who deplores the use of violence as a means of political coercion. As far as the "spam argument" is concerned, almost every time I have signed a petition in the past, within a week or two I start getting dunned for contributions to support the cause and they just keep coming. You'd be amazed at the amount of this kind of crap that cluttered up my e-mail until I got my spam blocker. I'm very picky about what petitions I sign these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 05:57 PM Like I said, everyone is against terrorism. (Even the blasted terrorists!) They just can't agree on what IS and what is NOT "terrorism" or under what circumstances. How about a petition against stupidity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:03 PM Or wait. I know... Disunity is the problem. It's the original problem from which all the others stem. Let's unite against disunity!!! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:09 PM Don, I don't know which thread you thought you were on, has anyone around here being supporting the actual invasion? It's the situation as it has now we're talking about, except of course for akenanoo© but he has his special little problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 27 Jul 05 - 06:12 PM But that's the thing, Bill. The petition is only 'talking' about it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:46 PM how to stop terrorisem is easy=just stop couloered people from going on buses and trains. easy.innit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:53 PM Ah, Sir jOhn...ever the calm voice of reason in a sea of hysteria... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 27 Jul 05 - 08:57 PM all the terrorists are coloured , ie blacks and asylum seekers, dont let them on the buses or tranes, and its good for them as well, as they will haf to walk every were, and get plenty of exercise , and it will stop them getting fat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 09:06 PM Fine, fine...but how do you plan to address the problem of small dogs being left tied up by their owners? (see: "Untie Angst Terriers") And what about Trevor? Do you have a solution for Trevor? (See: "Unite Against Trevor") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 27 Jul 05 - 09:10 PM dunno, i'll think about it, and let you know tommorrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Jul 05 - 09:15 PM Okay, then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 05 - 12:33 PM Shakey, what I said about the invasion of Iraq is relevant, if you care to apply a modicum of thought to the matter. It is merely one of a long series of things that the United States and various European countries have done in and to the Middle East for a century or more, perhaps even going as far back as the Crusades. For some strange reason, large numbers of Middle Easterners tend to resent would-be imperialist countries coming in and exploiting their natural resources and telling them how to run things. Terrorism is about the only method that essentially powerless people have for trying to change the situation. This Iraqi invasion of Bush's is just the most recent of a long line of interferences, and that's just the kind of activity that spawns organizations like al Qaeda in the first place. And betrayal. The U. S. moved into Afghanistan to help the Mujah Hadeen drive the Soviets out, gaining their confidence by promising to rebuild their country after the deed was done. But once the Soviets backed out, we dropped the Afghanis like a pregnant girl friend. They tended to resent that, and guys like Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi who was working with the Mujah Hadeen, took umbrage at this two-faced behavior. If the U. S. had kept its promise, the World Trade Center may still be standing. You can't stop terrorists merely by hunting them down and killing them. You just create more terrorists. If you stop doing whatever you are doing that pisses people off in the first place, they no longer have any motivation to blow you up. The idea that terrorists do what they do because they "hate freedom and democracy and our way of life" is a crock! What they hate is our constant interference and exploitation. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:00 PM Perfectly said, Don. Those last 2 paragraphs of yours ought to be wrought in gold and stamped on the front doors of the White House and Congress. People in the region called "Iraq", an arbitrary set of borders drawn around several different cultures by British imperial ambition, have been dealing with this nonsense for a very long time now. The British were massacring them in the 1920's by strafing and bombing them with the Royal Air Force. Why? For the land and for the oil. The Americans are just the latest arrival in the old "invade-and-exploit" game. Young American soldiers mostly have no idea of that. They were brought up to believe they were spreading "freedom", when all they are really doing is dying on behalf of corporate wealth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:08 PM They tended to resent that, and guys like Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi who was working with the Mujah Hadeen, took umbrage at this two-faced behavior. If the U. S. had kept its promise, the World Trade Center may still be standing. Don, if you truly believe this then you haven't a clue. As far as Iraq is concerned about eight million people braved the threats to go and vote for their parliament, note they didn't choose the, so called, US candidate. Now these people, and the representatives they elected, are trying to build a democracy. Point is do you want them to succeed or not. Their government wants the coalition forces to stay, probably until next year, who they hell are you to say they're wrong. Just what are the bombers trying to do there? Most of the attacks are against the local population. The US isn't their enemy, democracy is their enemy. Take off the "Bush" glasses and deal with what we have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:15 PM Don Firth ...That was a brave and true post . One of the best I've seen for some time. I hope it shames the phonies who try to distort the way we think..Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:21 PM One question ake, Don. Should the coalition pull out now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:31 PM Should the coalition pull out? That is hard to say. The coalition engaged in an illegal war of aggression. They hardly have a right to be there. I'd say they should be replaced by an international peacekeeping force from other nations entirely, but who the hell would want the job? It's very hard to restore order after you have whacked a hornet nest with a baseball bat. Someone is inevitably going to get stung. If the will of the majority of Iraqis really had its way, there would be a Shiite Islamic governmnent installed in that country, and that would be bad news for Sunnis and Kurds, wouldn't it? Plus, the USA would not be happy about it. This is what happens when an empire (the British) arbitrarily draws lines on a map and creates an unviable country and exploits the shit out of it, and then leaves, and a series of dictators take over to keep the lid on the boiling pot, and the USA backs one of them, and then decides not to back him, and then has a fight with him, and invades the place in order to exploit the shit out of it once again. What does any of that have to do with democracy? Nothing. The present efforts at democracy in Iraq are window-dressing by the USA in order to justify what's really happening: imperial conquest of oil resources. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:41 PM I'm disappointed here LH, I thought you would consider it a little more carefully and I'm pretty sure that a couple of days ago you said that they probably shouldn't pull out right away. I'm accused of a "west knows best" attitude" but here we have a government saying what is best for its people and we have you saying " they should be replaced " It's all blame and accusations from you lot nothing constructive. Don, Akenanoo© answer the question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:45 PM Put it this way. If I was them, I would not pull out. Why? Because I MADE the mess, and it's now incumbent on me to at least try to clean it up, that's why. It's my responsibility to suffer the cost and misery involved. Does that suffice? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Piers Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:47 PM Taint so Don Firth. That Bin Laden chump is another rich capitalist seeking domination, him and his followers aren't anti-imperialist just anti-foreign imperialism on their patch. They aren't defending freedom for arabs or muslim dignity, though he might use that as his propaganda. They seek to dominate the resources of arabia and the exploit working people there. There is no reason to believe that, like the west, they would not seek to extend their control from their patch if the west wasn't stealing oil that they believe theirs. Whoever controls the oil or wins the war, the workers everywhere lose out. The state, or those aspiring to statehood, can only act for the dominant economic interests as it upholds the minority control of resources which can only be done by force thus presupposing violence. Common ownership and democratic control of the means of production is the only way that we live can in peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:50 PM Good point, Piers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST,Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 01:59 PM Does that suffice? Frankly LH no. You missed the point, it's not your call it's theirs and they say stay. I'm not trying to wind you up, look for an argument or whatever, just making the point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 28 Jul 05 - 02:04 PM It dosn't matter much what I think . The situation in Iraq now is a consequence of US and UK aggression. Leaked documents have been published showing that both countriews want to get their troops out of the carnage as its pretty obvious that the conflict is unwinnable...just like what was previously known as the "War on Terror". Nothing at all can be accomplished while the US/UK invasion force is still in Iraq, so yes Im for immediate withdrawal. Even if troops are recalled, I'm sure the West wants to hold on to political influence, thats why they are so keen to set up so called "democratic govt", but the guys who pull the strings in Iraq got the 8 million out to vote for Islam not Coca-cola. If we are sent packing, lock stock and barrel, the Chinese are waiting in the wings with their own way of influencing governments Speculation, speculation,speculation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 02:15 PM So you're for immediate withdrawal whereas their government isn't but I s'pose you know best eh? Help me out here, you're ideas, matchboxes or fortune cookies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 28 Jul 05 - 02:25 PM This is what the US should do... We should let the international community take over for us. We should join the international criminal court. We should hand over the job of taking bids and assigning contract jobs to the international community. We should stop building permanent military bases in Iraq and hand