Justifying the Excuses for the Iraq War [Archive]

B.NyeTheUruk-Hai

Nov 8th, 2005, 3:38 PM

If you gave a damn, you should have been in the Iraqi blogs, trying to find out why all Arab countries had cruel dictators instead of democracies.
Why stop there? If YOU gave a damn, then you should have signed up with the military and actually served in Iraq, doing something that DIRECTLY helps them. Your pathetic blog essentially did NOTHING except delude you into thinking that you made a difference while the REAL heroes were getting themselves KILLED in a REAL attempt to make a REAL difference...

I have no idea.
Let me enlighten you. NOBODY read it.

Tell me where I put a foot wrong. My whole life I have wanted to protect these people, and I have spent my life trying to figure out how to do that. Tell me where I put a foot wrong.
You picked the WORSE possible forum in which to spread your message - an internet blog. Totally useless because a TON of people do the exact same thing, thus creating an immense glut of blogs that nobody ends up reading. Surely, God (or the environmental controller or whatever the fuck you are) could have thought of a more effective way to get his message across. A very BAD effort on your part...

You should have been able to figure out for yourself that there is nothing more important in this world than protecting women from being raped by their own government. You shouldn't need to be told.
I DON'T need to be told. Don't be so full of yourself...

Understanding the problem also fed into which party should be elected in the US to finish the job properly. The answer was Bush. And Bush got in by just a whisker. The Iraqi blogs may have made the difference, we'll never know.
Bush?!?!?! Now I KNOW that you're not God. And go on thinking that your blog made a difference if it makes you feel better. LOL!!!!

Well I'm just pointing out that in my life I have concentrated on fixing the world's problems. I haven't put a foot wrong. What would you have expected the second coming of Jesus to have done?
Is... that... is that... Jake?

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 8th, 2005, 6:03 PM

It was necessary to understand exactly what was wrong with the Arabs in order to be able to address the problem of why they always end up with cruel dictators. There is nothing "wrong" with the "Arabs". Im assuming you mean Muslims or Middle Easterners since the Arabs are known to Saudia Arabia in modern culture. You misinterpret modern culture with historical culture. Historically, people of Middle Eastern cultures are tribal people and war has always been a part of their lives. What makes it "wrong" is someone with no true understanding of their (M.E. peoples) history and judging them by anyone elses standards but their own. To completely understand them, you must stop judging them by your own standards.

Understanding the problem also fed into which party should be elected in the US to finish the job properly. The answer was Bush. And Bush got in by just a whisker. How can anyone believe that Bush was the answer for anything after all the evidence that proves otherwise? Do you even understand the invisible police state in which we live under now because of him?

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 8th, 2005, 6:06 PM

You should have been able to figure out for yourself that there is nothing more important in this world than protecting women from being raped by their own government. You shouldn't need to be told. I think there is nothing more important than protecting EVERYONE from being raped by their own government and we can start right here in the US.

kerravon

Nov 8th, 2005, 8:33 PM

Why stop there? If YOU gave a damn, then you should have signed up with the military and actually served in Iraq, doing something that DIRECTLY helps them. Your pathetic blog essentially did NOTHING except delude you into thinking that you made a difference while the REAL heroes were getting themselves KILLED in a REAL attempt to make a REAL difference...

Me signing up personally wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference. There are already people doing that. What there was a lack of was people willing to psychoanalyze the Iraqis.

You picked the WORSE possible forum in which to spread your message - an internet blog. Totally useless because a TON of people do the exact same thing, thus creating an immense glut of blogs that nobody ends up reading. Surely, God (or the environmental controller or whatever the fuck you are) could have thought of a more effective way to get his message across. A very BAD effort on your part...

Such as?

Bush?!?!?! Now I KNOW that you're not God. And go on thinking that your blog made a difference if it makes you feel better. LOL!!!!

Bush is in the tribe of anti-subjugators. He FIGHTS SUBJUGATION.

Is... that... is that... Jake?
Jake is a fake.

kerravon

Nov 8th, 2005, 8:39 PM

I think there is nothing more important than protecting EVERYONE from being raped by their own government and we can start right here in the US.
The US government is not raping its citizens. Even if it sometimes happens it is illegal and the people are charged and jailed. Under Saddam, rape was legal. He used it as a tool of oppression.

If you want to talk about non-government rape, the solution to that problem is to teach boys that it is noble to FIGHT SUBJUGATION. Rape is a form of subjugation. The usual terms used are power and control. But really it is subjugation. That is the result of my analysis, anyway.

kerravon

Nov 8th, 2005, 8:43 PM

How can anyone believe that Bush was the answer for anything after all the evidence that proves otherwise? Do you even understand the invisible police state in which we live under now because of him?
You're in the middle of World War 4. It is necessary to take some unusually strong actions, and it is necessary to fight abroad. Bush is the one who realizes that there is a real threat that needs to be taken seriously. The hostile regimes need to be taken out, just for starters.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 9th, 2005, 1:14 AM

The US government is not raping its citizens. Even if it sometimes happens it is illegal and the people are charged and jailed. You obviously dont gather much research when you post of the US. Evil should not represent this country but it does. You believe that self-serving dictators should not lead people yet you mention that Bush is a great leader. No leader in this country should push one particular religion as Bush has and he used it to get votes.

You see, while you knock Islam, you espouse evil.

kerravon

Nov 9th, 2005, 4:17 AM

You obviously dont gather much research when you post of the US. Evil should not represent this country but it does. You believe that self-serving dictators should not lead people yet you mention that Bush is a great leader. No leader in this country should push one particular religion as Bush has and he used it to get votes.

I think you're being overly harsh on Bush. I don't see him pushing a particular religion. And he's not evil either. America is the greatest liberator. Read this:
http://antisubjugator.blogspot.com/2005/06/thanks-america.html

You see, while you knock Islam, you espouse evil.
I think it is strategic at this point in time for Bush to convert to Islam. It would change the face of the battlefield.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 21st, 2005, 6:58 PM

I think you're being overly harsh on Bush. I don't see him pushing a particular religion. And he's not evil either. America is the greatest liberator. I don't believe I'm overly harsh at all. In fact, I know I'm spot on. Bush IS and has been pushing christianity since he found out it would get votes. He's based a few policy changes to tip favor to christian organizations and veiled it under the name "faith based". He's blatantly publicized how "good and righteous" christians are and then covered his favor by a brief mention of another religion. He barely will ackowledge the existence of my people and our various beliefs.

Bush is evil, there is no denying it and more proof comes out virtually weekly of how backhanded his policies and administrative behind the scenes handlings are.

If America is the greatest liberator then why do American Indians have to fight for everything that should never have been denied in the first place? Why are our treaties ingored? Why has the American government sponsored genocide in Latin America for so many years I can't even count them anymore? Why did American corporations involve themselves in the Holocaust and assist in the genocide of hundreds of thousands of German and Polish Jews? Tell me, what exactly are we doing in Iraq again?

I think it is strategic at this point in time for Bush to convert to Islam. It would change the face of the battlefield. Get a christian like him to convert to Muslim? Britney Spears will become a nun before that happens.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 21st, 2005, 7:16 PM

You're in the middle of World War 4. It is necessary to take some unusually strong actions, and it is necessary to fight abroad. Bush is the one who realizes that there is a real threat that needs to be taken seriously. The hostile regimes need to be taken out, just for starters. Sorry, I missed this one.

We are not in WW4. I hardly see how a mass of countries engaged in military actions in two countries constitutes a world war.

What needs to be taken seriously is that we are an arrogant nation that forces its ideals on other countries to protect "interests". I can't even begin to fathom how we could be considered a "super power" when we are so dependant on foreign oil. If that pipeline was closed to us, our economy would virtually cease because we aren't and can't produce enough on our own soil. If just as much money and energy was spent developing earth freindly alternatives, we would have healthier people, a healthier economy and put a huge dent in the economies of those we are subjugating via warfare. Then we'd really see who the super power is. The president who realizes this and makes it happen will be the one I take seriously.

By the way, if you were to study the history of "hostile regimes" you will find that the US is no better than any of them you would compare it to.

nrj

Nov 22nd, 2005, 5:34 AM

I think you're being overly harsh on Bush. I don't see him pushing a particular religion. You do realise he's drawn religous similarities in his speeches? Such as:

"In God's eyes marriage is between a man and a woman." Don't remember exactly what he said, but something like that.
And he's not evil either. America is the greatest liberator.

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!

I'm so fucking sick of hearing that story day in and day out! America has NO buisiness about other regimes. They have NO right to interfer with other regimes, and no one has.

Ok, and now on to that link you posted.

I don't know how many times I, as a European, has to hear it every damn day in and out: America saved us.

For fuck sake! You honestly think one murder is more rightly than another? The germans were people! And how come you don't thank us? Thank us for the friggin trade, the norwegians and the swedes who helped you in the Cold War,the science Europe's responsible for, along with western civilization?

And if you didn't realise it, the world changes. The past is the past, the moment is the monent and the future is the future. Americans killed native americans and others in their way, just like evry other culture on the freaking globe does: kill for power.

The further we go backwards, the more shit you'll dig up considering every nation and every culture. If we are to judge every culture for what it's done in the past Europe and the U.S. are the one's at the top of the shit list.

Look at things the way they are NOW 'cause that's the way they're gonna be until they change.

Plus, when the U.S. and the USSR invaded Germany, 300,000 german women were raped.

By YOU!

Our heroes...

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 3:13 AM

Tell me, what exactly are we doing in Iraq again?

Ending institutionalized rape for starters. Don't you think that is a wonderful change from the old Iraq? How would you have felt if you were a bride at a wedding and Uday Hussein decided to abduct and rape you? You know you can't even report it to the police, because Uday IS the police. Would you have screamed out for God to save you? Well, God was doing everything in his power to help end the atrocities in Iraq. And the US military were his weapon.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 3:19 AM

We are not in WW4. I hardly see how a mass of countries engaged in military actions in two countries constitutes a world war.

The US is engaged in a war against subjugators, against non-humanists and against dogma. Afghanistan and Iraq were merely stepping stones on the way to resolving this war.

What needs to be taken seriously is that we are an arrogant nation that forces its ideals on other countries to protect "interests".

No, America is forcing the ideals of the PEOPLE onto the GOVERNMENT. It is not imposing something on the people. The US is not subjugating anyone at all.

By the way, if you were to study the history of "hostile regimes" you will find that the US is no better than any of them you would compare it to.
What do you think a woman raped on the orders of Saddam would say if she saw this paragraph of yours?

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 3:26 AM

I'm so fucking sick of hearing that story day in and day out! America has NO buisiness about other regimes. They have NO right to interfer with other regimes, and no one has.

We have more right to stop Saddam from raping Iraqi women than he has of raping them. The problem is that you are considering Iraq as a whole, and assuming that Saddam was their legitimate representative and the people were behind him. Basically you thought that the Iraqis spoke with one voice. I didn't. I saw 27 million Iraqis and I knew that some percentage of them wanted to be liberated. The anti-subjugators wanted to be liberated. I am in a TRIBE of anti-subjugators. That is why I supported the anti-subjugators in America to go and free the anti-subjugators in Iraq.

Plus, when the U.S. and the USSR invaded Germany, 300,000 german women were raped.

By YOU!

Our heroes...
They were raped by the Soviets, not the US. BTW, I am from Australia.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 25th, 2005, 4:40 AM

Ending institutionalized rape for starters. Don't you think that is a wonderful change from the old Iraq? How would you have felt if you were a bride at a wedding and Uday Hussein decided to abduct and rape you? You know you can't even report it to the police, because Uday IS the police. If we had gone in there with that in mind I would be all for it, if the people of Iraq had asked we come. However, we didn't. We were told lies by our president that Hussein was connected in some way to 9/11 and that there were mass quantities of WMD's. God had nothing to do with this war, it was all a ruse to go in and flex muscle so that the US's connections to the oil fields would continue unhampered. You underestimate the arrogance of this president and this country. We are a bully nation and our people are getting murdered over there to ensure the fattening of someone else's wallet, not to save wedding brides. That's just the "fluff" piece to make the war appear socially acceptable.

Would you have screamed out for God to save you? Well, God was doing everything in his power to help end the atrocities in Iraq. And the US military were his weapon. Again, God had nothing to do with this. Bush used God as a tool to gain votes to be elected president and used God as a tool again to gain support for this war. That's all he needed, the broad support of the christians and christain leaders because they are both the majority. He knew how to work the crowds to his favor.

No, I would not have screamed out for God to save me. God gave me brains, free will and self purpose. It would be a smack to God if I didn't use whatever means neccessary to defend myself and in the case of being a bride, I would pray silently for a quick death because I would end up being killed while defending myself. The Creator gave me the means neccessary and I will not let him down by not using them.

He also gave me brains enough to realize a farce when I see it. Using God as a ploy for war is the deepest pile of wombat dung ever created. Get real, you make this country out to be something grand when it is anything but. Even your own country is becoming more "westernized" and I think it's a shame.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 25th, 2005, 5:16 AM

The US is engaged in a war against subjugators, against non-humanists and against dogma. Afghanistan and Iraq were merely stepping stones on the way to resolving this war. The US createdthis war because of it's bs foreign policy and greed for oil. They needed an excuse and made one up and you must be completely blind if you don't see this. I have no doubts whatsoever that human rights violations including extermination occured. You will get no argument from me there. However, you don't realize how completely farcicle the whole concept of the Iraq war was drawn up and presented. It was based on lies not fact. No God, no fact and barely a mention of human rights. Wake up, this (the Iraq war) was a US created war, not the other way around.

No, America is forcing the ideals of the PEOPLE onto the GOVERNMENT. It is not imposing something on the people. The US is not subjugating anyone at all. If you believe this then you really know nothing of American government. It's supposed to be "by the people, for the people" here in this country. The current administration has blatantly imposed it's christian beliefs into the policies it has been creating. This means it is subjugating me and my beliefs since I am not christian.

Tell me, have you been to this country and if you have, how long were you here? I don't understand this blind faith you seem to have towards the US. I hope you do more research about us because it's obvious you are lacking alot of history.

What do you think a woman raped on the orders of Saddam would say if she saw this paragraph of yours? What do you think a person who has been subjected to this goverments bs under the "Patriot" Act would say if they saw yours? Again, you will get no argument from me regarding the violations against the Iraqi people committed by Saddam. My argument with you is that the war was based on Saddam having WMD's and that it was a direct threat to US security, which is now an "ideal" that has been proved completely wrong. You seem to believe that we went to war with Iraq as a humanitarian mission which is completely false. Had the president not lied about why we were going into Iraq and had he set up this war as one of "humanitarianism" he would not have gotten the support for it he wanted. He wanted to protect US "intrests" aka OIL and is only now mentioning more of the humanitarian side effect to justify his actions.

By the way, you seem to think that the US is innocent of commiting terrorism. While my people were being cut down like grass by the goverment of the US, while our women were being raped, tortured, their genitals being cut off and worn as trophies and unborn babies being cut right out of their bellies, while our people were being rounded up as cattle and forced into internment camps and starved to death, while our women were being forcibly sterilized even as late as the early 90's so they wouldn't breed anymore "red devils" where were you? Why wasn't any other country coming to war with the US to save us? Did you know that the "holocaust" on American soil has lasted over 400 years?

How DARE you make out the US as innocent and some kind of "saviour" to women being raped when its policy for hundreds of years has been exactly that! You know NOTHING of this country. You are a FOOL! Maybe the US should step in and wipe out your country for the same! Don't you dare tell me that Australia is innocent!

Evil Will get your ass in here as straighten out this clown!

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 5:55 PM

If we had gone in there with that in mind I would be all for it, if the people of Iraq had asked we come.

There are strategic reasons why the US couldn't just blurt out "who gives a damn about WMD, this is an opportunity to topple an odious regime". Because the US needed the support of other odious regimes in order to take out the Iraqi regime.

As for the people of Iraq asking - the people of Iraq don't speak with one voice. If you didn't hear the screams of the Iraqi women being raped by their own government, I did.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 6:05 PM

The US createdthis war because of it's bs foreign policy and greed for oil.

Oil costs the same regardless of whether Iraq is a dictatorship or a democracy. The war was not for oil. The war was done for a variety of reasons, one of which was to create a model Arab Muslim country for other Arab Muslims to follow.

Tell me, have you been to this country and if you have, how long were you here?

I toured for a couple of weeks.

I don't understand this blind faith you seem to have towards the US. I hope you do more research about us because it's obvious you are lacking alot of history.

What I know is that the US saved Australia's butt at the Battle of the Coral Sea. I also know that the US won the Cold War preventing Australia from being swallowed up by the Soviet Union.

You seem to believe that we went to war with Iraq as a humanitarian mission which is completely false.

It was ONE of the reasons and it should have been YOUR most important reason.

By the way, you seem to think that the US is innocent of commiting terrorism. While my people were being cut down like grass by the goverment of the US, while our women were being raped, tortured, their genitals being cut off and worn as trophies and unborn babies being cut right out of their bellies, while our people were being rounded up as cattle and forced into internment camps and starved to death, while our women were being forcibly sterilized even as late as the early 90's so they wouldn't breed anymore "red devils" where were you? Why wasn't any other country coming to war with the US to save us? Did you know that the "holocaust" on American soil has lasted over 400 years?

