America’s Foreign Policy Filter

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan good, Iran and Iraq bad. To the country that reportedly houses Osama Bin Laden within its borders, Harpoon and Sidewinder missiles. To the country that raised it’s little boys to become suicide bombers on 9/11, a Presidential invite to the ranch in Texas. Meanwhile, Iranian bombing targets are being identified, and Iraq is a US occupied war-zone.

The logic that goes into such distinctions is what I find curious. There’s an arbitrary, incoherent nature to all of this when looking at it from the position of an average taxpayer such as I. The rhetoric deals in large with terrorism, liberty and freedom, but the policy does not. Following the murder of over two thousands Americans, you’d think that mission number one would be to bring the perpetrators to justice. Ex-CIA agents now enlighten us to how untrue this statement is.

The consensus of many is that Osama is currently hiding within the tribal areas of Pakistan. Their government is run by a military general who gained his position in a coup that overthrew the former regime. There is no real urgency towards bringing the man responsible for 9/11 to justice, as the general could very well lose his power along with his life should he decide to help us locate him. CIA operatives allege that within the Pakistani military there is clearly knowledge of Osama’s whereabouts.

President Pervez Musharraf has neither the power nor perhaps even the desire to assist us in claiming justice for the thousands that were murdered. For every positive thing he’s done for us, it’s come at a heavy price. 3 billion in aid and F-16s have already been delivered. Add it all together and the move Bush makes is to reward Pakistan with missiles and Boeing with the sales profit in exchange for more obstruction and lies. For a corporation barred from being rewarded Pentagon projects due to various acts of corruption and malfeasance, this is quite a score. Both Boeing and the Pakistani government know full well that they’ll get the handouts whether they do the right thing or not.

The same goes for the brutal Saudi government in regards to the treatment of their citizens and immigrants. At a time when the justification for the Iraq war being embraced in right-wing circles is we invaded for the good of the Iraqi people, the hypocrisy of calling the Saudi government our ‘friend’ is surreal. Six Somalis who had recently finished five-year sentences for armed robbery were beheaded at the whim of the Saudi government. None of them committed the act of murder, neither were they aware of the death sentence until it was carried out. The line of propaganda accompanying this action is that the source of the Saudi people’s economic and social problems lies within the actions of immigrants rather than a lack of effective leadership.

Homosexuals are detained, denied legal counsel, tried in secret and then flogged or jailed. Suspected political opponents are eradicated. The game is keeping the population in line through the use of fear, brutality and lies. As this becomes more and more of a difficult thing for the rulers to manage, harsher and more dishonest methods are needed. The beheadings and political propaganda that followed is an example of how this works. The leadership of Saudi Arabia represents the worst humanity has to offer, and their greed above all else leads to the continued suffering of their own people. This society of poverty and totalitarian rule created the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and continues to create terrorists who now fight us in Iraq.

Behind every action taken by our government in the Middle East, there is something that’s not being said. For every fact that is sensationalized, there is another ignored. A balance of ignored truth and magnified lies dictate the immediate future for us over there. Status quo is not going to secure Osama’s capture or convince any of the region’s inhabitants that we have a clue. Our distinction between who we bomb and who we lay down with must grow transparent and bear some logic in the near future if our mission is to end in success.

This entry was posted in Al Swearengen, Military, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to America’s Foreign Policy Filter

  1. karl says:

    Even though the repubs say a lot of harsh things towards Iran they seem to always help out Iran, remember Iran Contra, and the Chalabi fiasco has to have someones blessing. The Republicans needed a war and they thought Iraq would be an easy target I doubt that these moves have much more strategic vision than how to win the next election.

  2. Chris Austin says:

    Even though the repubs say a lot of harsh things towards Iran they seem to always help out Iran, remember Iran Contra, and the Chalabi fiasco has to have someones blessing. The Republicans needed a war and they thought Iraq would be an easy target I doubt that these moves have much more strategic vision than how to win the next election.