the job of helping the Iraqis build their democracy to a international body that has representatives from enough different countries that any secondary agendas any of them might have will be weeded out and addressed by the body as a whole. That would be a good start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 02:40 PM Carol, has the Iraqi government asked for anything on your list, if so I'll agree with you, if not will you agree with me that we should abide by their wishes and stay until next year. Or are you like ake, knowing what's best for everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 05 - 02:46 PM Shakey, I'm not the one who's clueless here. Read a little history of the area. Most of the bombers are Sunnis, a minority group, who are quite possibly justly fearful of what a democracy will mean for them. The Shi-ites, who are in the majority, have never been very nice to the Sunnis. Or the Kurds, for that matter. Not everybody sees democracy as a good thing, unless the possible actions of the majority are duly restricted by a solid constitution, and that has yet to be accomplished in Iraq. Remember, unrestricted democracy is majority rule, and a simple example of majority rule is a lynch mob. These are little subtleties that the Bush administration should have seen coming, but when you have a thirst for oil, and geopolitical domination, you tend to neglect niceties like this. Piers, you will note that I did not endow Osama bin Laden with a halo. He is as you say he is, but the U. S. actions in Afghanistan gave him excellent reason—and the propaganda to feed his agents—for a terrorist attack on the U. S. Had we followed through on our promises to the Afghanis, bin Laden would have found himself with a far less convincing justification for claiming that the U. S. is "the Great Satan." And as to whether or not the "coalition" should pull out, I pretty much agree with Little Hawk. In a way, by starting this ill-advised war, we've put ourselves between a rock (Iraq?) and a hard place. We made the mess and we have an obligation to clean it up. But the longer we hang around, the more animosity we engender. I agree wholeheartedly with what Carol said just above. But I don't think the Powers That Be (Bush, Cheney, et al and the companies that own them) want to get out. You see, their definition of spreading "democracy" is to make the rest of the world safe for American corporations to "do business." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 28 Jul 05 - 02:49 PM You certainly want what's worst for the Iraqis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 05 - 03:13 PM I think CarolC has proposed the best overall response, and I agree with her view on it. Aggression should not be rewarded by the World community. Saddam's aggression against Iran and Kuwait was not rewarded. Neither should America and Britain's more recent aggression against Iraq be rewarded. Iraq should be temporarily policed by a multi-national force NOT composed of the troops who invaded the country. They should leave as soon as someone else is put there to take their place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 28 Jul 05 - 03:58 PM Shakey, the US doesn't need permission from the Iraqi government in order for it to conduct itself conscientiously and in a manner that puts it above reproach. And what I have suggested fits into that category. However, I think if the question was put to a vote and all Iraqis were to vote on it, I bet it would pass. And that would be democracy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 05 - 04:11 PM As if the USA thought it needed permission from the Iraqi government to do anything it really wanted to do... (chuckle!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 04:44 PM Look littlehawk youy've been changing your mind to suit circumstance anyway so your credability is shot. Don you take wooly thinking to a new level, as for AkeNanoo© I give up. Carol you're skirting the issue and you know it. The Iraqi government have said this week that they specifically don't want any surprise withdrawal from the US, they want to decide when the US leave. Oh and Carol, please don't let your students loose until they're ready it's not good for your reputation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 05 - 04:54 PM Wooly thinking? No, I'm not the one who should be feeling sheepish here. Shakey, you sound like someone who is obsessed with a single idea and is getting upset when others see different solutions. Take the blinders off! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 05 - 04:56 PM All good people change their minds now and then, Shakey, specially when presented with good ideas and reasoning by other people. It's fanatics who do not change their minds. If I had my mind all made up about everything, I might as well just die now and be done with it. There'd be nothing left to learn, would there? I generally discuss things to explore them, not to spout irrefutable gospel. That's why I'm actually interested in what you and others have to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jul 05 - 05:02 PM And far from "skirting the issue," Carol's solution is by far the best for all concerned. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 05:37 PM Fair enough LH I apologise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 28 Jul 05 - 05:56 PM I'm not suggesting withdrawal. I'm suggesting a transition to new and better kinds of assistance. I think you are the one who is skirting the issue. The issue is what is best for Iraq and Iraqis. Not what is best for Halliburton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 06:44 PM Carol, I repeat, has the Iraqi government asked for anything on your list, or have they asked the US to stay until next year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 28 Jul 05 - 06:57 PM I'd be far more interested to know what the people of Iraq would have to say about the items on my list. And my list doesn't have a time frame attached to it, so it would be possible to keep US and British forces in Iraq until next year and also implement my suggestions. Or the US and British forces could be replaced by forces that are not plagued with conflicts of interest as the US and British forces are. However, there are also several items in my list that can be done whether or not US and British forces remain in Iraq. I notice you are studiously avoiding those. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 07:08 PM Carol the US is present in Iraq under a UN mandate, the number is, nah google it. Mr Jaafari said any US withdrawal had to be co-ordinated with the Iraqi authorities. "We do not want to be surprised," he said. Answer the question |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 28 Jul 05 - 07:14 PM So I guess it's safe to assume that you have some financial stake in keeping the status quo then, Shakey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 28 Jul 05 - 07:16 PM And please show me where I have called for withdrawal of US and British forces without authorization of the UN or the Iraqi government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 07:22 PM Ok so you won't answer, I will. We should let the international community take over for us. Well this is what we're already talking about We should join the international criminal court. By "we" you mean US, well they probably should but I don't get to vote there We should hand over the job of taking bids and assigning contract jobs to the international community. This one is interesting, I first heard calls about this within a month of the end of the invasion (don't quibble about it still being an invasion you know what I mean), anyway, there was a great outcry because the contracts were going to US companies, but, and it's a big one, the US Gov barred certain countries, france springs to mind, from contracts that were being paid for by US money, this bit wasn't reported so widely 'cause it doesn't make good press. Now, are you telling me that the US is telling the Iraqis how to spend Iraqui money. If so that would be wrong but you'll have to google up a bit before I accept it.OK? We should stop building permanent military bases in Iraq and I honestly don't know much about this, tell me more. One thing I will say though, if the Iraqis are asking then to leave next year how permanent is permanent? hand the job of helping the Iraqis build their democracy to a international body that has representatives from enough different countries that any secondary agendas any of them might have will be weeded out and addressed by the body as a whole. Agreed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 07:28 PM financial stake I don't own a single share. Don't worry 'bout me, I get by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 28 Jul 05 - 07:48 PM I did answer. My answers were good ones. "We should let the international community take over for us." Well this is what we're already talking about Not really. We're paying lip service to talking about it. We should join the international criminal court. By "we" you mean US, well they probably should but I don't get to vote there That's right, the US. "We should hand over the job of taking bids and assigning contract jobs to the international community." This one is interesting, I first heard calls about this within a month of the end of the invasion (don't quibble about it still being an invasion you know what I mean), anyway, there was a great outcry because the contracts were going to US companies, but, and it's a big one, the US Gov barred certain countries, france springs to mind, from contracts that were being paid for by US money, this bit wasn't reported so widely 'cause it doesn't make good press. Now, are you telling me that the US is telling the Iraqis how to spend Iraqui money. If so that would be wrong but you'll have to google up a bit before I accept it.OK? At the very least, we should have opened the bidding up to companies with close enough ties to Iraq that the money earned from the contracts would have benefited the Iraqis and the Iraqi economy. Regardless of whether or not it was US money. We did not do that. "We should stop building permanent military bases in Iraq and" I honestly don't know much about this, tell me more. One thing I will say though, if the Iraqis are asking then to leave next year how permanent is permanent? Permanent means beyond next year. The bases are being built for long term use. The point is to secure the oil, not protect the Iraqis. I would enjoy discussing things with you a lot more if you didn't behave like such and asshole and constantly take cheap potshots. That doesn't make you look very intelligent. It just makes you annoying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 28 Jul 05 - 08:03 PM So the US are spending US money and permanent means more than one year. Well if you'd explained all this to me before we could have saved a lot of time. Goodnight Carol. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 28 Jul 05 - 08:11 PM The US are spending TAXPAYER money. I am a US taxpayer. They are spending my money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 28 Jul 05 - 08:32 PM Well, that's the way it is with taxes. You don't get to say "boo" about where they go. Joan Baez refused to pay the portion of hers that went to military spending, so the IRS would send agents to her concerts and confiscate part of the proceeds. It went on that way for years... ;-) Joan made her point, they got their money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 29 Jul 05 - 03:17 AM Shakibus...In past conflicts,like Vietnam, when the US found their position untenable, the last thing on their minds were the wishes of the host govt, or even the wishes of the people who had assisted them in the conflict. They abandoned those they had come to "protect" Before long , both the US and UK will pull their troops out of Iraq ,whether the Iraq "govt" agree or not. THe ideas expressed by Carol Hawk And Don are the ideal solution, but what government in its right mind is going to send troops to the butchers shop that is Iraq today. Not only would they be putting their troops in extreme danger, but exposing their people to acts of terrorism , as Blair has done with the UK...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: GUEST Date: 29 Jul 05 - 03:49 AM How many times do people need to refresh a thread for a petition they don't believe in? Shakey is enjoying this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Paul Burke Date: 29 Jul 05 - 04:25 AM This petition is utterly incomplete in that it mentions only terror employed by Muslims, ignoring the terror employed by governments of many countries and their proxies. Don't forget that Iraq was bombed on a daily basis for many years before the invasion, and that the targets were military only in the broadest sense. And don't forget the South american death squads. Terror: Bombing of civilians- both by people with rucksacks and people with aeroplanes. Kidnapping and detention without trial. By insurgents, by militias, and by governments. Torture. Egypt, Israel, USA, Russia, pre-invasion Iraq, Iran, Syria.... Forcible eviction, whether from Harare or Falluja (what happened there?) I could go on, but being against all forms of terror, I will NOT be signing this weaselly petition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 29 Jul 05 - 05:07 AM LH, people are trying all the time to stop their taxes being used for this or that, there has been a high profile case recently in the UK (they lost). Point is it's stupid, you may not want your taxes to go on military spending but others don't want it spent on third world relief or child support or farm subs or whatever. Once you take a step down that road it would be chaos, how on earth could anyone plan anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 29 Jul 05 - 05:08 AM Akenaton Well if you've been following the recent posts, which it appears you have, I'm amazed that you're still repeating yourself, telling me that Carol's "idea" is "ideal"; Of the list she gave two points were simply propaganda, I'm sorry but they just not true and even Carol tacitly admits this. One point was a pure US decision, OK it may effect others but they have to decide. Would it be better if more countries were involved Iraq? Sure but as you say who is rushing out there to help? The point I keep hammering home is "The war is over - move on". I have never said that the US were right to invade but they did, they are now in Iraq legally by any standard, they have a UN mandate and the hosts want them there. The Iraqi people have made their choice while a small group of murderers, a strange combination of two right wing groups - the baathists and AQ - wish to wreck the progress that is being made. By and large it's the locals who are dying, being killed by these fanatics. The idea, held true by the loony left, is that we're talking about some romantic group of freedom fighters struggling against an evil empire: well it's laughable. If you really want to know what we're talking about here then google up some AQ statements, they're often quite candid in what they want. I'll tell you what they want, what the really, really want. Everything. It seems at the moment that I'm in the minority, but you know what, it is changing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 29 Jul 05 - 05:14 AM Dear Mr Burke, I entirely agree with you, I have always found it sensible not to sign things that I don't understand. Yours etc Shakey |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 29 Jul 05 - 05:36 AM The London attack is not the work of a small group of people. It is the bitter fruit of a religion that has been hijacked by a minority of extremists, while the majority looks on in concern and amazement.Until we hear the voices of the Muslims condemning attacks of this kind with no words [of qualification] such as 'but' and 'if,' the suicide bombers and the murderers will have an excuse to think that they enjoy the support of all Muslims. The real battle against this enemy of mankind will begin when the 'silent majority' in the Islamic world makes its voice heard against the murderers, and against those who brainwash them, believe them, and fund them. Amir Taheri Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 8, 2005. But it's not only the muslims that need to recognise this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: polaitaly Date: 29 Jul 05 - 06:07 AM Maybe this article can be useful - sorry, I can't make a blue clicky- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/opinion/28herbert.