Where was I? Not yet born.

How DARE you make out the US as innocent and some kind of "saviour" to women being raped when its policy for hundreds of years has been exactly that!

I'm talking about current policy. Even assuming that you are right about the US previously having a policy of raping women.

You know NOTHING of this country. You are a FOOL! Maybe the US should step in and wipe out your country for the same! Don't you dare tell me that Australia is innocent!

We don't have a Bill of Rights here, guaranteeing our freedom of speech. I would welcome the US coming here to install a Bill of Rights, then leaving.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 25th, 2005, 7:25 PM

There are strategic reasons why the US couldn't just blurt out "who gives a damn about WMD, this is an opportunity to topple an odious regime". Because the US needed the support of other odious regimes in order to take out the Iraqi regime. Do the ends justify the means? I think not. Now that the US and especially Bush being proven liars, that's the legacy we will be remembered for, liars. You seem to think that lying to an entire country like the current administration has done is justification to create war. I am offended that our elected and appointed officials have placed their own intrests above those of an entire nation. Who do you think is footing the bill for this war? No offense meant towards the Iraqi people but how the hell are we supposed to take care of them when we are barely taking care of ourselves?

As for the people of Iraq asking - the people of Iraq don't speak with one voice. If you didn't hear the screams of the Iraqi women being raped by their own government, I did. I've heard their stories from a few of the women who were affected by it. There is no doubt in my mind that the men who commited these assaults should be dead. However, these women need to be empowered, not have their lives destroyed by those who are supposed to be "saving" them. You are missing a few stories about their "saviours" who in some cases, have commited the same.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 25th, 2005, 7:52 PM

Oil costs the same regardless of whether Iraq is a dictatorship or a democracy. The war was not for oil. The war was done for a variety of reasons, one of which was to create a model Arab Muslim country for other Arab Muslims to follow. Yeah, okay. Now you tell that to the president's oil baron freinds who recently recorded the highest record profits.

I toured for a couple of weeks. You missed alot. Just being here for a few weeks isn't going to give you the experience of the backhanded politics this country has been known for. This is a very arrogant and apathetic country unless something occurs that draws people away from their TV sets.

What I know is that the US saved Australia's butt at the Battle of the Coral Sea. I also know that the US won the Cold War preventing Australia from being swallowed up by the Soviet Union. Wonderful, I know from being told by those who were there that if it wasn't for the Australian's, key battles in Korea wouldv'e been lost. My Dad has the highest regard for Australian troops. Just because you feel that the US saved Australia's ass doesn't mean that you owe blind faith. Even the most recent polls show that the US has lost favor with alot of countries while Australia has gained it.

It was ONE of the reasons and it should have been YOUR most important reason. It wasn't a reason until recently, it's now being more widely talked about by the administration to cover up the scandals and to justify to the American people why we should still be there. It SHOULD have been the reason since all the other reasons were lies, but it wasn't.

Where was I? Not yet born. Neither was I but it doesn't mean it never happened. This country has had a policy of genocide since it's creation as a "free" nation. I'm surprised that with all you seem to think you know of the US, you aren't speaking out against it's policy of genocide in Latin American countries. The women were not only raped but the US government also paid for entire colonies of indigenous people to be wiped off the face of the earth. Some "saviours" we are. Why aren't you saying anything about that?

I'm talking about current policy. Even assuming that you are right about the US previously having a policy of raping women. I know I'm right because I personally know women who have been. I have heard their cries too. I have met women who as teenagers had their reproductive organs stolen from them when they went in for something as simple as having a hangnail removed. If it wasn't for the occupation of the BIA building in the 70's where the documentation of the forced sterilization project was removed, it would have never been made public. How current does your research need to be? Guess where Australia learned to deal with it's Aboriginal "problem" by raping those women and rounding them up like cattle? Your "saviour" country the US! Great role model country we are!

We don't have a Bill of Rights here, guaranteeing our freedom of speech. I would welcome the US coming here to install a Bill of Rights, then leaving. Yeah, a country like ours that is chipping our "rights" away everyday coming in to give you yours. Sounds like exactly what we are doing in Iraq. Leaving isn't the key word because LYING will come first. If you've ever noticed in other countries, we don't "leave".

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 8:58 PM

Do the ends justify the means? I think not. Now that the US and especially Bush being proven liars, that's the legacy we will be remembered for, liars. You seem to think that lying to an entire country like the current administration has done is justification to create war. I am offended that our elected and appointed officials have placed their own intrests above those of an entire nation. Who do you think is footing the bill for this war? No offense meant towards the Iraqi people but how the hell are we supposed to take care of them when we are barely taking care of ourselves?

Yes, the ends justify the means. Ending institutionalized rape should be the highest priority of every country in the free world. It is a damning indictment of humanity that it isn't. Bush didn't lie. He had the same faulty intelligence as everyone else had. The US taxpayer is footing the bill. It is an example of US generosity.

I've heard their stories from a few of the women who were affected by it. There is no doubt in my mind that the men who commited these assaults should be dead. However, these women need to be empowered, not have their lives destroyed by those who are supposed to be "saving" them. You are missing a few stories about their "saviours" who in some cases, have commited the same.
The difference is that now it is ILLEGAL to rape women. And women HAVE been empowered. They have equal voting rights. Before no-one had any rights at all. Not even the right to not be raped by Uday.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:12 PM

The difference is that now it is ILLEGAL to rape women. And women HAVE been empowered. They have equal voting rights. Before no-one had any rights at all. Not even the right to not be raped by Uday.

What are you doing for the aborigional women in your owen country to protect them from rape? They are 3 times as likely to be the victims of rape, unless they live in western australia, where there is an even higher likelyhood. Clean up your own back yard first.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:12 PM

It wasn't a reason until recently, it's now being more widely talked about by the administration to cover up the scandals and to justify to the American people why we should still be there. It SHOULD have been the reason since all the other reasons were lies, but it wasn't.

It was an undisclosed reason. Actually, it was mentioned by Bush, but some Arab allies complained that you can't go to war for such reasons. So he stuck with WMD, which everyone believed Iraq had.

Neither was I but it doesn't mean it never happened. This country has had a policy of genocide since it's creation as a "free" nation. I'm surprised that with all you seem to think you know of the US, you aren't speaking out against it's policy of genocide in Latin American countries. The women were not only raped but the US government also paid for entire colonies of indigenous people to be wiped off the face of the earth. Some "saviours" we are. Why aren't you saying anything about that?

I don't believe Bush has a policy of wiping people in South America off the map. Can you try to keep the debate more reasonable?

If you've ever noticed in other countries, we don't "leave".
The US left the Philippines. And France. After saving their butts twice.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:16 PM

What are you doing for the aborigional women in your owen country to protect them from rape? They are 3 times as likely to be the victims of rape, unless they live in western australia, where there is an even higher likelyhood. Clean up your own back yard first.
They're not being raped by their own government. It is ILLEGAL to rape women in Australia, and their rapists go to jail. (And then people complain about the high rate of Aboriginal incarceration).

Perhaps you can suggest what Australian law you don't like?

Australia already makes it illegal to rape women. Now the same policy has been spread to Iraq. That is a great thing to have happened, and Bush will go down in history as the man who did it. And the current Americans will go down in history as the people who funded it and paid the highest blood price.

Oh, and one more thing. To prevent women from being raped we need to teach boys to FIGHT SUBJUGATION. Rape is a form of subjugation. You need to teach boys that it is noble to fight against subjugation. That is what I have done in my new religion - www.moatazilla.org - which I am trying to spread to the best of my ability.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:19 PM

They're not being raped by their own government. It is ILLEGAL to rape women in Australia, and their rapists go to jail. (And then people complain about the high rate of Aboriginal incarceration).

Perhaps you can suggest what Australian law you don't like?

Australia already makes it illegal to rape women. Now the same policy has been spread to Iraq. That is a great thing to have happened, and Bush will go down in history as the man who did it. And the current Americans will go down in history as the people who funded it and paid the highest blood price.

You seriously think that the rapists of aborigional women actually spend a significant time in jail???

Yep Bush and his cronies will go down in history for the war, yup they certainly will...but I don't think that they will be remembered fondly.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:23 PM

You seriously think that the rapists of aborigional women actually spend a significant time in jail???

Yes I do.

Yep Bush and his cronies will go down in history for the war, yup they certainly will...but I don't think that they will be remembered fondly.
They will. No-one will care about the messy interim period. People will just care about the end result, which is "war won, Iraq now democratic, thanks to America".

Also, I added this to my last message:
Oh, and one more thing. To prevent women from being raped we need to teach boys to FIGHT SUBJUGATION. Rape is a form of subjugation. You need to teach boys that it is noble to fight against subjugation. That is what I have done in my new religion - www.moatazilla.org - which I am trying to spread to the best of my ability.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:27 PM

"6. The tribal leader, whose genes we inherited, would have selfishly hoarded women (which is why we are all descended from him) and would have proved his power by having an orgy of sex, including things like making two women sleep together (hence the current demand for lesbian pornography). We need to totally understand the nature of primitive man, which isn't pretty, in order to counteract the genes via conditioning, or else pander to them (e.g. with legalized pornography). "

Umm..scuze me...godboy? I'm from a matrilieal culture...my ancestral tribal leaders were WOMEN.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:36 PM

Yes I do.

They will. No-one will care about the messy interim period. People will just care about the end result, which is "war won, Iraq now democratic, thanks to America".

Also, I added this to my last message:
Oh, and one more thing. To prevent women from being raped we need to teach boys to FIGHT SUBJUGATION. Rape is a form of subjugation. You need to teach boys that it is noble to fight against subjugation. That is what I have done in my new religion - www.moatazilla.org - which I am trying to spread to the best of my ability.

No one will care about the messy interim period? MESSY? Do you know how many soldiers have died in a war based on LIES? Are you saying that it's okay to lead by deciet, throw away the lives of, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters because of a big fat liar? Do you know what happened in Chile?

Teach boys to fight subjugation...mhm...what are you ACTIVELY (not passively sitting on your fanny in front of a computer) doing to promote this? Are you speaking in schools, to scout groups, religious and social organizations? I mean, you truely want to help the world don't you?

Want to know about subjugation sweetie? Do some research on Indian policy in the US. I can tell you a lot about subjugation in this country from personal experience.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:49 PM

No one will care about the messy interim period? MESSY? Do you know how many soldiers have died in a war based on LIES?

Yes, less than are killed on US roads in 1 month.

Are you saying that it's okay to lead by deciet, throw away the lives of, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters because of a big fat liar?

The lives aren't being thrown away. They are securing the rights of 27 million Iraqis.

Teach boys to fight subjugation...mhm...what are you ACTIVELY (not passively sitting on your fanny in front of a computer) doing to promote this? Are you speaking in schools, to scout groups, religious and social organizations? I mean, you truely want to help the world don't you?

Yes I truly do want to help, but I do not know how to penetrate such organizations. I have tried writing to the Australian government and rung them up, and emailed various people at US CENTCOM, various blogs. I am unable to make headway.

Want to know about subjugation sweetie? Do some research on Indian policy in the US. I can tell you a lot about subjugation in this country from personal experience.
Every country has made mistakes in the past. The most recent one was the US not getting involved in WWII until they were personally attacked. But since Pearl Harbour, no country has pulled its weight in defence of freedom more than the US. Thanks America!

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:52 PM

Umm..scuze me...godboy? I'm from a matrilieal culture...my ancestral tribal leaders were WOMEN.
You need to go back further than that. The millions of years spent in the jungle as a type of ape.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:53 PM

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 9:59 PM

Every country has made mistakes in the past. The most recent one was the US not getting involved in WWII until they were personally attacked. But since Pearl Harbour, no country has pulled its weight in defence of freedom more than the US. Thanks America!

Blah blah blah...look into current US indian policies...CURRENT. Are you telling me that its okay for the federal government to subjugate indian people but its wrong for other countries to do it? Yes, thanks America, for breaking all your treaties, thank you for your misappropriation of indian trust funds, thanks for your current members of administration that stole millions of dollars from us, thank you for contaminating our reservations, thank you very very much for forcibly sterilizing me (sheesh and I thought I wanted more kids), thank you thank you thank you. Godboy you are seriously confused.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 10:12 PM

You need to go back further than that. The millions of years spent in the jungle as a type of ape.
Mhm, now that goes against my culture, didn't you write this?

I am AGAINST racism.
I am AGAINST sexism.
I am AGAINST religious discrimination.
I am AGAINST nationalism and national bigotry.
I am AGAINST non-humanist behaviour.
I am AGAINST dogma.
I am AGAINST subjugation.
I do not dwell on the past.
I have empathy for strangers.
I protect strangers.
I fiercely protect my mates.
I will be best mates with anyone in the world, regardless of race, religion, sex or nationality.

You are being racist by trivializing my cultures beliefs.
You are being sexist by trivializing my cultures beliefs.
You aren't being a nationalist BUT you are contradicting yourself. You do not believe in subjugation HOWEVER you do not feel I can excersize my right to aspire for national independence in a country under foreign domination. I am a memeber of a soveriegn Nation in occupied territory..thats okay with you godboy?
You are being non-humanistic by trivializing my cultures beliefs.
You are being dogmatic in general but also by trivializing my cultures beliefs.
You are being a subjugator by trivializing my cultures beliefs.
I am not sure where you are dwelling...I don't think it is any where I'd like to dwell though.
You are not being empathetic to strangers by trivializing my cultures beliefs.
You are not being protective of strangers by trivializing my cultures beliefs.
I am SO grateful that I am not one of your 'mates'. I think I'd rather chew glass...

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 10:20 PM

ummm...scuze me...god boy? Your Moatazillian anti-dogma states-

I RESPECT INDIVIDUALS who VOLUNTARILY donate to COMPLETE STRANGERS

you seemed to have contradicted yourself when you stated the following to B.Nye -"You may care about Canadian people's eyes, but you didn't give a damn about Iraqi women being raped by their own government." when he mentioned having provided free eye care. He actually got up and did something selfless and kind for people he didn't know, he didnt just write about it.
Yes, I do respect him for having done so. But I would have respected him even more if he had been championing the human rights of Iraqi women. The utter disregard for Iraqi women being raped by their own government is a shocking indictment on humanity.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 10:25 PM

Blah blah blah...look into current US indian policies...CURRENT. Are you telling me that its okay for the federal government to subjugate indian people but its wrong for other countries to do it?

You aren't being subjugated. You are free to say whatever you want without getting your tongue cut out. In Iraq you would have lost your tongue. People in Iraq had their ears and tongues and hands amputated. You can see video of this. Take a look at "Iraq torture" on the left-hand side of my blog (www.antisubjugator.blogspot.com).

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 10:39 PM

You aren't being subjugated. You are free to say whatever you want without getting your tongue cut out. In Iraq you would have lost your tongue. People in Iraq had their ears and tongues and hands amputated. You can see video of this. Take a look at "Iraq torture" on the left-hand side of my blog (www.antisubjugator.blogspot.com).

You know very little about indian policy godboy. Sure I am free to say what I want. I speak out regularly on the US policy on indigenous peoples. I'm involved with the peace movement. I say a lot of things. But I also have an FBI record (for doing these things...they are MONITORING myself and many many others who are involved in similar things). So, the fact that I was a victim of the forced sterilization program is irrelevant? I wasn't the only one godboy. Tell the other minority women who were part of the eugenics program that there is no subjugation in this country.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 10:43 PM

Yes, I do respect him for having done so. But I would have respected him even more if he had been championing the human rights of Iraqi women. The utter disregard for Iraqi women being raped by their own government is a shocking indictment on humanity.

How do you know he wasn't outraged by what happened to these women?

If everyone in the world focus on the plight of only one group of people there would be millions of others who would be suffering. What has happened to Iraqi women is horrible. But they are not the only ones in horrible situations.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 10:48 PM

How do you know he wasn't outraged by what happened to these women?

What I know is that he wasn't in the Iraqi blogs trying to figure out why anyone would oppose the liberation of the Iraqi people.

If everyone in the world focus on the plight of only one group of people there would be millions of others who would be suffering. What has happened to Iraqi women is horrible. But they are not the only ones in horrible situations.
We should fix all of them. But at the time of the Iraqi war, there was no more lucrative target than Iraq. There shouldn't have been opposition to liberating 27 million Iraqis from one of the most brutal tyrants ever.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 11:00 PM

What I know is that he wasn't in the Iraqi blogs trying to figure out why anyone would oppose the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Blogs? You base your opinion of an individual on reading blogs???? Reading and writing blogs is basically sitting on your fanny letting others do the dirty work. It's LAZY.

We should fix all of them. But at the time of the Iraqi war, there was no more lucrative target than Iraq. There shouldn't have been opposition to liberating 27 million Iraqis from one of the most brutal tyrants ever.