    By karl May 16th, 2005 at 7:01 pm e

    I know he’s not exactally mainstream, but Jerome Corsi’s new book on Iran was on BookTV two weekends ago and the stuff he’s saying about the Iranians is downright scary. He’s hedging his bets on this becoming the next military target and his take on it is that Iran is inherently evil. He’s the reason I got to thinking about this in terms of a story. Last week I spent a lot of time researching Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq…and his point of view seems extremely selective. Listen carefully though, and it’s clear that in terms of our State Department, Iran is generally demonized along with Syria, while the Saudis and Pakistanis are given a free pass.

    I don’t want the next war to be with Iran. If we were convinced that it would be as easy a win as Iraq, it could be the biggest mistake we ever made. The Iranians had chemical weapons showered upon them by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. We were playing both sides against one another and selling arms to both during that time.

    A few chemical showers or worse could face our troops if we ever decided to invade…and that’s hell. We toss around the word ‘war’ rather lightly, but once the photos of Sunnis, Kurds and Iranians who had their flesh burnt off by chemical weapons look like photos of our own soldiers, the party is over.

    I fear this more than anything when looking to the future in terms of our military engagements. I fear the reality of dirty war and that our young soldiers might some day have to go through that.

    Iran is not Iraq. The distinctions need to be highlighted in the next year so the people understand. From a military, infrastructure and social standpoint, Iran is the picture of stability compared to what Iraq was prior to Kuwait or the current war.

  3. karl says:

    Most of what I have read indicates that Iranian citizens are drifting pro-western and going to war with Iran would probably help the ayhotollas to maintain power. Right now the high oil prices are helping to keep the status quo in Iran.

    I wonder what public opinion would be if Bush started really loud sabre rattling towards Iran.

    I can never decide if the administrations policy towards Iran is just complet incompetence, or if the Neo-cons really have a soft spot for Iran.

  4. Chris Austin says:

    The administration can get the country spun in a nanosecond when they want to, and with Iran it wouldn’t be that difficult. Even with the military in its current state, I wouldn’t put anything past them.

    A bombing campaign would be an easy sell as some right-wing people I know who blasted Clinton for bombing in Kosovo rather than invading are saying that a bombing campain would have been better in Iraq. I don’t understand the logic.

    In most cases this stuff is heard and repeated, so someone on WRKO (the rightie radio channel in Boston) must be saying it. They’d sell it however they needed to in order to get the first bomb to fall. The rhetoric from Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Rieley and Co. would mirror the ideas of Corsi…

    I hope this isn’t an accurate forecast of the future, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

  5. karl says:

    That is one of the scary things about republicans, if they hear it from Hannity and co they immediately assume it is true and repeat it. Although like social security sometimes people think before they go along with them. If Bush and Co want to go to Iran I am sure the wingnuts will go along with them, but hopefully it would go like social security where majority opinion would be so far against it that they would have to back down. I may have to much faith in the American public, but it really does seem like their is less support for war.

  6. Chris Austin says:

    It would be a much harder sell than Iraq. All they need though is the smoking gun. Hannity is shameless…and his pet monkey Alan Colmes is a hack. I’ve read things about Hannity coaching of guests to respond to questions from Colmes by repeating the same statement over and over. It’s rigged. I think he jumped the shark broadcasting from outside of Mrs. Shiavo’s hospice.

  7. Right Thinker says:

    The Republicans needed a war and they thought Iraq would be an easy target

    With respect to the environment Chris tries to maintain on his site the nicest way I can put this is this statement is as ignorant as they come. I fear you have completely lost your grip on reality or you have created a dream world in which you reaffirm your own beliefs without an critical thought or input from neutral sources. I definitely won’t justify this statement with an explanation of everything that is wrong with it or the thinking behind it.

    That is one of the scary things about republicans, if they hear it from Hannity and co they immediately assume it is true and repeat it.

    Hello….New York Times, Dan Rather, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR and almost every newpaper, magazine and tv outlet in the country. No one beats Dan Rather and Newsweek when it comes to jounalistic fraud.

    What is scary about certain liberals (I won’t follow your pattern of generalization) is they are incapable of resoning or critical thinking.

    but hopefully it would go like social security where majority opinion would be so far against it that they would have to back down

    When asked non-leading questions by surveyers I think 81% are for private accounts. Since SS funds are consistantly parked in the market already I think I should get to choose where my money goes. I know your party ideology has taught you to hate anything not liberal extremist but do you have anything positive to say about anything?