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 29 Jul 05 - 06:31 AM Re nyt Well it's an opinion, not one I happen to agree with and being the nyt gives the man no special importance. Answer one question. When the Iraqis finally ask the US to leave do you suppose for one moment they will unilaterally say no. No neither do I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 05 - 11:25 AM Well, Shakey, I know plenty of Muslims who are totally opposed to the fanatical Musilim extremism and violence you are drawing attention to, and they say so. Every Muslim I know is opposed to it. But who do the news media pay attention to? Fifty thousand reasonable people who don't want ot hurt anyone...or one fanatic who does? It may be a problem in perception... As for taxes, I have no objection to paying them, even though some of it inevitably goes to things I don't agree with. Doesn't worry me. I never object to a government I disagree with iniative by saying, "They are using my tax money to do that!" Like...so what? ;-) I accept taxes as a fact of life, and I don't worry about it. To expect governments to always do what I want would be pretty naive, wouldn't it? I figure I am responsible for my own happiness...not the government! But if Joan Baez or someone else wants to refuse to pay part of their tax to make a point of some kind, that's their business. I am free to do as I wish, and so are they, right? I do kind of admire her sheer determination at the time... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: CarolC Date: 29 Jul 05 - 11:34 AM Of the list she gave two points were simply propaganda, I'm sorry but they just not true and even Carol tacitly admits this. Which two points would that be then? You are consistantely not getting the point of my points (which suprises me not in the least). I am not talking war. I am talking about what is needed in order to win the peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Shakey Date: 29 Jul 05 - 11:41 AM Well, Shakey, I know plenty of Muslims who are totally opposed to the fanatical Musilim extremism and violence you are drawing attention to, and they say so. Every Muslim I know is opposed to it. But who do the news media pay attention to? Fifty thousand reasonable people who don't want ot hurt anyone...or one fanatic who does? Agree 100% If you examine my posts you'll see that I support the average muslim it's the lunatics I despise. But, yes there's always a but, Islam itself is not above critiscm, nothing is, and the fact that I object to parts of it does not make me an islamophobe, see this and tell me I'm wrong. And yep Joan's all right |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Jul 05 - 11:42 AM Regarding what I DO expect from my government... 1. I expect them to keep the normal structures and activities that they are responsible for in society functioning reasonably well... 2. I expect them not to attack or threaten anyone (foreign or otherwise) 3. I hope that they will leave me (and others) alone to live my (our) life as I (we) choose... ;-) In the case of the Canadian government, although they can be a bit incompetent at times, they manage more or less to fulfill these expectations most of the time, so I'm reasonably happy with them. In the case of the USA government, they keep screwing up totally on point # 2. For that, I criticize them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jul 05 - 01:49 PM And the U. S. gummint doesn't do all that well on #1 and #3 either. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: Donuel Date: 29 Jul 05 - 02:06 PM Today our local AM right wing radio jock was suspended without pay for not recanting his presumption that Islam is a religion of toerror. His timing is as poor as his judgement. The President of Pakistan has ordered Madrasses to send home all the foreign students and has made some kind of declaration of a jihad against terror attacks. Little can be done at this late date to assuage fundamentalists on either side that the American invasion tactics are not akin to yet another crusade against Islam. Pulling out would resound as a victory over the American crusade. Staying will prove that this crusade will become the Muslim battle cry for many generations to come. After the parents of children killed in this war die, there will be the orphans to carry their deep seated hatred... ad infinitum with the reminder of angry clerics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unite Against Terror From: akenaton Date: 31 Jul 05 - 01:57 PM Sorry to refresh this thread, as I know it's well past it's SBD, but there was an interesting article in todays Sunday Times. It was by Simon Jenkins and mentioned the "useful idiots" referred to by Shakibus above. I quote from Mr Jenkins article. "Terrorism is turning Britian into a banana republic. It is centuries since we cheered a public lynching. If terrorists want evidence of how easy it is to reduce Britain to a crude police state, they need only study the Stockwell shooting. The truth is that those who want to subvert freedom can always rely on "useful idiots", a phrase Lenin is said to have used of liberal apologists for extremists(but never did). Modern terrorism neatly inverts this attribution. It relies on"useful idiots" of the right to exploit any terrorist incident to forment xenophobia, suspend civil liberties and seek revenge from any ethnic group vaguely linked to the incident. Terrorism's "useful idiots" have had a field day this past fortnight. They have jumped from "nothing can justify the bombing (true) to "nothing can explain the bombing" (absurd). They have jumped from "Britains war in Iraq is no excuse for killing Londoners"(true) to "Britains war in Iraq has nothing to do with the bombing" (palpably absurd). They jump from "we must not be driven to alter our way of life" (true) to demanding that we do just that. The "useful idiots" demand new powers, new restrictions and new measures against the Muslim community. Above all they declare "war on terror", turn murderers into warriors and incite Islam to proclaim jihad in response." Now thats exactly what I meant.........Ake |