There are many people who feel compassion toward the Iraqi people. I believe in human rights and have by physically active in getting things done about it. While I believe that those in power in Iraq needed to be dealt with, the fact is, the government lied. I cannot support a leadership of liars. I support the soldiers. I pray for them in my own way just as I pray for the Iraqi people. I can do things actively and physically on a local scale for others who need help.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 11:15 PM

Blogs? You base your opinion of an individual on reading blogs???? Reading and writing blogs is basically sitting on your fanny letting others do the dirty work. It's LAZY.

No, in-depth analysis of the Iraqi people was required in order to determine why some weren't happy to be freed from a brutal dictator. The answer was in the tribal nature of the Iraqi people.

There are many people who feel compassion toward the Iraqi people. I believe in human rights and have by physically active in getting things done about it. While I believe that those in power in Iraq needed to be dealt with, the fact is, the government lied. I cannot support a leadership of liars. I support the soldiers. I pray for them in my own way just as I pray for the Iraqi people. I can do things actively and physically on a local scale for others who need help.
The government didn't lie. It was mistaken. So were most intelligent agencies. And even if it was a lie, so what? It was important to have a pretext on which to liberate 27 million Iraqis, while still garnering support from other regimes which had a woeful human rights record themselves. YOU should have been champing at the bit to see the Iraqi people liberated.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 11:27 PM

No, in-depth analysis of the Iraqi people was required in order to determine why some weren't happy to be freed from a brutal dictator. The answer was in the tribal nature of the Iraqi people.

The government didn't lie. It was mistaken. So were most intelligent agencies. And even if it was a lie, so what? It was important to have a pretext on which to liberate 27 million Iraqis, while still garnering support from other regimes which had a woeful human rights record themselves. YOU should have been champing at the bit to see the Iraqi people liberated.

Godboy they lied. You're not very good at this god business you know. I can tell you this, when it came to issues in iraq I was not sitting on my fanny in front of the computer being a lazy little god, I was actually doing something. I'm still involved in fact. Sort of a fund raising/awareness raising kind of thingie.

Please respond to my other posts regarding indian policy and explain to me how we are not a subjugated peoples.

kerravon

Nov 25th, 2005, 11:44 PM

Godboy they lied.

No they didn't.

You're not very good at this god business you know. I can tell you this, when it came to issues in iraq I was not sitting on my fanny in front of the computer being a lazy little god, I was actually doing something. I'm still involved in fact. Sort of a fund raising/awareness raising kind of thingie.

The place where you SHOULD have been directing your money was the pro-liberation Iraqi blogs. That's what I did.

Please respond to my other posts regarding indian policy and explain to me how we are not a subjugated peoples.
The fact that you are free to use your freedom of speech shows that you are not being subjugated. Compare that to the people living in Iraq who got their tongues cut out.

Skygirl

Nov 25th, 2005, 11:50 PM

No they didn't.

The place where you SHOULD have been directing your money was the pro-liberation Iraqi blogs. That's what I did.

The fact that you are free to use your freedom of speech shows that you are not being subjugated. Compare that to the people living in Iraq who got their tongues cut out.
Okay, my money shouldn't go directly to the people but to BLOGS? Are you out of your mind?

You are bonkers godboy. Bonkers. All of the things that CONTINUE to happen to Indian people is not considered subjugation because we have tongues? A forced surgical procedure is acceptable to you? You seem to be delusional, I think your mommy and daddy need to get you some serious help.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 12:09 AM

Okay, my money shouldn't go directly to the people but to BLOGS? Are you out of your mind?

No, the correct thing to do was to raise awareness of Iraqi people who were happy to be liberated, so that the US didn't cut and run prematurely. The place to do that was the Iraqi blogs. Such as http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

You are bonkers godboy. Bonkers. All of the things that CONTINUE to happen to Indian people is not considered subjugation because we have tongues? A forced surgical procedure is acceptable to you?

No, but I don't believe they are happening now. You're complaining about historical things. What I can see for sure is that you're not being subjugated - you are using your freedom of speech.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 12:19 AM

No, the correct thing to do was to raise awareness of Iraqi people who were happy to be liberated, so that the US didn't cut and run prematurely. The place to do that was the Iraqi blogs. Such as http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Nope I prefer to actually DO stuff rather than write about it. Lazy little godboy.

No, but I don't believe they are happening now. You're complaining about historical things. What I can see for sure is that you're not being subjugated - you are using your freedom of speech.

In the PAST? No godboy these things are happening NOW. Subjugation entails more than freedom of speech. Do a little research godboy so that you don't sound like an idiot.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 12:31 AM

Nope I prefer to actually DO stuff rather than write about it. Lazy little godboy.

This war is going to be won or lost on public opinion. It was of vital importance that the pro-liberation Iraqi bloggers were allowed to speak and present the other side of the argument. Funding Iraqi bloggers was EXACTLY the right thing to do to ensure that there was no premature exit from Iraq and the Iraqi people didn't lose their human rights again.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 12:47 AM

This war is going to be won or lost on public opinion. It was of vital importance that the pro-liberation Iraqi bloggers were allowed to speak and present the other side of the argument. Funding Iraqi bloggers was EXACTLY the right thing to do to ensure that there was no premature exit from Iraq and the Iraqi people didn't lose their human rights again.

L A Z Y G O D B OY...come on,,,say it with me, l-a-z-y g-o-d-b-o-y. You are a child. You have no clue when it comes to reality. Money and time I donated went to three sources. One, to send a good friend and his daughter (she actually got off of her lazy fanny and WENT THERE and she's a KID) to Iraq on a peace mission. They prayed with the soldiers AND the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people gave him a warm and appreciative welcome, they were civilians and they actually took the time to go there and listen. The second place my money went to was to Doctors Without Borders. I think that the people that were treated were a bit more appreciate of medical assistance that a silly godboy with fair typing skill and internet access. Third money and time sending culturally acceptable food items, clothing and educational supplies to the children there. I also did sit on my fanny and communicated with three soldiers, one who was a friend of the family and became the first female indigenous casualty.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 12:54 AM

By the way, I don't read blogs and I have been quite aware of the plight of the Iraqi people because I am a socially concious person. I also don't agree with this war due to the disinformation, lies (yes there were lies, do some valid research), and manipulation that led to our presence there. I feel that something needed to be done but I don't think that it was necessary to go about it like the government did.

Umm...godboy...is the lack of freedom of speech the only way in which people are subjugated?

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 1:07 AM

L A Z Y G O D B OY...come on,,,say it with me, l-a-z-y g-o-d-b-o-y. You are a child. You have no clue when it comes to reality. Money and time I donated went to three sources.

Your sources did not include the thing that mattered - getting the opinion of the silent majority into the public realm. I can only repeat what I have said. The Iraqi blogs needed funding and the answers as to why some people opposed the liberation of Iraq was also there. It was the exact place to be if you cared about the Iraqi people. And also if you cared about western security.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 1:11 AM

Your sources did not include the thing that mattered - getting the opinion of the silent majority into the public realm. I can only repeat what I have said. The Iraqi blogs needed funding and the answers as to why some people opposed the liberation of Iraq was also there. It was the exact place to be if you cared about the Iraqi people. And also if you cared about western security.

okay, let me get this straight...showing support to the soldiers doesn't matter. Yes, you're right..it's best that they feel unappreciated...it makes combat jolly. And those people that recieved medical attention, well heck they were dying anyway right? Best they be left to suffer so the bloggers get some cash. And the children, well you don't even mention the children so I guess it's best that they are forgotten...thats comforting.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 1:34 AM

okay, let me get this straight...showing support to the soldiers doesn't matter. Yes, you're right..it's best that they feel unappreciated...it makes combat jolly. And those people that recieved medical attention, well heck they were dying anyway right? Best they be left to suffer so the bloggers get some cash. And the children, well you don't even mention the children so I guess it's best that they are forgotten...thats comforting.
The most important thing was to secure the rights of the Iraqi women to not be raped. And to set the stage for further liberations so that more people can enjoy the same rights that you take for granted in the US.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 8:36 AM

The most important thing was to secure the rights of the Iraqi women to not be raped. And to set the stage for further liberations so that more people can enjoy the same rights that you take for granted in the US.

ummm...lazy godboy? Why are you only focusing on the women who were raped? That belittles every other crime against humanity that occured there. As a woman I would want to secure the safety of my children first and foremost, most women I think would agree with me. I would suffer any degridation imaginable to insure the safety of children.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 8:55 AM

Scuze me, lazy godboy? I was wondering...have you ever had your dopamine levels checked? Have you ever had a PET scan? I think these are things you should consider. Because either you are potentially schizophrenic with grandiose tendancies or your just really ignorant of reality.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 26th, 2005, 10:23 AM

I split this portion of the thread out of the religion section to the forum it properly belonged in. Sorry if it's a bit choppy, please continue....

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 10:44 AM

Betraying Iraqi Women
Lucinda Marshall

Remember when the Bush administration told us that American soldiers would be greeted as liberators? How about when we were told that the war would free Iraqi women? We know that the citizens throwing flowers never materialized, and now it turns out that helping Iraqi women was just a PR line too. Women in Iraq still face poverty, fear of imprisonment, rape and repressive laws. Only now, the United States is in charge of it all.

Despite the Bush administration's assurances to the contrary, conditions for women have worsened substantially as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and its continuing aftermath. The contrast between the rhetoric and the reality is stunning. In July 2003, Undersecretary of State Paula J. Dobriansky wrote, "Indeed, the commitment of the United States to the human rights of Iraq's women is unshakable and manifested clearly by our activities on the ground as well as our policy statements."

And in fact, under international law, occupying forces have an obligation to guarantee the safety of civilians and to provide food and medical care. Yet the U.S. military campaign substantially damaged the electrical and water systems of Iraq, leaving people in Baghdad with only a few hours of electricity per day and most of the country with inadequate potable water supplies. The transportation and health care systems are in shambles. These systems have yet to be substantially rebuilt. For women, the tasks of obtaining medical care, putting food on the table and sending children (especially girls) to school have become an often-impossible struggle. Yanar Mohammed, founder of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, says it’s tough to quantify the situation. "There is no way to describe how much deterioration has struck the lives of millions of women in Iraq," she says.

The first critical step in meeting Iraqi women's needs is to facilitate their involvement and respect their opinions. The official line is that the United States’ efforts are “appropriately guided by the Iraqi women themselves." And indeed, 25 percent of the members of the U.S.-approved National Assembly were to be female.

Yet today, only 6 out of 33 members are women. Dr. Raja Khuzai—one of three women on the now-defunct Iraqi Governing Council—and many others had advocated that at least one member of the executive quartet be a woman, but this did not happen. The failure is, in large part, due to the United State's refusal to support a mandatory number of seats for women. After all, the Bush administration couldn’t very well contradict its own policies against affirmative action at home.

However, many women in Iraq see the new government as illegitimate because the Iraqi people didn’t choose it. In their view, the number of women in the government is not so critical an issue as ending violence against women and stopping the erosion of women's rights. Both of these situations have worsened as fundamentalist Sharia doctrine has been allowed to influence the civil law when conservative Muslims came to power under the U.S. occupation.

Yanar Mohammed explains that the interim constitution is counterproductive, effectively setting women’s rights back more than 50 years. “It will enshrine Islamic law, instead of separating religion and state," she says. “It means that men can marry four women, that all the rights are given to men in marriage, in divorce and in the custody of children, and that there is no minimum age for the marriage of women. Turning civil law into Sharia law would end all rights for women in Iraq." Evidence of Mohammed's predictions can be seen in the increasing number of women wearing veils in Iraq—either by force or from fear. Additionally, schools are increasingly segregated, and girls face heightened difficulty in attending classes.

In cementing her claim that the Bush administration's takeover of Iraq was in the best interests of women, Undersecretary Dobriansky pointed to the use of rape by Saddam Hussein's regime as one of the tools to repress dissent. "Hussein's machinery of repression is no more," she claimed. As we now know, there was simply a transfer of ownership, rather than a dismantling of the 'machinery'—which is apparently well oiled and continues to serve its purpose for new managers.
Lack of security or a functional police force to which to report sexual violence is a huge problem for women, who are afraid to leave their houses and face increased sexual violence both inside and out of their homes.

Unquestionably, the most explicit—as well as most-discounted and least-reported—atrocities committed against Iraqi women have been at the hands of the U.S. military. The International Occupation Watch Center, Amnesty International and the International Red Cross have all documented physical and sexual abuse against women prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other prisons. The exact number of women being held is not known. But U.S. forces have acknowledged that most are being held because of their relationship to men that U.S. forces want to question or intimidate—not for crimes they themselves have committed.

Consequently, the number of honor killings is also on the rise. It is horrific enough that in U.S.-run prisons, such as Abu Ghraib, women were raped (and impregnated), sexually abused and humiliated in ways similar to the abuse committed against men. But the worst aspect is that for many people in Iraq, the abuse of a woman in any way (even the mere act of being imprisoned) is seen as an assault on the family’s honor. Traditionally, the response to this has been to cleanse the honor of the family by killing the woman who has been violated (an honor killing). While the practice is officially discouraged, legal consequences are rare. As a result, the actions of our military have effectively condemned many of these women to death.

The Bush administration’s claim of rescuing Iraqi women is just one more false pretense for war. It systematically ignores Iraqi women’s needs, terrorizes their lives and shows an extraordinary degree of misogynistic hubris. While it would be impossible to undo the damage, we must go beyond the basics of rebuilding the infrastructure and address issues such as honor killings—as well as our own complicity in the violence committed against women as an act of ‘liberation’. Most importantly, we must listen to the voices of Iraqi women and insist on their right to fully participate in healing their country.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 10:59 AM

Iraqi Feminist Yanar Mohammed on the Iraq Constitution Vote (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/17/1422236)

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 26th, 2005, 11:09 AM

Yes, the ends justify the means. Ending institutionalized rape should be the highest priority of every country in the free world. It is a damning indictment of humanity that it isn't. Bush didn't lie. He had the same faulty intelligence as everyone else had. The US taxpayer is footing the bill. It is an example of US generosity. If you believe that lies and deceit justifies torture commited by the US on Iraqi people then God help you because you are not him. I want to see your proof that Bush didn't lie. I seriously doubt that you even have any kind of security clearance at all to get that kind of information let alone have the mental capacity to understand it.

Let me clue you in on something else, while the US taxpayer is being so generous as you put it, we are barely taking care of ourselves. Who is going to step in and foot the bill when are backs are broken because we can't afford to get to work or buy food? You? You haven't even the slightest idea what the cost is doing to people here. We can't even afford our own healthcare anymore. What will happen when there are not enough troops because our people are too sick to go? What then? Hell, you don't even see how our injured troops get screwed when they return home because the government either refuses to take care of their medical needs or the red tape is so long they die before getting the healthcare they need. Yeah, were so damn generous. Key statement here: You can't take care of anyone else unless you take care of yourself first!

The difference is that now it is ILLEGAL to rape women. And women HAVE been empowered. They have equal voting rights. Before no-one had any rights at all. Not even the right to not be raped by Uday. Yeah sure, voting rights have empowered the women. That's a weak excuse. It's going to take alot more than just voting rights to fix that mess.

For someone who alleges superior intellect, how did you become so single minded?

It was an undisclosed reason. Actually, it was mentioned by Bush, but some Arab allies complained that you can't go to war for such reasons. So he stuck with WMD, which everyone believed Iraq had. Again, you don't know what you are posting about. Read any of Metal Militia's Iraq War posts and see the proof for yourself. Bush barely mentioned it over his squawking about WMD's. Why don't you jump in and suggest that he spend more time in the blogs?

The US left the Philippines. And France. After saving their butts twice. Really? Then why are we still there?

I don't believe Bush has a policy of wiping people in South America off the map. Can you try to keep the debate more reasonable? Bringing up the US sponsored genocide in other countries isn't reasonable? Oh yes that's right, if you don't see it, it doesn't exist. Now I'm completely sure of what kind of mentality I'm dealing with. How humanitarian that you only believe in saving women of rape in Iraq but the extermination of entire peoples in Latin America is so beneath you.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 26th, 2005, 11:28 AM

Yes I truly do want to help, but I do not know how to penetrate such organizations. Key word: penetrate. That's a pretty agressive word to be using. From the way you have responded in your posts, it's not ok to subjugate women but you most certainly are trying your best to tell me AND my sister that we are wrong. Thus, you are attempting to subjugate our beliefs with your own. So much for your fight against subjugation.

Every country has made mistakes in the past. The most recent one was the US not getting involved in WWII until they were personally attacked. WOW! Are you behind the times! You better get that superior intellect moving at a faster pace because us "old" ladies are way ahead of you!

You need to go back further than that. The millions of years spent in the jungle as a type of ape. Maybe that's where you get your beastly ideas from. Sorry honey but at least in regards to my sister and I, our ancestors were never apes. Again with the thought subjugation.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 26th, 2005, 11:55 AM

So, the fact that I was a victim of the forced sterilization program is irrelevant? I wasn't the only one godboy. Tell the other minority women who were part of the eugenics program that there is no subjugation in this country. I want to point out the sickness and utter tragedy on kerravon's part to fail to address this statement.