    How about how the Iraq’s are better off now, how about the economic recovery and the low inflation? How about the new jobs, new businesses and the fixing of the crumbling social security system. We’ve found that all the nay sayers from the U.N., France, Russia and others were all hopelessly corrupt and looking out only for themselves?

  8. Chris Austin says:

    karl: The Republicans needed a war and they thought Iraq would be an easy target

    Right: With respect to the environment Chris tries to maintain on his site the nicest way I can put this is this statement is as ignorant as they come. [I fear you have completely lost your grip on reality or you have created a dream world in which you reaffirm your own beliefs without an critical thought or input from neutral sources.]

    I definitely won’t justify this statement with an explanation of everything that is wrong with it or the thinking behind it.

    I sidesteped the ascertion at first (Saying an idea is ignorant is acceptable, but the following line could incite…I bracketed it – generalizations can upset, but are par for the course in political discussion. While hostile in nature, nearly every columnist alive today is guilty of it on a daily basis. Please let me know if either of you disagree w/ what I’m saying here.) – but from the perspective of Bechtel, Boeing, Halliburton and other military industrial corporations and the Bush/Cheney ties – an argument could be made that the administration ‘needed’ to start the war. I don’t feel that it was as dire as that, but as we’re seeing with the religious-right’s carte-blanche in this term, he’s loyal to who got him there.

    This is a theory that requires seeing the entire war as little more than a ploy to feed the military industrial complex. History I’ve read on this dynamic warns me that such things have happened in the past in this world, but like anything of it’s nature – so hard to nail down. The upcoming decade will be one of book after book after book, and the hitorians will start their work. I hope I’m reading a history book on Iraq with a happy ending!

    I won’t deny the connections, or take the naive stance that it never factors into decisionmaking – but that Bush ‘needed’ the war, I’m not there.

    karl: That is one of the scary things about republicans, if they hear it from Hannity and co they immediately assume it is true and repeat it.

    Right: Hello….New York Times, Dan Rather, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR and almost every newpaper, magazine and tv outlet in the country. No one beats Dan Rather and Newsweek when it comes to jounalistic fraud.

    Newsweek gave the GOP the Monica Lewinski scandal. This very writer…I’m pretty sure of it. MediaMatters.org is pretty good at documenting the lies of FoxNews, CNN, Rush, Meet the Press, etc. From what I’ve seen, the press has worked to help the GOP moreso than the Democrats over the past few years. Take this Newsweek story…it was reported numerous times in the past, but all of a sudden it’s pounced on when the approval rating is down.

    Bill O’Rieley takes the cake when it comes to lies. He’s classic for banging the drum on an issue, and whether anything positive happens or not, he’ll be on the air telling his viewers that his enemies were shaking in their boots. Like the Real ID Act…he claimed that his show woke up politicians and the Act was voted on and received a 100-0 vote. I watched CSPAN all week last week and the act was debated heavily, but since it was attached to the emergency war spending bill, there was nothing anyone could do about it. He pounds his chest saying it was because of him, lies about a vote taken on it…no one in the media bats an eye.

    All this past week news outlets have been laundering outright lies told by the GOP that the filibuster of judicial nominations hasn’t factored into the process since Democrats started doing it these past four years. That’s as dishonest as it gets…flat out lie. FoxNews, CNN, Meet the Press, Wall Street Journal and Rush Limbaugh…all broadcasts I heard that lie told on.

    What’s more important though? Maintaining the requirement of a concensus on judges being rewarded lifetime positions or this Newsweek article? I happen to think that the filibuster battle and the fact that so many lies had been told on the subject the past week may have facilitated the White House effort on vilifying Newsweek. It was an organized effort to get this thing number 1 in the news cycle.

    It’s not a coincidence. This week’s filibuster battle is HUGE in terms of the country’s history…and the fact that Bush hasn’t nominated enough judges to fill the open seats tells me that he’s hoping the rule change happens, and then we’ll see the flood of controversial nominations they didn’t even want the committee to review.

    I’m disgusted with the media as a whole. As should you Right. We deserve honesty, but what we get doesn’t come even close.