For someone who claims to champion women's rights to have glossed over such a statement is a remarkable testament of the kind of person they are.

This person only knows their own self-righteous beliefs and condemns anyone who thinks outside of them. To claim to be so focused on saving women and yet to feel nothing for a women (among many thousands) whose reproductive organs were ripped from their bodies and to never be able to birth children, that you can't even respond...you are one of the most disgusting individuals that has ever posted here.

Take your ignorant squawking and stick it where the sun doesn't shine mofo because you know nothing of the plight of women, you know nothing about this country and you especially know nothing about humanitarianism when you blast someone like B.Nye and what he has unselfishly done for others. With the direction this country is going I may be crossing the border to see him for eyecare!

I can't even call you a pig for fear that I'm putting pigs down. You are one sick individual to be so concerned for the rape of women and NOTHING ELSE! At least they most likely can still have children! My sister and many thousands of other Indian women in current, right now history NEVER WILL! :gtfo:

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 26th, 2005, 12:03 PM

Unquestionably, the most explicit—as well as most-discounted and least-reported—atrocities committed against Iraqi women have been at the hands of the U.S. military. The International Occupation Watch Center, Amnesty International and the International Red Cross have all documented physical and sexual abuse against women prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other prisons. The exact number of women being held is not known. But U.S. forces have acknowledged that most are being held because of their relationship to men that U.S. forces want to question or intimidate—not for crimes they themselves have committed.

Consequently, the number of honor killings is also on the rise. It is horrific enough that in U.S.-run prisons, such as Abu Ghraib, women were raped (and impregnated), sexually abused and humiliated in ways similar to the abuse committed against men. But the worst aspect is that for many people in Iraq, the abuse of a woman in any way (even the mere act of being imprisoned) is seen as an assault on the family’s honor. Traditionally, the response to this has been to cleanse the honor of the family by killing the woman who has been violated (an honor killing). While the practice is officially discouraged, legal consequences are rare. As a result, the actions of our military have effectively condemned many of these women to death.

I just wanted the above quote focused on again. These are just a small part of the lies that kerravon claims are not being told, these are the things that kerravon claims aren't being committed by the US and these are the things that are ACTUALLY happening, RIGHT NOW and being committed by the very people that kerravon has put such unwaveble blind faith in, AMERIKKKA.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 4:03 PM

Sis I think that lazy godboy is either an ignorant kid with no social outlet or as stated in a previous post, a kid with severe psychological and sociological issues. If he's just an ignorant kid then hopefully he will grow up one day and actually do something useful to help people if he is actually as passionate about it as he claims to be or his adult caregiver(s) will realize that he needs some serious help and with proper services will be a semi-productive member of society. I wonder though, what if he believes his delusions? What if he doesn't get help? What extreems will he go to? Children with issues such as his have many times matured into some very scary adults.

When I think about the exceptionally bright young people who have posted in AO I realize the future has some hope, regardless of the wingnuts who surface now and then.

And speaking of hope, the children of Iraq are their future. If they are to be pushed to the side and their suffering ignored as lazy godboy insinuates it will only lead to more zealotry when they reach adulthood.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 6:22 PM

ummm...lazy godboy? Why are you only focusing on the women who were raped? That belittles every other crime against humanity that occured there. As a woman I would want to secure the safety of my children first and foremost, most women I think would agree with me. I would suffer any degridation imaginable to insure the safety of children.
I focus on the rape of women because it SHOULD be something that everyone can agree on. We should all be able to agree that ending institutionalized rape is a reasonable action to take. Institutionalized rape (ie LEGAL rape) ended the moment that the statue fell. Now if anyone rapes they can be CHARGED and JAILED because it is ILLEGAL. This includes the rape of your own daughter.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 6:48 PM

ummm..lazy godboy? Are you aware that honor killings are still occuring and that the 'policw' there still look away? Are you aware that most Iraqi women are still in fear to report rapes? They can't report them to the local 'police' because the police do not treat them with compassion. They can't report them to the US MP's for fear of being brutalized yet again.

You think that preventing rape is the only thing that people can agree on? You have a lot to learn young one.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 6:53 PM

Scuse me, lazy godboy? You neglected to answer something...is the lack of freedom of speech the only way in which people are subjugated?

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 7:25 PM

ummm..lazy godboy? Are you aware that honor killings are still occuring and that the 'police' there still look away? Are you aware that most Iraqi women are still in fear to report rapes? They can't report them to the local 'police' because the police do not treat them with compassion. They can't report them to the US MP's for fear of being brutalized yet again.

You've done a survey on Iraqi women's trust in the local police, have you? Look, it's excrutiatingly simple. Under Saddam there was INSTITUTIONALIZED RAPE. Now that has ENDED thanks to the US military. This is a reason why the US should be APPLAUDED for its efforts.

You think that preventing rape is the only thing that people can agree on? You have a lot to learn young one.
It is the most obvious thing that we should be able to get agreement on.

Scuse me, lazy godboy? You neglected to answer something...is the lack of freedom of speech the only way in which people are subjugated?

No. The inability to form a political party is another way of subjugating the people.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 7:43 PM

[QUOTE=kerravon]You've done a survey on Iraqi women's trust in the local police, have you? Look, it's excrutiatingly simple. Under Saddam there was INSTITUTIONALIZED RAPE. Now that has ENDED thanks to the US military. This is a reason why the US should be APPLAUDED for its efforts.

Nope but I've been emailing back and forth with an Iraqi woman. I have also done a bit of research.

It is the most obvious thing that we should be able to get agreement on.
Umm...And you know this how? What about the children? What about the torture? Murders? Entire villages being wiped out? These things are all equally tragic. It gives the impression that you're a bit perverted to be focusing only on rape.

No. The inability to form a political party is another way of subjugating the people.
Thats it? Only two criteria? You are very narrow minded lazy godboy.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 8:02 PM

Nope but I've been emailing back and forth with an Iraqi woman. I have also done a bit of research.

You've been emailing to one Iraqi woman who claims to have been raped and is too scared to report it to the police or the US military. Is that correct?

Umm...And you know this how? What about the children? What about the torture? Murders? Entire villages being wiped out? These things are all equally tragic. It gives the impression that you're a bit perverted to be focusing only on rape.

Yes they are equally tragic, and this is another thing that has changed. Saddam is no longer able to wipe out entire villages. He's unable to murder people. He's unable to torture people. Have you looked at the torture that was occurring under Saddam? Watch this:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/r9der1.ram

Tell me what your reaction is after seeing this torture. Do you wish you could protect these poor people? Well the good news is that you can! Or I should say "have". The US has put an end to this INSTITUTIONALIZED HORROR. Thanks America!

Thats it? Only two criteria? You are very narrow minded lazy godboy.
In order to not be subjugated you need to be able to voice your opposition to whoever is in government, form a political party to challenge the government and then run for elections to topple the government. If you are able to do this, you are not being subjugated.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 8:03 PM

The advocate

by Andrew Stromotich

U.S. troops arrest an Iraqi woman.
On Sept. 29, 2005, shortly after 8 p.m., Amal Kadhum Swadi and her youngest son Safa were arrested by U.S. forces in the Ghazaliya district of Baghdad on suspicion of planting an improvised explosive device.

They were just leaving their Baghdad home with other family members and had opened their garage door to take out the family car, when the Swadi family were swarmed by multiple Humvees and numerous heavily armed U.S. soldiers with weapons drawn.

Haloed by headlights and surrounded by agitated soldiers, mother and son were separated from each other and hidden from view of other family members behind a wall of troops and humvees. They were blindfolded and handcuffed tightly with the plastic zap straps and hoods that have become potent symbols of the dehumanization of Iraqis under occupation.

Ms. Swadi and Safa were made to squat on the highway's dirt embankment while Zaid, her eldest son, was issued a handwritten receipt for his mother and brother. As Zaid yelled into the crowd of soldiers, trying to get a response from his mother, Ms. Swadi and Safa were being packed into humvees for the trip to the Airport Detention Facility for further processing, leaving Zaid in a cloud of dust, clutching his receipt and trying to console his sobbing sister.

I first met Amal Swadi in Istanbul at the culminating session of the World Tribunal on Iraq. Ms. Swadi was part of the Iraqi delegation invited to give testimony on their experiences of occupation; as a lawyer representing women held in Abu Ghraib and other U.S. and British detention facilities in Iraq, Ms. Swadi was there to speak on the degenerating state of human rights.

As I found out, Ms. Swadi is no stranger to the occupation or to the media covering it. As a lawyer willing to take on the mass of occupation, she is well known for her outspoken advocacy for those unfortunates caught in the machinery of occupation.

Amal Swadi is 52 and was accompanied to the Istanbul tribunal by her daughter and eldest son Zaid, who is also a lawyer. At the event's opening party, I was presented to Ms. Swadi and Zaid, whose love and respect for his mother were instantly apparent. He studied me closely as I was introduced, and when I put my hand out to shake his mother's, he smiled and took it warmly.

Ms. Swadi, a humble religious woman, immediately forgave my lack of understanding of Islamic culture and, after a short conversation, agreed to be interviewed (the video of this interview will be available shortly).

Ms. Swadi's involvement with investigations into female prisoners of the occupation started when she was told about a message the women detained in Abu Ghraib were trying to get to the resistance. The message, which had become public knowledge in the streets of Baghdad, was begging the resistance to attack Abu Ghraib with rockets, as the women held inside had given up hope and could no longer bear the gross abuses and torture inflicted upon them daily.

In Islam, as in Christianity, suicide is regarded as an ultimate sin, so these women were asking to be killed. Since then, Ms. Swadi has tirelessly worked for the recognition and release of these detainees. At the time I met her, she was representing nine of these shadow women.

Ms. Swadi told me of her visits to Abu Ghraib and the difficulties she experienced in trying to gain access to the women held inside, including the U.S. forces' outright denial of the women's existence. When attempts to intimidate her did not work, dismissive guardsmen simply turned her away.

When Ms. Swadi returned to Abu Ghraib for her second visit, she was accompanied by a determination cast in the previous sleepless night. Her resolve was eventually rewarded, and after waiting all day in one of the compound's courtyards under the desert sun, without water or food, she was finally allowed access to her clients - six in total. Ms. Swadi told me the emotion of the experience was overwhelming, and she broke down and sobbed along with the first detainee presented.

Detainees were presented to her in a small, dark cement room that looked to be set up for interrogations. The women were escorted into the room through a heavy door behind a chair and desk. The guards accompanying her remained inches from these broken souls throughout the visit - this is referred to as being "in control" of their subject.

The first detainee presented was a young woman in her 20s. She was in poor condition, pale and gaunt, barely able to stand, and looked to be suffering from mental collapse. The woman stared at the floor, and when she did finally look up and see her visitor from the outside world, the two broke down.

During her brief interview, hindered not only by the woman's captors, who hovered only inches away at all times, but also by the woman's fragile, quivering voice, Ms. Swadi learned how this woman's young son and brother were killed in front of her during a raid on her home conducted by U.S. forces. She carried a crudely stitched wound the length of her forearm, which came from the bayonet of a soldier involved in the raid.

Since her arrest, the woman had been held naked in a small cement cell, without proper bedding or toilet. The woman spoke of rape and torture at the hands of her American and Iraqi captors. With Congress being presented with the images of Iraqi women forced to bare themselves as U.S. soldiers held guns to their heads, and with the Pentagon's own acknowledgment of rape in their detention facilities, it is not hard to give credence to Ms. Swadi's claims.

Gen. Antonio Taguba, appointed to head the Pentagon's investigation into Abu Ghraib torture and abuse allegations - which was restricted to investigation into members of the 800th Military Police Brigade - acknowledged that U.S. soldiers participated in rape at the prison. This acknowledgment came in the form of an inter-Pentagon memo in which Gen. Taguba referred to images of American guards "having sex" with female Iraqi detainees. Taguba's choice of language when referring to rape is revealing and further clarifies the Pentagon's desensitized, casual attitude towards these crimes.

click for the rest of the story (http://www.sfbayview.com/112305/theadvocate112305.shtml)

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 8:07 PM

You've been emailing to one Iraqi woman who claims to have been raped and is too scared to report it to the police or the US military. Is that correct?

No I have been corresponding with an Iraqi woman who runs an organization in Iraq for womens rights. She's quite well known and can substantiate her claims.

Yes they are equally tragic, and this is another thing that has changed. Saddam is no longer able to wipe out entire villages. He's unable to murder people. He's unable to torture people. Have you looked at the torture that was occurring under Saddam? Watch this:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/media/r9der1.ram

Tell me what your reaction is after seeing this torture. Do you wish you could protect these poor people? Well the good news is that you can! Or I should say "have". The US has put an end to this INSTITUTIONALIZED HORROR. Thanks America!

Then why are you focusing only on the rape of women? Are you a sicko of some sort? Are you aware that men were raped too?

In order to not be subjugated you need to be able to voice your opposition to whoever is in government, form a political party to challenge the government and then run for elections to topple the government. If you are able to do this, you are not being subjugated.

I'll respond to this momentarily lazy godboy.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 8:25 PM

Then why are you focusing only on the rape of women? Are you a sicko of some sort? Are you aware that men were raped too?

As I have already explained, if we can't agree that the end of INSTITUTIONALIZED RAPE in Iraq was a good thing, we're not going to get agreement on anything else. Do you agree that the US did a wonderful thing by putting an end to institutionalized rape in Iraq? If you're not even interested in protecting women from being raped, you likely won't care about the other crimes that have been brought to an end by the liberating US and allied forces. Oh, and I am still waiting for you to tell me your reaction to the torture video.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 8:42 PM

As I have already explained, if we can't agree that the end of INSTITUTIONALIZED RAPE in Iraq was a good thing, we're not going to get agreement on anything else. Do you agree that the US did a wonderful thing by putting an end to institutionalized rape in Iraq? If you're not even interested in protecting women from being raped, you likely won't care about the other crimes that have been brought to an end by the liberating US and allied forces. Oh, and I am still waiting for you to tell me your reaction to the torture video.

Women are still being raped. They are still terrified to report it. It has not stopped. The honor killings have not stopped. And now these women who have been terrorized under a brutal regime have to contend with the brutality they face from their liberators.

I don't get off on watching torture flicks, sorry lazy godboy. I'm aware of what has gone on there as well as countless other places around the world. It doesn't mean that I have to be a voyeristic sicko.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 8:51 PM

In order to not be subjugated you need to be able to voice your opposition to whoever is in government, form a political party to challenge the government and then run for elections to topple the government. If you are able to do this, you are not being subjugated.

So lazy godboy, being a member of a soveriegn Nation in occupied territory, where the occupying government steals and misappropriates our funds, our land and our children, where women were forcibly sterilized within the last 15 years, were we have the highest rates of poverty, suicide, infant mortality, and violence against women, were we have no indoor plumbing or electricity in many instances, where we have to get permission from the government to even make simple repairs to our homes, where, in the face of disastor (hurricane katrina) we recieved NO FEDERAL RELIEF, where they systematically contaminate our land with no regard to treaties (let alone the fact that we're freaking humanbeings), were health services are so substandard that you can go to the medical clinic for a toothache and come out with TB, where our Elders are left to freeze in the winter, this is not subjugation? Are you honestly that much of an ignorant racist idiot?

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 8:58 PM

Women are still being raped. They are still terrified to report it. It has not stopped. The honor killings have not stopped. And now these women who have been terrorized under a brutal regime have to contend with the brutality they face from their liberators.

Women are no longer being LEGALLY raped. Do you understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL? Rape is now ILLEGAL. Women are not facing brutality from their liberators. That's just propaganda.

I don't get off on watching torture flicks, sorry lazy godboy. I'm aware of what has gone on there as well as countless other places around the world. It doesn't mean that I have to be a voyeristic sicko.
Real people had to LIVE that torture. Real torture, not just hazing. The least you can do is watch what you advocated the indefinite continuation of.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 26th, 2005, 9:04 PM

If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an
opinion from an unexpected source. This is not a problem that is going to be
easy to solve. It is the struggle to maintain our Western way of life and
the very culture that has made it possible. Lose this one, and our
grandchildren will be speaking Arabic, those of them that survive the
"conversion".
Look at what has been happening in Europe the last couple of weeks. For all
practical purposes they won Spain without any effort on their part other
than a couple of bombs in public places. Now they are burning Paris and
hitting on Holland and Belgium.
Better get serious, very, very serious! This is a MUST read! It's
fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Matthias Dapfner, Chief
Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a
blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the
timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. This is a must
read by all Americans. History will certify its correctness.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel
Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly
500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush...Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany? I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the
laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time". What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be
evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those
arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even
(Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why?
Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of
additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the
American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands,
frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber
breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement?
Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

I'd also like to say to skygirl: just because ONE iraqui woman thinks the present situation is bad doesn't cut much, because that's the reason surveys have more than one person on them, youd have to email ALLOT of Iraqui women, skygirl.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 9:07 PM

Women are no longer being LEGALLY raped. Do you understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL? Rape is now ILLEGAL. Women are not facing brutality from their liberators. That's just propaganda.

They are facing brutality from their liberators lazy godboy, the US military has admitted it. Rape is wrong whether it's legal or illegal you idiot. What good are laws if they aren't enforced and if women (some as young as 12) are being murdered by their family members because they were raped?

Real people had to LIVE that torture. Real torture, not just hazing. The least you can do is watch what you advocated the indefinite continuation of.
Ummm yes lazy godboy I am aware that real live people had to live through that torture, just as many many people around the world live through torture every day. It's WRONG even if it's performed by liberators :bondage: I however am not a perverted voyeristic lazy godboy so I would prefer not to watch it.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 9:15 PM

I'd also like to say to skygirl: just because ONE iraqui woman thinks the present situation is bad doesn't cut much, because that's the reason surveys have more than one person on them, youd have to email ALLOT of Iraqui women, skygirl.

Bob, I'm sorry but I simply cannot support a war based on lies and disinformation. It's wrong. Thats my opinion. I know what its like to have another's language forced on you from personal familial experience. This country is going to hell without the help of Arabic individuals. The government is corrupt.

The one woman I spoke with speaks for MANY women. She heads a large and reputable womans rights organization in Iraq. Obviously you missed that part.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 9:59 PM

They are facing brutality from their liberators lazy godboy, the US military has admitted it. Rape is wrong whether it's legal or illegal you idiot. What good are laws if they aren't enforced and if women (some as young as 12) are being murdered by their family members because they were raped?

Of course rape is wrong whether it is illegal or legal. But under Saddam it was LEGAL and you couldn't report it to the police, because Uday WAS the police. Now it is ILLEGAL and you can report it to the police and the perpetrators will be charged and jailed. This is a gigantic step forward for women's rights. Can you not see this? Legal protection of your right to not be raped.

Ummm yes lazy godboy I am aware that real live people had to live through that torture, just as many many people around the world live through torture every day. It's WRONG even if it's performed by liberators :bondage: I however am not a perverted voyeristic lazy godboy so I would prefer not to watch it.
You should watch it, since it is what you advocated the indefinite continuation of. You need to know where your policies led.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 10:07 PM

Of course rape is wrong whether it is illegal or legal. But under Saddam it was LEGAL and you couldn't report it to the police, because Uday WAS the police. Now it is ILLEGAL and you can report it to the police and the perpetrators will be charged and jailed. This is a gigantic step forward for women's rights. Can you not see this? Legal protection of your right to not be raped.

You should watch it, since it is what you advocated the indefinite continuation of. You need to know where your policies led.
Lazy godboy they are not being charged and jailed. It's just not happening. Which is ABSOLUTELY APPAULING.

I advocate the indefinite continuation of torture? Ummm...and you say this why? Because I don't support liars? I do not condone torture of any kind. My policies didn't lead anywhere youngster. If my policies of choice had that much power the world would be an entirely different place.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 10:17 PM

Lazy godboy they are not being charged and jailed. It's just not happening. Which is ABSOLUTELY APPAULING.

It IS happening. Even the HAZING done by US soldiers was prosecuted and the perpetrators jailed.

I advocate the indefinite continuation of torture? Ummm...and you say this why? Because I don't support liars? I do not condone torture of any kind. My policies didn't lead anywhere youngster. If my policies of choice had that much power the world would be an entirely different place.
You support the indefinite continuation of torture because you opposed ending the INSTITUTIONALIZED TORTURE of Iraqis. You should watch exactly what you supported by turning a blind eye to this horror.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 10:28 PM

It IS happening. Even the HAZING done by US soldiers was prosecuted and the perpetrators jailed.

You support the indefinite continuation of torture because you opposed ending the INSTITUTIONALIZED TORTURE of Iraqis. You should watch exactly what you supported by turning a blind eye to this horror.

Not all of them were jailed. Some of them were simply demoted. The soldiers who raped Iraqi women in prison we're not prosecuted for lack of evidence because medical evidence was not allowed to be collected.

I oppose ending the institutionalized torture od Iraqis? And I say this where? Just because I am opposed to a lying, deceptive, dishonest government doesn't mean that I think that Saddams regime should have continued. Bush's most publicized push on the war was the elusive weapons of mass destruction that simply weren't there. If he had been a big enough man and told the truth I would have been more understanding of the administrations decision.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 10:29 PM

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.

So, months after the war, we are once again where we started -- with plenty of rhetoric and absolutely no proof of this "grave danger" for which O.J. Smith died. The Bush administration is now scrambling to place the blame for its lies on faulty intelligence, when in fact the intelligence was fine; it was their abuse of it that was "faulty."

Rather than apologize for leading us to a preemptive war based on impossibly faulty or shamelessly distorted "intelligence" or offering his resignation, our sly madman in the White House is starting to sound more like that other O.J. Like the man who cheerfully played golf while promising to pursue "the real killers," Bush is now vowing to search for "the true extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

On the terrible day of the 9/11 attacks, five hours after a hijacked plane slammed into the Pentagon, retired Gen. Wesley Clark received a strange call from someone (he didn't name names) representing the White House position: "I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,'" Clark told Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert. "I said, 'But -- I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence.'"

And neither did we.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 10:42 PM

Not all of them were jailed. Some of them were simply demoted. The soldiers who raped Iraqi women in prison we're not prosecuted for lack of evidence because medical evidence was not allowed to be collected.

The important thing is that it is ILLEGAL to commit crimes now. Under Saddam it was LEGAL. Do you understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?

I oppose ending the institutionalized torture od Iraqis? And I say this where? Just because I am opposed to a lying, deceptive, dishonest government doesn't mean that I think that Saddams regime should have continued. Bush's most publicized push on the war was the elusive weapons of mass destruction that simply weren't there. If he had been a big enough man and told the truth I would have been more understanding of the administrations decision.
WMD was part of the truth. He can't tell you the whole truth, because he is trying to avoid a war on multiple fronts. He wants to be able to knock tyrants over one at a time. If you opposed the war then you DID think that Saddam's regime should have continued. There is no other choice. You either supported the ending of institutionalized rape and torture, or you supported the indefinite continuation of it. It is a shocking indictment against you that you supported the latter. If there is any justice in this world, you should be forced to watch those torture videos again and again to remind you of what you supported.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 11:30 PM

The important thing is that it is ILLEGAL to commit crimes now. Under Saddam it was LEGAL. Do you understand the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL?

Yes I understand the difference between legal and illegal lazy godboy. Do you understand that it is still happening regardless? That honor killings are still happening regardless? Do you get that? What good are laws if they are not working or being enforced?

WMD was part of the truth. He can't tell you the whole truth, because he is trying to avoid a war on multiple fronts. He wants to be able to knock tyrants over one at a time. If you opposed the war then you DID think that Saddam's regime should have continued. There is no other choice. You either supported the ending of institutionalized rape and torture, or you supported the indefinite continuation of it. It is a shocking indictment against you that you supported the latter. If there is any justice in this world, you should be forced to watch those torture videos again and again to remind you of what you supported.

::sigh::one more time. I opposed the reasons behind the war. LIES. Thinks are not always so black and white lazy godboy. I can oppose the reasons we went to war. That doesn't mean I condone what the former regime was doing. If you're going to be god you really need to expand your thought process. It is a shocking indictment against you that you support the continued genocide of indigenous people. If there is any justice in this world then you should be forced to spend some time on Pine Ridge.

kerravon

Nov 26th, 2005, 11:46 PM

Yes I understand the difference between legal and illegal lazy godboy. Do you understand that it is still happening regardless? That honor killings are still happening regardless? Do you get that? What good are laws if they are not working or being enforced?

The laws will become more and more enforced as time goes on. The Iraqis are now on a path of continued improvement. We're still in a transition phase at the moment.

::sigh::one more time. I opposed the reasons behind the war. LIES. Thinks are not always so black and white lazy godboy. I can oppose the reasons we went to war. That doesn't mean I condone what the former regime was doing.

You only had two choices. One was to go to war and end the regime which LEGALLY tortured and raped. The other option was to DO NOTHING. You chose DOING NOTHING as the best policy. That is a shocking indictment on you, especially when you can't even bring yourself to watch the torture videos - torture that YOU SUPPORTED THE CONTINUATION OF.

Skygirl

Nov 26th, 2005, 11:55 PM

The laws will become more and more enforced as time goes on. The Iraqis are now on a path of continued improvement. We're still in a transition phase at the moment.

Okay!! Finally, you're admitting that it HAS NOT YET WORKED.

You only had two choices. One was to go to war and end the regime which LEGALLY tortured and raped. The other option was to DO NOTHING. You chose DOING NOTHING as the best policy. That is a shocking indictment on you, especially when you can't even bring yourself to watch the torture videos - torture that YOU SUPPORTED THE CONTINUATION OF.

No I did not have only two choices. Again, everything is not black and white. I did not choose to do nothing, I chose to do something other than sit on my fanny in front of a computer, which is pretty close to doing nothing. You haven't gotten back to me yet on the whole indigenous genocide thing.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:00 AM

BOTH OF YOU! Think a little more open mindedly. The war in Iraq isn't only between America and Iraq, it was for Europe as well.
It's western culture vs. eastern culture.

Just in the past few weeks Muslim fundamentalists bombed parts of Spain, started burning parts of Paris, and are hitting on Holland and Belgium. And all ready, western culture is changing. Germany has already decided to make a Muslim holiday in Germany, as if it will stop the violence. And Spain & France are already relenting.

A conversion is happening in Europe, brought on by Muslim fundamentalists.

"Thes days, Europe reminds me of an old woman, who with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neibor's house," said Mathias Dapfner

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:13 AM

Perhaps I'm being somewhat closed minded.

I just don't see what the govenmental powers that be needed to continuously lie. I cannot put my faith in an administration that was willfully deceptive. And it would seem that our presence in the middle east is simply causing increased violence.

And why not have a Muslim holiday? I'm not christian but I don't oppose christian holidays...

BOTH OF YOU! Think a little more open mindedly. The war in Iraq isn't only between America and Iraq, it was for Europe as well.
It's western culture vs. eastern culture.

Just in the past few weeks Muslim fundamentalists bombed parts of Spain, started burning parts of Paris, and are hitting on Holland and Belgium. And all ready, western culture is changing. Germany has already decided to make a Muslim holiday in Germany, as if it will stop the violence. And Spain & France are already relenting.

A conversion is happening in Europe, brought on by Muslim fundamentalists.

"Thes days, Europe reminds me of an old woman, who with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neibor's house," said Mathias Dapfner

kerravon

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:15 AM

Okay!! Finally, you're admitting that it HAS NOT YET WORKED.

It's definitely still in the interim period. There's still a war going on, after all.

No I did not have only two choices. Again, everything is not black and white. I did not choose to do nothing, I chose to do something other than sit on my fanny in front of a computer, which is pretty close to doing nothing. You haven't gotten back to me yet on the whole indigenous genocide thing.
What did you choose to do to end Saddam's legalized rape of Iraq women? All you needed to do to "do something" was support the liberation of Iraq. You weren't required to go there personally, all you needed to do was vote in favour of liberating Iraq. You couldn't bring yourself to do this. Ergo, you supported the indefinite continuation of the Iraqi Holocaust.

I do not support indigenous genocide, but that's not the topic under discussion. We're talking about you supporting heinous torture in Iraq. So heinous you don't dare look at the video of it.

kerravon

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:20 AM

BOTH OF YOU! Think a little more open mindedly. The war in Iraq isn't only between America and Iraq, it was for Europe as well.
It's western culture vs. eastern culture.

Actually, it's between:

1. dogma vs rationalism
2. non-humanist vs humanist
3. subjugator vs anti-subjugator

That is the reason that Iraq itself was split down the middle as to who supported being liberated and who opposed liberation. And that is why the US is also split down the middle. Our true tribal affiliations are not based on our nation-state but on our ideology.

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:20 AM

What did you choose to do to end Saddam's legalized rape of Iraq women? All you needed to do to "do something" was support the liberation of Iraq. You weren't required to go there personally, all you needed to do was vote in favour of liberating Iraq. You couldn't bring yourself to do this. Ergo, you supported the indefinite continuation of the Iraqi Holocaust.

I do not support indigenous genocide, but that's not the topic under discussion. We're talking about you supporting heinous torture in Iraq. So heinous you don't dare look at the video of it.

I agreed that Iraq needed to be rid of Saddam. Please show me where I said he should have stayed in power.

You support indigenous genocide by denying its existance lazy godboy. Reread your posts. This ties in with your subjugation gobbledygook you spewed forth earlier.

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:23 AM

Bob have you actually read his previous posts? If you were not reading the Iraqi blogs and sending them money then you supported the rape of women.

kerravon

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:29 AM

I agreed that Iraq needed to be rid of Saddam. Please show me where I said he should have stayed in power.

You opposed his removal. Saying that the war should not have been fought. Ergo, Saddam continues to commit crimes.

kerravon

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:32 AM

Bob have you actually read his previous posts? If you were not reading the Iraqi blogs and sending them money then you supported the rape of women.
Not supporting the rape. Just not doing anything to ensure that the Iraqi women never lost their rights again. The most important issue facing the world at the moment - securing Iraqi human rights.

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:34 AM

You opposed his removal. Saying that the war should not have been fought. Ergo, Saddam continues to commit crimes.

Saying the war should not have been fought on a platform of lies lazy godboy.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:34 AM

And why not have a Muslim holiday? I'm not christian but I don't oppose christian holidays
1. It's not actually really a Muslim holiday, it's like a thanksgiving devoted to Muslims or something.

But basically it is a subtle sign that Europe is giving in to the violence of the Muslims.

But nevertheless, this shows that the war on terror isn't only an American accurance. It is important to remember that allot of the reason for the war are the violent acts of burning and bombings in Europe caused by Muslim fundamentalists.

Think about it, 500,000 victims by Saddam's torture and murder machinery were motivated by self-righteous muslim fundamental beliefs. Like in Israel, Muslims believe Jews are lower than pigs and should be treated as such by being eradicated from the face of the Earth.
This whole war is culture/religious based.

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:38 AM

Not supporting the rape. Just not doing anything to ensure that the Iraqi women never lost their rights again. The most important issue facing the world at the moment - securing Iraqi human rights.

Read your own posts, # 52 & 61.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:38 AM

If you were not reading the Iraqi blogs and sending them money then you supported the rape of women. Actually, I'm sort of debating both of you, I'm not on either side, there are good things about the war and completely obsene things, as you have adressed, and/or are presently adresseing.

kerravon

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:42 AM

Saying the war should not have been fought on a platform of lies lazy godboy.
YOU shouldn't have cared about that. YOU should have cared about the war being right on humanitarian grounds. YOU have the freedom to say whatever you want - Bush doesn't. Bush needs to be careful to not get a hostile alliance formed against him. Bush wants to take out one tinpot dictator at a time, instead of having to fight a multi-front war.

kerravon

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:43 AM

Read your own posts, # 52 & 61.
There's nothing in those posts that contradicts what I said here.

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:47 AM

Ah, I see, so it's not one of their holy days but sort of a gratuitous holiday? Hmh.

I get leary of the labelling of who or what defines a terrorist. Some are obvious, but where does one draw the line and who decides what it is? I know that here the American Indian Movement is considered a terrorist organization. By our own description we are first and foremost a spiritual movement. But are we? Is securing our rights considered a terrorist act?

1. It's not actually really a Muslim holiday, it's like a thanksgiving devoted to Muslims or something.

But basically it is a subtle sign that Europe is giving in to the violence of the Muslims.

But nevertheless, this shows that the war on terror isn't only an American accurance. It is important to remember that allot of the reason for the war are the violent acts of burning and bombings in Europe caused by Muslim fundamentalists.

Think about it, 500,000 victims by Saddam's torture and murder machinery were motivated by self-righteous muslim fundamental beliefs. Like in Israel, Muslims believe Jews are lower than pigs and should be treated as such by being eradicated from the face of the Earth.
This whole war is culture/religious based.

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:49 AM

YOU shouldn't have cared about that. YOU should have cared about the war being right on humanitarian grounds. YOU have the freedom to say whatever you want - Bush doesn't. Bush needs to be careful to not get a hostile alliance formed against him. Bush wants to take out one tinpot dictator at a time, instead of having to fight a multi-front war.

It's been nice lazy thought police godboy, you are now going on ignore.

Bush HAS a hostile alliance formed against him...do you keep up with the news?

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:55 AM

Actually, I'm sort of debating both of you, I'm not on either side, there are good things about the war and completely obsene things, as you have adressed, and/or are presently adresseing.

I don't mind debating you, you don't have blinders on (are you god too? I only allow myself to debate one deity a day). I don't know that there are necessarily 'good' things about the war but I do feel that war is a necessary evil.

kerravon

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:57 AM

Bush HAS a hostile alliance formed against him...do you keep up with the news?
There is no military alliance formed against the US. On the contrary, the US has managed to create an enormous alliance (NATO, 26 countries) WITH IT, with even more countries lined up to join.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 27th, 2005, 12:58 AM

Is securing our rights considered a terrorist act?
I actually started a whole thread on this tittled: Is It Terrorism? Or Freedom of speech? About how would you draw the line in this situation, supposing you said something in the guidlines of the right of freedom of speech, and it was translated into terrorism. And actually, you need a license to protest these days, so if the government ever got really bad, we wouldn't be able to throw chicken feathers on the tax collectors anymore, or express it freely, without a stupid piece of parchment.

But I think maybe burning down a city, and killing people is deffinately terrorism.

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 1:06 AM

I actually started a whole thread on this tittled: Is It Terrorism? Or Freedom of speech? About how would you draw the line in this situation, supposing you said something in the guidlines of the right of freedom of speech, and it was translated into terrorism. And actually, you need a license to protest these days, so if the government ever got really bad, we wouldn't be able to throw chicken feathers on the tax collectors anymore, or express it freely, without a stupid piece of parchment.

But I think maybe burning down a city, and killing people is deffinately terrorism.

I think I'll go for a walk over to that thread :) In some places (like CT) you also need insurance to protest.

Skygirl

Nov 27th, 2005, 9:39 AM

LONDON - Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein and could become even worse, the country's former interim prime minister said in an interview published Sunday.

"People are doing the same as Saddam's time and worse," Ayad Allawi told The Observer newspaper. "It is an appropriate comparison."

Allawi accused fellow Shiites in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centers and said the brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police.

Although Allawi is a Shiite, he is secular in his politics and is running separately from the Shiite religious parties in the Dec. 15 election. His comments appear to be an attempt to appeal to Sunni voters, who claim their community has been unfairly targeted by the Shiite-led security forces.

"People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same thing," the newspaper quoted him as saying.

Iraqi officials have played down reports of rights abuses, insisting they are lies created by their enemies.

nrj

Nov 27th, 2005, 10:46 AM

We have more right to stop Saddam from raping Iraqi women than he has of raping them. If you really think the U.S. started the war for that reason, I'm not even sure if you're worth the effort of replying to. If the U.S. did invade Iraq for that reason, why didn't they invade Central Africa? Estonia? Almost the entire region of West Africa? Well, no oil, that's the reason.
The problem is that you are considering Iraq as a whole, and assuming that Saddam was their legitimate representative and the people were behind him. Basically you thought that the Iraqis spoke with one voice. I didn't. I saw 27 million Iraqis and I knew that some percentage of them wanted to be liberated. Oh please, don't do that. Don't pretend you know anything about me. I happen to have friends who's fled from the terror in Iraq, so I know damn well that Saddam wasn't loved by the people of Iraq.

They were raped by the Soviets, not the US. BTW, I am from Australia.Yet another example of your ignorance!

Do you really think all the american soldiers didn't "fell for temptation"? Do you also think that all the soviet soldiers were evil?

Virgo

Nov 28th, 2005, 7:18 AM

God was doing everything in his power to help end the atrocities in Iraq. And the US military were his weapon.

If you've read the Bible (well, maybe you have but misinterpretated it) you would know that God made a promise to Noa that he would never interfere with the world in that way again. Neither in "positive" or "negative" ways. God does not use any nation as his "sword of retribution" neither does he want people of different religions to get killed.

It's great fools like you that make people hate christians/christianity and depart even further from the light and goodness that we in reality stand for. It's always the fanatics in a religion that get remembered somehow. Be wise and understand what I've just told you. God is not rape, god is not obuse, god is most definitly not MUDER! Not in any single way. Bush is not God, neither is he Jesus returned. Some events actually point more to that he in fact is anti-christ whom is just now building up his empire.

As a final quote: "In war, god does not take sides."

Peace out

kerravon

Nov 28th, 2005, 7:14 PM

If you really think the U.S. started the war for that reason, I'm not even sure if you're worth the effort of replying to.

Forget the US - ***YOU*** should have started the war for that reason. You should have been applauding it.

If the U.S. did invade Iraq for that reason, why didn't they invade Central Africa? Estonia?

I hope Central Africa IS invaded for that reason. Countries should be toppled in the most strategic manner possible.

You must be confused putting Estonia on the list though.

Almost the entire region of West Africa? Well, no oil, that's the reason.

No, the reason is there is more strategic targets than West Africa. West Africa doesn't harbour enemy countries. The Middle East does. You get best bang for buck by toppling enemy countries.

Do you really think all the american soldiers didn't "fell for temptation"?

I think there was very little rape done by American soldiers.

Do you also think that all the soviet soldiers were evil?
Yes, the commies and the Nazis were both evil empires.

Philosopher Foelhe

Nov 28th, 2005, 8:11 PM

Forget the US - ***YOU*** should have started the war for that reason. You should have been applauding it.

I'll applaud as soon as I see how long the Iraqi Government the US puts in place lasts. We've gone into a very dangerous area and demanded they follow their rules - we can't leave troops there forever. Sooner or later, we're gonna have to trust that a bunch of angry people will follow our orders because we came in guns blazing. The Middle East doesn't have the greatest history for long-ruling governments.

And if you think women's rights are the only important thing here, I'd think you'd be concerned about the chaos if and when the new government falls.

I hope Central Africa IS invaded for that reason. Countries should be toppled in the most strategic manner possible.

I guess we'll have to see. But has anybody heard any noise to that effect from any government? We have a great reason to go in, why the hell hasn't anyone put this on the table?

I think there was very little rape done by American soldiers.

I think that is astoundingly naive of you. I certainly hope you've heard of the My Lai Massacre. And that was far from an isolated incident. If American troops were so violent during the Vietnamese War, what makes you think they were a bunch of saints during WWII?

nrj

Nov 29th, 2005, 7:11 AM

Forget the US - ***YOU*** should have started the war for that reason. You should have been applauding it. I would never kill people for any reason at all. And btw, the U.S. bombing of Iraq have resulted into civilian casualties on the Iraqi side, wich means they're killing the people they're trying to liberate.

I hope Central Africa IS invaded for that reason. Countries should be toppled in the most strategic manner possible. Well, it ain't. Guess why? No oil, no money.

You must be confused putting Estonia on the list though.Nope, I just happens to know more about Estonia than you, it seams.

No, the reason is there is more strategic targets than West Africa. West Africa doesn't harbour enemy countries. The Middle East does. You get best bang for buck by toppling enemy countries. So, as long as you don't live in a strategic position, you can't count on any help at all from god?

I think there was very little rape done by American soldiers.There was almost equal rape from both sides.

Yes, the commies and the Nazis were both evil empires. So, every russian or german with the age above 60 is just as evil as the devil?

Virgo

Nov 29th, 2005, 12:53 PM

No, the reason is there is more strategic targets than West Africa. West Africa doesn't harbour enemy countries. The Middle East does. You get best bang for buck by toppling enemy countries.

What enemy countries? There's not a single contry in "the middle-east" that could possibly perform an offencive attack on the US. And most of them wouldn't even want
to! Attacking the U.S. is like comitting suicide, even if it's covered up as a "unspecified 'terrorist' attack" the CIA most likely will find out whom financed/ordered the action.
They did with 9/11, but then, Bush ignored the facts! And he strode on bombing Iraq, as "god has told him".

Up yours pal! :P

Beatnik Bob

Nov 29th, 2005, 3:06 PM

"In war, god does not take sides"
Actually, just for the record, he does.......or did at leaste.

Think walls of Jeriko, and our (Hebrew's) slavery in Egypt.

kerravon

Nov 29th, 2005, 5:42 PM

I'll applaud as soon as I see how long the Iraqi Government the US puts in place lasts. We've gone into a very dangerous area and demanded they follow their rules - we can't leave troops there forever. Sooner or later, we're gonna have to trust that a bunch of angry people will follow our orders because we came in guns blazing. The Middle East doesn't have the greatest history for long-ruling governments.

You can leave troops there forever, just like Japan and Germany.

And if you think women's rights are the only important thing here, I'd think you'd be concerned about the chaos if and when the new government falls.

I expect the US to put down any coup, and for governments to regularly fall due to democratic elections.

I guess we'll have to see. But has anybody heard any noise to that effect from any government? We have a great reason to go in, why the hell hasn't anyone put this on the table?

Because there are enemy countries still waiting to be toppled, such as Iran. It makes more sense to topple the enemy governments first.

I think that is astoundingly naive of you. I certainly hope you've heard of the My Lai Massacre. And that was far from an isolated incident. If American troops were so violent during the Vietnamese War, what makes you think they were a bunch of saints during WWII?
Because the average American is not a rapist, even if the opportunity arises.

kerravon

Nov 29th, 2005, 5:48 PM

I would never kill people for any reason at all. And btw, the U.S. bombing of Iraq have resulted into civilian casualties on the Iraqi side, wich means they're killing the people they're trying to liberate.

You wouldn't kill a rapist to protect a woman from being raped?

Well, it ain't. Guess why? No oil, no money.

There was no oil in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo either. When you go to war as often as the US does, you're bound to hit one with oil sooner or later.

Nope, I just happens to know more about Estonia than you, it seams.

Tell that to www.freedomhouse.org which denotes Estonia as "free". Women are not being raped by their own government, or whatever you imagine is happening to them. They are part of the free world now.

So, as long as you don't live in a strategic position, you can't count on any help at all from god?

You can count on it coming IN DUE COURSE. Priority should be given to enemy countries, which we can topple and grow stronger because we have a new democratic ally.

There was almost equal rape from both sides.

I don't believe it.

So, every russian or german with the age above 60 is just as evil as the devil?
Anyone who supported the Communists or Nazis was evil.

kerravon

Nov 29th, 2005, 5:56 PM

What enemy countries? There's not a single contry in "the middle-east" that could possibly perform an offencive attack on the US. And most of them wouldn't even want to! Attacking the U.S. is like comitting suicide, even if it's covered up as a "unspecified 'terrorist' attack" the CIA most likely will find out whom financed/ordered the action.
They did with 9/11, but then, Bush ignored the facts! And he strode on bombing Iraq, as "god has told him".

Up yours pal! :P
The remaining enemy countries are Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria. They all have hostile governments that would like to harm the US. Don't rely on them behaving rationally. Also, the US doesn't have any real way of responding to a nuclear attack from say Iran. What's the point of nuking Tehran when the people living there hate their government and want it gone and didn't support nuking the US in the first place? So, what are you going to do if you are hit by a nuke, smuggled in on a cargo ship, and you determine that there is a 90% chance that the nuke was from Iran? The nuclear bluff was called on 9/11. Afghanistan was not nuked (for good reason). If you don't want to be in this position, you should take preemptive action.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 29th, 2005, 7:08 PM

Yeah, listen to the desensitized, incompassionate, Matrix maniac!

Skygirl

Nov 29th, 2005, 8:05 PM

kerravon

Nov 29th, 2005, 8:15 PM

:bye: Hi lazy godboy!!! Now help me understand this. The tsunami never happened, correct? So no one really died, no one really got hurt. Following that course of thought, nothing bad really happened in Iraq right? The women who were raped are really just siliconnie type thingies right?
I certainly hope that my theory is correct and no harm befell the Iraqi women. However, since it is only a theory, you should act as if it were really happening.

Beatnik Bob

Nov 29th, 2005, 8:23 PM

I certainly hope that my theory is correct and no harm befell the Iraqi women. However, since it is only a theory, you should act as if it were really happening.
That is a complete self contradiction of yourself.

And if it is YOUR theory, then why do YOU care if people die in a simulation?

kerravon

Nov 29th, 2005, 8:29 PM

That is a complete self contradiction of yourself.

And if it is YOUR theory, then why do YOU care if people die in a simulation?
For the same reason that I had empathy for the robot in the movie "AI - Artificial Intelligence".

Beatnik Bob

Nov 29th, 2005, 9:02 PM

For the same reason that I had empathy for the robot in the movie "AI - Artificial Intelligence".
Then why don't you stop it once and for all?

Also, you are MY simulation godboy! I made YOU!

kerravon

Nov 29th, 2005, 9:15 PM

Then why don't you stop it once and for all?

It is being stopped. That is what GWB is doing. We're nearly at the end of history, with all countries sharing the same democratic aspirations. And we will be able to stand down our expensive militaries.

dbcooper4

Nov 30th, 2005, 2:55 AM

"Stand down our expensive militaries"...I don't think so.It's one of the things we've always done.Pro-create,consume,create waste and kill each other.We've become so good at it we can drop the equivalant of a caveman's club right down your chimney from a thousand miles away. Then it blows up.
As far as justifying the cause for war I don't know.I've been saying since before the war I don't really understand how the war on terror ended up in Iraq.(I said it back then as dorkboy67,on this website.) I understand the intelligence(Or lack of) debate,and after 9/11 I can understand why a lot of Americans,well I don't know if I really understand or not.Sometimes it seems like blind faith. Just believe it. That generally ends up involving way too much emotion.I was all for destroying any terrorist threat againest the U.S. or it's allies,but Saddam seemed like more of a joke to most.I know the murders and rapes were horrible,but all we were really hearing for a while(years) were the occasional tussle w/ inspectors or Saddam being the butt of jokes on late-night talk shows. We were sort of de-sensitized.Then all of a sudden Saddam was a mastermind evil genius who had to be stopped at all costs including loss of human life.While it was said all other means would be exhausted,we know they weren't.And to be honest,I feel the Bush administration would have no problem manipulating the intelligence to favor their cause,which I believe was to go to war.Bush didn't feel right,but Kerry was an idiot.Do we get what's coming because we couldn't stand up and ask for something better? The worse thing we can do is pull out and have what we started turn to chaos. I don't want my gov. portraying me as a chump. Like most Americans are more than willing to do,let's get this straightened out & finished correctly. It's sad to see daily death when it didn't really have to be this way.
Yes there's more...If we leave now,I feel it will fall into chaos. It's happened so many times before. Everybody needs a bad guy. Look what happened in Europe. The Soviet Union disappeared and there's countries splitting up and civil wars everywhere. They probably always hated each other,but had the Soviets to worry about. United againest one. Took awhile to straighten that area out. Just like Iraq.How long have Kurds,Shi'ites and Sunnis been fighting one another?It was sort of like that here following 9/11. Although it was a time of national mourning,looking at it through hindsight,it was a good time.All of America was getting along,uniting.Congress singing on the steps was corny,but it fit.Race,creed,religion,income level,they didn't seem to matter.We were determined to take out any threat. That's the second saddest thing about the war in Iraq, besides the death. The fact that everyone in D.C. started playing politics again when it came to Iraq and quelled any true unity we had obtained.Another thread somewhere in here asks why Americans are killing each other. I don't think we were (as much) in the aftermath of 9/11. We leave it to our elected officials to do what's right,we're too busy in our 40 hour a week,industrial/techno fabricated world that was created for us and profit. I feel that we're heading to the status of bad guy in Iraq if we don't straighten this mess up. They may unite againest us. Blah,blah,blah,blahblahblah.Thanks.

kerravon

Nov 30th, 2005, 5:38 AM

I don't really understand how the war on terror ended up in Iraq.

We need to understand Arab Muslims, to find out why all Arab countries are dictators, no democracies. We need to end the hatred of America. Iraq was the best choice because it supposedly had the smartest and least radicalized population, and because it had a hostile government. We can no longer afford to have state resources in the hands of unaccountable dictators. Another factor was the fact that Iraq was bleeding resources for no benefit, in the maintenance of the no-fly zones. Another factor was that there was already UN authorization for the war (which only ended as a ceasefire). Another factor was that Saddam was sponsoring terrorism in Israel. So many things that made Iraq a very lucrative target.

nrj

Nov 30th, 2005, 8:33 AM

You wouldn't kill a rapist to protect a woman from being raped? No. My philosophy is "two wrongs doesn't make a right".

There was no oil in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo either. When you go to war as often as the US does, you're bound to hit one with oil sooner or later. They gained other things from those wars. Wake up! The US only joins wars when they gain something from it.

Tell that to www.freedomhouse.org which denotes Estonia as "free". Women are not being raped by their own government, or whatever you imagine is happening to them. They are part of the free world now. We have 10,000 estonians here in Sweden the goverment knows of. They are all fleeing. But since you live on the far side of the world, I guess you have no idea of how the social situation in Estonia is. Heck, I can bet my ass you've never been to Estonia.

You can count on it coming IN DUE COURSE. Priority should be given to enemy countries, which we can topple and grow stronger because we have a new democratic ally. This doesn't answer anything. If god loves everyone, and the US is his tool for restoring peace then why let everybody but Iraq wait?

I don't believe it. Well, seeing how ignorant and wacked you are, I didn't expect it.

Anyone who supported the Communists or Nazis was evil. And you think all the soldiers on the german side supported nationalsocialism? And all the soviets supported communism?

I do hope your next answer will not include the sheer of IGNORANCE and BULLSHIT I've seen so far, or I will shake my head and put you on ignore.

Virgo

Nov 30th, 2005, 11:42 AM

There was no oil in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo either. When you go to war as often as the US does, you're bound to hit one with oil sooner or later.

Well, how come that Bush have attacked TWO oil countries, but these earlier countries you mentioned was people whom had no interest in the oil industry. How come G.Bush SR also attacked Iraq? Not for the possibilities to gain some oil out of it i hope?

Wake up, I tell you! The problem is not America, or even americans. It's BUSH that's the problem! He's doing exactly what you're talking the Iraqi government were doing. He's screwing "his" people over. If not literally, so financially...

nrj

Nov 30th, 2005, 12:48 PM

So many things that made Iraq a very lucrative target. Among them: oil and large bundles of money.

kerravon

Nov 30th, 2005, 5:51 PM

No. My philosophy is "two wrongs doesn't make a right".

That's your excuse for ignoring the screams of a woman being raped? Your philosophy sucks. It is NOT wrong to stop a rapist from raping.

They gained other things from those wars. Wake up! The US only joins wars when they gain something from it.

What did the US gain from Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia?

We have 10,000 estonians here in Sweden the goverment knows of. They are all fleeing.

Fleeing WHAT?

But since you live on the far side of the world, I guess you have no idea of how the social situation in Estonia is. Heck, I can bet my ass you've never been to Estonia.

I can bet my ass that the Estonian government isn't raping Estonian women thus requiring a liberation.

This doesn't answer anything. If god loves everyone, and the US is his tool for restoring peace then why let everybody but Iraq wait?

Because the US shouldn't open more warfronts than it can handle.

kerravon

Nov 30th, 2005, 5:56 PM

Well, how come that Bush have attacked TWO oil countries

Iraq is one oil country. What's the second oil country that was allegedly attacked?

, but these earlier countries you mentioned was people whom had no interest in the oil industry. How come G.Bush SR also attacked Iraq? Not for the possibilities to gain some oil out of it i hope?

It was to prevent Saddam from capturing another country.

Wake up, I tell you! The problem is not America, or even americans. It's BUSH that's the problem! He's doing exactly what you're talking the Iraqi government were doing. He's screwing "his" people over. If not literally, so financially...
Bush has liberated 52 million people. The Iraqi government subjugated 27 million people. Big difference.

Skygirl

Nov 30th, 2005, 6:11 PM

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/113005F.shtml
US Occupation Is Worse Than Hussein
By Robert Scheer
Truthdig.com

Tuesday 29 November 2005

So, it is mission impossible that Bush has accomplished: A terminally inept
US occupation of Iraq now threatens to make the despot we overthrew look good by
comparison. But don't take my word for it; hear it from the United States' No. 1
ally in that increasingly nightmarish land.

"Authorities are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse," former
interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the London Observer, of
human-rights abuses by the US-backed Iraqi government. "It is an appropriate
comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise
reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things."

Allawi, one of Hussein's victims, became a trusted CIA asset and later was handpicked by the United States to be the leader of the new Iraq. He now is the leading secular alternative to the Shiite theocrats expected to win the Dec. 15 election.

What Allawi is decrying is the brutal behavior of new security forces
empowered by the US invasion but beholden, according to most reports, to Shiite
religious parties intent on controlling Iraq. To accomplish their mission,
they're using the kind of "ethnic cleansing" terror seen so recently in Rwanda
and the Balkans.

"We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being
interrogated," said Allawi. "A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the
course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Shariah courts based on Islamic
law that are trying people and executing them."

Allawi was not alone in painting a grim picture this week of what our
president trumpets as an emerging democracy.

"Hundreds of accounts of killings and abductions have emerged in recent
weeks, most of them brought forward by Sunni civilians, who claim that their
relatives have been taken away by Iraqi men in uniform without warrant or
explanation," reports the New York Times. "Shiite Muslim militia members have
infiltrated Iraq's police force and are carrying out sectarian killings under the
color of law, according to documents and scores of interviews," reports the Los
Angeles Times.

Through our careless and uncaring attempts at "nation-building," the United
States has put itself in the position of providing a convenient shield for what
is increasingly looking like a takeoff on the Cambodian Killing Fields - down to
the continuing targeting of academics of all ethnicities by self-appointed
executioners. Civil war is no longer a possibility; it is a reality.

Amazingly, in Bush's Iraq, just as in Hussein's, you're either a victim or a
victimizer - often both. The grim ironies of this Darwinist nightmare are
everywhere. For example, while the military is defending the use of white
phosphorus on the battlefield - "shake and bake" in US military slang - by citing
loopholes in chemical weapons restrictions, it can't look good to the world that
one of the human-rights crimes Hussein himself is charged with is - you guessed
it - shelling Kurdish rebels and civilians with chemical weapons in 1991.

When presented with such consensus depictions of Iraq as it is, not as our
cloistered and purposely ignorant president believes it to be, those who still
defend the occupation make two main claims: This is all just the birthing pains
of a democracy, and the civil war will get worse if we leave. I don't agree with
either prediction; the US presence fuels both the Sunni insurgency and Shiite
radicalism. The argument, however, should be moot anyway, because both the Iraqi
and American publics have clearly signaled they want us to get out, starting now.

Yet, as investigative reporter Seymour Hersh reports in the current issue of
the New Yorker, it is unclear what it's going to take to convince our
increasingly isolated commander in chief to change course. Bush, according to a
highly placed unnamed source Hersh cites, thinks his razor-thin win in 2004 is
"another manifestation of divine purpose," and that history will judge him well.

"The president is more determined than ever to stay the course," a former
defense official told Hersh. "He doesn't feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the
adage, 'People may suffer and die, but the Church advances.'."

Maybe that is not the thinking that motivates Bush, but can anyone come up
with a more rational explanation for his determination to stay the course that
leads into the abyss? It is time we called a halt to our mindless messing in
other people's lives. As we wind down the third year of an occupation that has
killed and maimed tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis and cost US taxpayers
upwards of $300 billion, isn't it time to give the Iraqis the chance to see if
they can do better - on their own?

kerravon

Nov 30th, 2005, 6:19 PM

[B]"Authorities are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse," former
interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the London Observer

Allawi is in election mode. He is saying such rot in an attempt to appeal to the Arab Sunni vote.

Skygirl

Nov 30th, 2005, 6:28 PM

Allawi is in election mode. He is saying such rot in an attempt to appeal to the Arab Sunni vote.

Mhm...yep you should know godboy, wise and all knowing as you are.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 30th, 2005, 11:07 PM

For the same reason that I had empathy for the robot in the movie "AI - Artificial Intelligence". Of course you had empathy, we always have empathy for those who are just like us and in the case of the computer simulation, fake intelligence bolstered by movie scripts.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 30th, 2005, 11:10 PM

dbcooper4

Dec 1st, 2005, 12:35 AM

point Taken...

Virgo

Dec 1st, 2005, 4:57 PM

Iraq is one oil country. What's the second oil country that was allegedly attacked?

Eh...Afghanistan maybe? Maybe you remember something about his father financing a certain group in that country? Ooh..what was it called now again...hmmm yeah, right: AL QUAIDA!!!

It was to prevent Saddam from capturing another country.

Well, now THAT i can understand. But how come he didn't kick down Saddam from the throne that time? Tell me that and I'll send you a cookie by mail ^^

Bush has liberated 52 million people. The Iraqi government subjugated 27 million people. Big difference.

Bush has, litterally, screwed the American economy over BIG TIME. The states finances are as low as ever, but still Bush keeps pumping more and more and MORE money into a war that already has costed several BILLIONS. Watch a few Michael Moore films and you'll see what I'm talking about. Start with "The Big One", sprinkle some "Fahrenheit 9/11" on the top and then finish it by pouring some hot, nice "Bowling for Columbine" all over it... Yummy! ^^

kerravon

Dec 1st, 2005, 7:35 PM

Eh...Afghanistan maybe? Maybe you remember something about his father financing a certain group in that country? Ooh..what was it called now again...hmmm yeah, right: AL QUAIDA!!!

Afghanistan doesn't have oil. Also, the US didn't fund Al Qaeda. The US funded native Afghans. It was the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda.

Well, now THAT i can understand. But how come he didn't kick down Saddam from the throne that time? Tell me that and I'll send you a cookie by mail ^^

Two reasons. One is that the Soviet Union was in the process of collapsing and we wanted to make sure it fully collapsed without them being spooked by toppling their client state. The second reason was that Saddam had been told that he would be toppled if he used WMD against our troops. He didn't, so he was allowed to stay on as dictator of Iraq.

Bush has, litterally, screwed the American economy over BIG TIME. The states finances are as low as ever, but still Bush keeps pumping more and more and MORE money into a war that already has costed several BILLIONS. Watch a few Michael Moore films and you'll see what I'm talking about. Start with "The Big One", sprinkle some "Fahrenheit 9/11" on the top and then finish it by pouring some hot, nice "Bowling for Columbine" all over it... Yummy! ^^
We should all be grateful for the US doing the heavy-lifting in the world today.

Virgo

Dec 2nd, 2005, 12:29 AM

Afghanistan doesn't have oil. Also, the US didn't fund Al Qaeda. The US funded native Afghans. It was the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda.

Oh no, in fact, they do. And they have PLENTY of it. How come otherwise that the company Bush was CEO for wanted to build a pipeline there in 1997? And had AL-QUAIDA members as his guests(!).

Two reasons. One is that the Soviet Union was in the process of collapsing and we wanted to make sure it fully collapsed without them being spooked by toppling their client state. The second reason was that Saddam had been told that he would be toppled if he used WMD against our troops. He didn't, so he was allowed to stay on as dictator of Iraq.

Sorry for an extremely short reply to that one: "Really...ô.o"

We should all be grateful for the US doing the heavy-lifting in the world today.

So you're saying that we should be happy about Bush f**king up his own country, and dragging others along with him? The attack on Afghanistan was validated, I'm sure of that, but how come they never captured Osama Bin Laden? Oil interests (Al Quaida fundings again!) perhaps...

kerravon

Dec 2nd, 2005, 12:37 AM

Oh no, in fact, they do. And they have PLENTY of it. How come otherwise that the company Bush was CEO for wanted to build a pipeline there in 1997? And had AL-QUAIDA members as his guests(!).

There's no oil in Afghanistan. The proposed pipeline was going to be to carry oil from Turkmenistan (which does have oil) to Pakistan and India.

So you're saying that we should be happy about Bush f**king up his own country, and dragging others along with him? The attack on Afghanistan was validated, I'm sure of that, but how come they never captured Osama Bin Laden? Oil interests (Al Quaida fundings again!) perhaps...
The US is in no way f**ked. It has a kick-arse economy which can easily stomach these wars. They didn't catch OBL because he fled to the tribal regions of Pakistan which have never been conquered. Conquering those regions is a separate task which is being worked on already. It is best to get Pakistan to use its own forces to conquer that territory.

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 2nd, 2005, 2:08 AM

The US is in no way f**ked. It has a kick-arse economy which can easily stomach these wars. Not that I didn't know delusional when I saw it, but this is just plain arrogance for someone who essentially "stopped in for a bite" to even guess that they have experienced so much about this country that they can post with authority.

kerravon

Dec 2nd, 2005, 10:33 PM

Not that I didn't know delusional when I saw it, but this is just plain arrogance for someone who essentially "stopped in for a bite" to even guess that they have experienced so much about this country that they can post with authority.
Welcome to the concept of MATHS. You don't need to live in a country to be able to do maths. Nor do you get any great insight into a whole country just by living there. The only conclusion you can come to is that there is a wide variety of opinions in America, the same as Australia or Iraq. No country speaks with one voice.

Virgo

Dec 3rd, 2005, 2:38 AM

The US is in no way f**ked. It has a kick-arse economy which can easily stomach these wars.

Wait, are you saying that because you live in australia, you have a better view of the situation in America then the people who actually live there?
As I said: Watch... MIchael.... Moore... FILMS! G'damnit...

kerravon

Dec 3rd, 2005, 11:11 AM

Wait, are you saying that because you live in australia, you have a better view of the situation in America then the people who actually live there?
As I said: Watch... MIchael.... Moore... FILMS! G'damnit...
Not better, just equal. You don't become some great guru just because you live in the country. Even if you're living in the country, the reality is you get your information from sources such as textbooks, newspapers and TV, which are equally accessible from Australia. E.g. I watch both BBC and Fox News here. And there's far more analysis on Fox News than there is in a Michael Moore film.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 3rd, 2005, 2:14 PM

Keravvon, let's pretend your belief that everyones a computer simulation is TRUE.

You believe that we have implanted memories, then how come I don't have any memories of the Roman Empire, except from movies and illustrations people made about 2000 years later?

You believe that George W. Bush is helping the world, but acording to you, all he is, is a small pixle charachter on a screen, all he's doing is affecting an imaginary world.
ALSO, are you saying that GWB is our savior? Awww, he died on a cross.....how sweet. Is that it lazy godboy, the same "god" boy that doesn't even know why people spell God G-d.

(That fraze sutes him perfectly SkyGirl, thanks :2thumbs: )

Protostar

Dec 3rd, 2005, 2:37 PM

Everyone is so damn sure that their thought process is the right one in regards to the Iraqi war. I don't know why it happened but I can tell you this. I'll bet it all has to do with money. Greedy capitolists are GLOBAL people. Lets think of Iraq shall we.
Why would ANY country want a piece of barren desert? Just what does Iraq really have that anyone would fight over? Ancient Persia, hmm, genie bottles perhaps?
oh, could it be oil? could it be a great strategic place for war mongers? Do they have diamond caves? I'll bet one of those is the answer as to why there is a world presence there in the first place. Correct me if i'm wrong pls...

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 3rd, 2005, 2:57 PM

Not better, just equal. You don't become some great guru just because you live in the country. Even if you're living in the country, the reality is you get your information from sources such as textbooks, newspapers and TV, which are equally accessible from Australia. Yet again, you are completely wrong about Indians. How lovely that you know ALL ABOUT US because you can find out on the internet and TV!

I just can't take you seriously anymore, well not that I did. I can't take seriously someone so arrogant that they know all about a topic from TV and internet. You really can't expect me to put my faith in you when you have no experience except at being a cyber conman.

I'm sorry but if you were a "straight" thinking person I'd have a hard time denying you have some intelligence. Look again, you can't even make up your own mind about "you".

http://www.armageddononline.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5373

Beatnik Bob

Dec 3rd, 2005, 3:21 PM

I'm totaly with you DN!!

No one really understands my Jewish Mishna either. Even when I explain it to most people, they think they are interpretations of the Torah made by rabbis.

So yeah, I'm totaly with you on the fact that you don't have a writen down religion. Because that's what our Mishna is too, an oral Torah pased down by Moses.

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 3rd, 2005, 3:30 PM

Because that's what our Mishna is too, an oral Torah pased down by Moses. See? People won't believe a thing we say because our past history is oral and I wasn't even talking/posting about oral tradition. I was pointing out that here is my sister and I, and most especially my sister, who have experienced many of the things we have posted about regarding Indian culture (especially women in Indian culture), and there's a white guy in Australia who claims knowing more about Indians than we do.

He claims knowing more about the law regarding Indians than we do.

He claims knowing more about the rape of Indian women than we do, (aka because we have "laws", rape of Indian women doesn't exist).

He claims to know more about discriminatory practices against American Indian people and especially women.

Oh yeah, and seems to get wood telling people how they should think and what they should be doing, and is quick to bitch if you aren't.

Beatnik Bob

Dec 3rd, 2005, 3:38 PM

See? Oral tradition isn't only traditions, they're laws, they're biblical stories that can't be found in the Torah, they're passing down Hebrew, and festivals as well as a way of life.

Virgo

Dec 3rd, 2005, 3:53 PM

Not better, just equal. You don't become some great guru just because you live in the country. Even if you're living in the country, the reality is you get your information from sources such as textbooks, newspapers and TV, which are equally accessible from Australia. E.g. I watch both BBC and Fox News here. And there's far more analysis on Fox News than there is in a Michael Moore film.

That would have been quite a fine argument, if it hadn't been for the fact that FOX is owned and run by republicans. And we're not talking the "nice" kind of republicans. We're talking the hard-bitten cynical "would go anywhere" type of republican that would rather lie then tell the truth if that would grant the most gain.

You keep telling us to stop being so naive... Start with the man in the mirror I'd say...

(OT: In Naruto (an anime) the "evil" is a fox. Give that some thought...)

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 3rd, 2005, 5:53 PM

That would have been quite a fine argument, if it hadn't been for the fact that FOX is owned and run by republicans.

Damn! Beat me to it!

Seriously, though, Fox is downright laughable. My dad watches it, and I annoy him from time to time by pointing out the logical fallacies of the news anchors while they discuss the major issues. And this is coming from me, someone who outright SUCKS at real-time debate. When I can poke holes in your argument while you're talking, you're in trouble.

kerravon

Dec 3rd, 2005, 6:02 PM

Keravvon, let's pretend your belief that everyones a computer simulation is TRUE.

You believe that we have implanted memories, then how come I don't have any memories of the Roman Empire, except from movies and illustrations people made about 2000 years later?

Because the implanted memories are only for your life. You're not being emulated as a 2000-year-old person!

You believe that George W. Bush is helping the world, but acording to you, all he is, is a small pixle charachter on a screen, all he's doing is affecting an imaginary world.

No, he is affect the "real" world. It is all real to us because we are part of the simulation.

kerravon

Dec 3rd, 2005, 6:04 PM

He claims knowing more about the rape of Indian women than we do, (aka because we have "laws", rape of Indian women doesn't exist).

You've resorted to lying. I said no such thing. I said that Indian women have their rights legally protected, and they can report rape to the authorities, which is the best technology we have. That technology has now been exported to Iraq.

Virgo

Dec 4th, 2005, 1:05 PM

You've resorted to lying. I said no such thing. I said that Indian women have their rights legally protected, and they can report rape to the authorities, which is the best technology we have. That technology has now been exported to Iraq.

Even classifying a social norm as a "technology" pops a small but clearly distiguishable hole in the baloon that is this discussion. Wheter I'm pathetic or not, you should express your opinion in 'proper' terms. Otherwise it ain't many who'll understand what you're talking about.

Back to the main subject though, I think it's all clear by now that this discussion ain't gonna lead anywhere. Since neither of the "sides" (you against us) are gonna give. Right out of sheer stubborness. The discussion is stuck. And I think it's about time to realise it since we're not going anywhere.

Kick back, put up our feet and let this thread die.
Let "the other side" be "wrong" if that is what they want.
Live and let live...

kerravon

Dec 4th, 2005, 5:45 PM

Back to the main subject though, I think it's all clear by now that this discussion ain't gonna lead anywhere. Since neither of the "sides" (you against us) are gonna give.

It is sad to see the rest of you all speaking with one voice.

Right out of sheer stubborness. The discussion is stuck. And I think it's about time to realise it since we're not going anywhere.

Since you're from Sweden, you might like to read this:
http://home.exetel.com.au/kerravon/trips/stockhlm/stockhlm.txt

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 4th, 2005, 6:35 PM

You've resorted to lying. I said no such thing. I said that Indian women have their rights legally protected, and they can report rape to the authorities, which is the best technology we have. Uh, sorry to bust up your personal love fest but I did no such thing. Again, you think you know everything when you have no clue of the discrimination Indian women face. To make this fact as simple as possible to you....Indian women rights ARE NOT protected regardless of the law. Since you spend so much time on the internet why don't you research the topic yourself rather than posting lies that you know it.

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 4th, 2005, 11:35 PM

It is sad to see the rest of you all speaking with one voice.

Yeah, how dare we make our decisions based on the testimony of someone who's been there and knows. Damn us. Damn us all to hell.

Here's some new and shocking information for you - not all cops are white knights on a valient steed. Some cops get drunk with power and use it the way they want to. And if they're racist, and a Native American brings a rape case to their attention, they'll shuffle it to the back-burner. This is basic common sense.

kerravon

Dec 5th, 2005, 3:04 AM

Yeah, how dare we make our decisions based on the testimony of someone who's been there and knows. Damn us. Damn us all to hell.

Here's some new and shocking information for you - not all cops are white knights on a valient steed. Some cops get drunk with power and use it the way they want to. And if they're racist, and a Native American brings a rape case to their attention, they'll shuffle it to the back-burner. This is basic common sense.
No, basic common sense is that in a democracy you can appeal to higher levels, the government and the media. Ergo, the police have to do the right thing or risk losing their job. It is outrageous that the police force in America should be compared with Saddam's police.

Virgo

Dec 5th, 2005, 5:26 AM

Since you're from Sweden, you might like to read this:
http://home.exetel.com.au/kerravon/trips/stockhlm/stockhlm.txt

Is this your writing? You've been to Sweden?
Well, that's quite cool.
If it is you, I find your confusion quite amusing (no offence)...
And yes, "Kungsträdgården" is very very nice.
*starts babbling along about the "Swedish sights"
Ehm..sorry. Off topic...

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 5th, 2005, 5:50 AM

No, basic common sense is that in a democracy you can appeal to higher levels, the government and the media.

Here are some words a fledgling diety such as yourself should be familiar with: Bureacracy. Red Tape. Bias. Human Frailty. Entropy. These aren't words I'm particularly fond of, but they are important fixtures in any political landscape, and if you ignore them you do so at your peril.

It is outrageous that the police force in America should be compared with Saddam's police.

Fine. Stop comparing them.

Seriously, nobody here thinks the American police are as bad as Saddam's forces. I really don't care how bad an organization is on a scale of one to ten - the minute that organization starts hurting innocents, it needs to be stopped.

Saying we shouldn't keep police on the straight-and-narrow because there are worse police units out there is like saying, "What, you don't want to be killed in a plane crash? Would you rather starve to death over a period of weeks? Seriously, those stewardesses took good care of you until you burned to death inside the firey wreckage. Ungrateful bastard."

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 5th, 2005, 3:06 PM

No, basic common sense is that in a democracy you can appeal to higher levels, the government and the media. Ergo, the police have to do the right thing or risk losing their job. It is outrageous that the police force in America should be compared with Saddam's police.Are you some kind of utopia believer? In a perfect world and in a perfect country you would be correct. However, this isn't a perfect world and the US isn't a perfect country. You have been blinded by the propaganda. Let me point out a few examples.

Leonard Peltier - was convicted of murdering two FBI agents, EVEN THOUGH ballistic tests proved the rounds that killed the agents were NOT from the same weapon Peltier or anyone near him had, EVEN THOUGH it was admitted in court by the prosecution that they DID NOT KNOW who killed the agents, EVEN THOUGH they did NOT have the evidence needed to prosecute, EVEN THOUGH the men who were with Peltier were not convicted, Leonard Peltier has been rotting in a prison cell for almost 30 years. Why?

The judge said someone had to pay for the crimes. Some democracy huh? Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. This would be equal to you witnessing a violent crime being commited by someone else and you get convicted and thrown in prison for it, because someone has to pay. Nevermind that there is insufficient evidence to convict you.

In 1972, documents were removed from the BIA building in D.C. It was discovered that for over 40 years, Indian clinic surgeons under "encouragement" from the federal government, had been sterilizing Indian women numbering in the thousands without their knowledge. They were still doing it in the 90's that I know of for a fact. So let's do the math together. They were still forcibly sterilizing Indian women over 20 years after the program had been discovered!

To this day NOT ONE PERSON has been convicted even though the documentation included the names of the people responsible. NOT ONE! How is it that these women could just march right up and put virtually an entire department of the federal government on trial? THEY CAN'T!! WTF! You can't work your way to the top when it's the top commiting the crime!

There are NUMEROUS cases of Indian women being beaten and raped, the crime had been reported and most cases were DROPPED or the perpetrator was put on probation with NO JAIL TIME! Look it up yourself! Oh yeah, there are a number of those where the perp went back and beat the woman for notifying the authorities, some were murdered.

Pretty hard to work the system when you're dead, don't you think?

Oh yes, and let's also not forget the numerous members of law enforcement and the judicial system that also committed rape and murder against Indians. So, please tell me kerravon, how is it that Indians can utilize this glorious legal system you are so gung ho about, when it appears we have nowhere to turn? Don't forget, we are bound by the states and localities the crimes were commited in which means we can't go to another in order to seek a conviction.

It doesn't take much logic to figure out that "democracy" can be discriminatory. Yeah sure, there are laws. But we can't work them when the ones who are supposed to uphold them don't. :dork:

kerravon

Dec 5th, 2005, 5:41 PM

Is this your writing? You've been to Sweden?

Yes and yes. And the whole thing is meant to be amusing.

kerravon

Dec 5th, 2005, 5:50 PM

Are you some kind of utopia believer? In a perfect world and in a perfect country you would be correct. However, this isn't a perfect world and the US isn't a perfect country.

I believe that the current laws of all first world democracies are Utopia already. There will always be problems with the execution of those laws. But this is the "best technology" we have, and it needs to be exported to the Middle East so that people of the Middle East have the same legal protection that you do. This is just the first phase - getting the laws right. The second phase is making sure those laws are enforced, ie the "rule of law" is spread across the country. This is what is happening in Iraq as we speak. This is why the Iraq war was a good thing.

Philosopher Foelhe

Dec 5th, 2005, 6:27 PM

I believe that the current laws of all first world democracies are Utopia already.

ROFL!

I know I've said this several times already, but it's just so mind-boggling - why do you think you're God? Because you don't feel protected by God. What do you consider being protected by God? Feeling like everything will turn out right in the end. And yet, when it comes to the actions of the US, or various other countries, you act like a babe in it's mother's arms. I just... I can't get over that. The irony is so damn brilliant.

kerravon

Dec 5th, 2005, 6:42 PM

I know I've said this several times already, but it's just so mind-boggling - why do you think you're God? Because you don't feel protected by God.

And also one of the revelations I received was to write my own bible. Which in my opinion is passing the reins to me.

What do you consider being protected by God? Feeling like everything will turn out right in the end. And yet, when it comes to the actions of the US, or various other countries, you act like a babe in it's mother's arms. I just... I can't get over that. The irony is so damn brilliant.
No idea what you're talking about here.

Virgo

Dec 6th, 2005, 2:27 AM

And also one of the revelations I received was to write my own bible. Which in my opinion is passing the reins to me.

You actually wrote your own Bible? Dang...
That's both blasphemous, and stupid. Sorry to say this, but writing your own Bible doesn't make you god. That's the beleif of Satanicals and Devil-Worshippers.
Wheter your religious or not, man should not consider itself a god. That's just plain... "poppycock".

From my (christian) point of view, you comitted the worst of crimes. Making yourself god...May God have mercy on your soul.

nrj

Dec 6th, 2005, 4:49 AM

You see, Virgo, kerravon isn't christian. He belongs to a branch of Islam called Motazilla.

Virgo

Dec 7th, 2005, 3:44 AM

Right... I didn't know that ^^'

But it's a crime to make yourself god in the Koran to. So my "accusation" wasn't totally misjudged...

Is "Motazilla" his own doing? Or did it spring out from somewhere else?

kerravon

Dec 7th, 2005, 4:39 AM

Right... I didn't know that ^^'

But it's a crime to make yourself god in the Koran to. So my "accusation" wasn't totally misjudged...

The Koran is not the word of God either.

Is "Motazilla" his own doing? Or did it spring out from somewhere else?
It's Mu'tazilah. And if you knew where it sprung from, you would know why I am God.

It came out of discussions with the most pro-West Muslim in the Iraqi blogs - Ali Fidhal. He told me that this extinct (for centuries) sect of Islam was what he respected. Having been told this, I was willing to convert to Islam, because I loved my enemy, and didn't want to leave them out in the cold. But I only converted after I had figured out my own personal religion - which is what came in message 666 on 9/11 (2004). So I gave this extinct sect a facelift. If you cared about solving the Christian vs Muslim clash, you would have gone down this path yourself. There was nothing more important than to resolve this issue. I was an atheist when I solved it.

Virgo

Dec 7th, 2005, 7:09 AM

The Koran is not the word of God either.

Then you can't say you're a Muslim, since you don't follow the Koran.
Then you're like the "liberal christians" in Sweden whom makes up their own rules because they "think you should interpret the Bible in a 'modern way'."

It's Mu'tazilah. And if you knew where it sprung from, you would know why I am God.

It came out of discussions with the most pro-West Muslim in the Iraqi blogs - Ali Fidhal. He told me that this extinct (for centuries) sect of Islam was what he respected. Having been told this, I was willing to convert to Islam, because I loved my enemy, and didn't want to leave them out in the cold. But I only converted after I had figured out my own personal religion - which is what came in message 666 on 9/11 (2004). So I gave this extinct sect a facelift. If you cared about solving the Christian vs Muslim clash, you would have gone down this path yourself. There was nothing more important than to resolve this issue. I was an atheist when I solved it.

Well, since I've never heard of it before, following "down that path" would have been quite difficult.

And I usually tend to dislike "sects and cults". Mostly out of three reasons:
1) They're often 'hidden' from the public.
2) They demand big amount of money from their members.
3) If they're extinct, it has to be a reason for it.

"Don't dig in a cursed grave, the only thing you'll find is misery..."

kerravon

Dec 7th, 2005, 6:05 PM

Then you can't say you're a Muslim, since you don't follow the Koran.
Then you're like the "liberal christians" in Sweden whom makes up their own rules because they "think you should interpret the Bible in a 'modern way'."

If there's such a thing as "liberal Christians", then there can be such a thing as "liberal Muslims" too. And that is what I am an example of. I believe that the Quran should be interpreted in a modern way, and we can see from such things as 33:50 (which authorizes you to have sex with your slaves) is DEFINITELY NOT the word of God.

You can see more at www.moatazilla.org

Well, since I've never heard of it before, following "down that path" would have been quite difficult.

I hadn't heard of them either. The question is - why didn't YOU ask the most pro-western Iraqi blogger to explain why he was still a Muslim in the face of all these quotes from the Quran? This was crucial to defusing the Muslim vs Christian war that the Muslims think they are engaged in.

And I usually tend to dislike "sects and cults". Mostly out of three reasons:
1) They're often 'hidden' from the public.
2) They demand big amount of money from their members.
3) If they're extinct, it has to be a reason for it.

The reason that they are extinct is because they were beaten by war. Mu'tazilah is not hidden nor does it demand money either.

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 15th, 2005, 1:24 AM

The reason that they are extinct is because they were beaten by war. Mu'tazilah is not hidden nor does it demand money either. It may not demand those things but it's "leader" is surely demanding other things and has done so repeatedly on this board.

Virgo

Dec 15th, 2005, 1:28 PM

If there's such a thing as "liberal Christians", then there can be such a thing as "liberal Muslims" too. And that is what I am an example of. I believe that the Quran should be interpreted in a modern way, and we can see from such things as 33:50 (which authorizes you to have sex with your slaves) is DEFINITELY NOT the word of God.

Maybe you didn't get it: Liberal religion, is the work of jack-asses.
It's a twisted way of reforming gods words to fit your own thoughts. Outrageous if you ask me.

I hadn't heard of them either. The question is - why didn't YOU ask the most pro-western Iraqi blogger to explain why he was still a Muslim in the face of all these quotes from the Quran? This was crucial to defusing the Muslim vs Christian war that the Muslims think they are engaged in.

Simple reason: Up until now, I didn't know the f**k he existed.

The reason that they are extinct is because they were beaten by war. Mu'tazilah is not hidden nor does it demand money either.

And just why were they beaten in war? I'd like to hear that story. (Since it's probably the "reason" I was talking about.)

kerravon

Dec 16th, 2005, 9:31 PM

Simple reason: Up until now, I didn't know the f**k he existed.

But that's my whole point. If you cared about the most important thing in the world - defusing the ridiculous Muslim vs Christian war, you would have been reading the Iraqi blogs and trying to find out where these Muslim nutcases were coming from, and what you needed to do to solve the problem. You weren't there. That's why you weren't there to see message 666 on 9/11 (2004) being written.

And just why were they beaten in war? I'd like to hear that story. (Since it's probably the "reason" I was talking about.)
It's always like that. It is not which religion is best that matters, it is how good you are at war.

Virgo

Dec 17th, 2005, 2:46 AM

But that's my whole point. If you cared about the most important thing in the world - defusing the ridiculous Muslim vs Christian war, you would have been reading the Iraqi blogs and trying to find out where these Muslim nutcases were coming from, and what you needed to do to solve the problem. You weren't there. That's why you weren't there to see message 666 on 9/11 (2004) being written.

It's quite hard to anounce now after my little "out-burst", that I've myself (thanks to a good friend with the most clever argument) become a "liberal christian". Feels a little stupid now after my rage aboyt how liberal religion is the work of jack-asses.

And, how the heck should I have seen that message? I didn't look for it. And neither had I met you with your "excellent perception". Stop accusing people of wrongdoing when they haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You just repeat the same phrases over and over again.

It's always like that. It is not which religion is best that matters, it is how good you are at war.

Well, a religion that goes to war is bad. And that applies to any religion (yes, including catholic crusades)

kerravon

Dec 17th, 2005, 4:33 AM

And, how the heck should I have seen that message? I didn't look for it. And neither had I met you with your "excellent perception". Stop accusing people of wrongdoing when they haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You just repeat the same phrases over and over again.

I have to repeat the same thing. If you want to understand why I consider myself to be God, you need to understand how I have led my life - wanting to liberate others - absolutely delighted when an opportunity arose to free the Iraqis from one of the world's worst regimes.

Well, a religion that goes to war is bad. And that applies to any religion (yes, including catholic crusades)
If you don't go to war (or at least, prepare for war) to spread your ideology, you will be defeated by a stronger power. It's always the way. The secret is - what is America's ideology that has allowed it to build up an unchallengable military lead? The answer is their ideology is one of ANTI-SUBJUGATION. When your ideology is rational, humanist and non-subjugating, people trust you and are willing to forge an alliance with you instead of creating a hostile alliance to check your power. Check out NATO. 26 members, all aligned with the US. No hostile coalition to speak of. America has the WINNING IDEOLOGY. All that was required was to document what exactly the US's ideology was, in a form that could be explained to other cultures. This is what I did. It was insufficient to say "US stands for freedom", because "freedom" is not understood by the other cultures, who equate it with "revolt". Freedom means "NOT SUBJUGATED". This was the crucial discovery.