    Right: What is scary about certain liberals (I won’t follow your pattern of generalization) is they are incapable of resoning or critical thinking.

    The same could be said for certain conservatives or certain taxi drivers or certain farmers, etc.

    karl: but hopefully it would go like social security where majority opinion would be so far against it that they would have to back down

    Right: When asked non-leading questions by surveyers I think 81% are for private accounts. Since SS funds are consistantly parked in the market already I think I should get to choose where my money goes. I know your party ideology has taught you to hate anything not liberal extremist but do you have anything positive to say about anything?

    How about how the Iraq’s are better off now, how about the economic recovery and the low inflation? How about the new jobs, new businesses and the fixing of the crumbling social security system. We’ve found that all the nay sayers from the U.N., France, Russia and others were all hopelessly corrupt and looking out only for themselves?

    The domestic economy is on the rise and job creation is positive. The dollar’s value hasn’t been looking as bad lately. I don’t think it’s accurate to call the social security system ‘crumbling’. Right, if you consider the social security system ‘crubling’, than how would you describe Medicare?

    As for Iraqis being better off…that’s counting the chickens before they hatch. The American line is obviously going to be that they’re better off because we invaded, but when you consider the security situation, unemployment and availability of utilities – it’s not an open-shut case that the Iraqis are better off now than they were before the invasion.

    There is still work to be done. I think if we’re going to be realistic about it, the basic necessities of everyday life have to be considered. I’m not saying they’re better off or worse. My intent is to get that point of view from the Iraqis. English translations of books on the subject will hopefully be within reach at some point. In general, what both liberals and conservatives error in doing is stating something that’s still under review as a slam-dunk. Both sides are guilty of it. Perhaps we can hash out most of them here. I surely hope so.

  9. Jusin says:

    RIGHTS : WESTERN PRACTICE OF OUTSOURCING TORTURE UNDER FIRE
    by Thalif DeenUNITED NATIONS (IPS)
    – The United States, which pursues a widely-criticised policy of transferring terrorist suspects to countries known to routinely torture prisoners, has come under fire from UN diplomats and human rights organisations. ”If (U.S. President George W.) Bush’s ambitious proposal to convert the world’s repressive regimes to multi-party democracies becomes a reality,” one Asian diplomat who declined to be named said sarcastically, ”the United States will run out of countries where prisoners could be tortured.” Until then, he said, ”we should name and shame governments that outsource torturing.” A coalition of eight international human rights groups did precisely that on Thursday, when it singled out seven North American and European countries for their policy of ”rendition.” Under this policy, terrorist suspects have been transferred to countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Jordan, Yemen and Uzbekistan — all candidates for U.S. multiparty democracy — for ”aggressive methods of persuasion” that are considered illegal in the United States. The seven Western countries — the United States, Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Sweden — have either attempted to transfer or have already transferred some of their prisoners to countries described in a coalition statement as ”the most abusive (of human rights) in the world.”

    http://jusinkase.blogspot.com/2005/05/western-practice-of-outsourcing.html

    http://jusinkase.blogspot.com
    I have a lot of other pertinent articles.

    J

  10. Karl says:

    the Bush Administration blew the threat from Iraq wayout of proportion. They did this so they could get a war, it may have been to feed the milatary industrial complex, it may have been as I suggest that they thought it would be an easy way to look tough. Some people have suggested that it was to get a good supply of oil. All of these factors may have contributed to their need to declare war. I guess it is possible that they just believed the line that Chalabi and co fed to them, which would make them naive and stupid. Personally I would rather have greedy and smart people in charge, but you make a good point, maybe they are that stupid.

  11. karl says:

    It is to early to tell if Iraq is going to be better off because of the invasion, but The U.S is certainly worse off because of this war. The milatary is stretched pretty thin and is not able to respond to other situations if needed. Plus the U.S has lost credibility, we used to be the good guys now we are a nation that outsources torture. The recruiting problems seem to be an indication that the armed services are also losing credibility at home.
    Even if the invasion was a good idea the Iraq war has been fough in such an inept manner that the U.S seems to be heading back to the days of Viet Nam syndrome.
    One positive from this is that Bush and Co really do not have enough public support to go to war in Iran. The negative is that even if war was justified the public would still not support it. I know that anaysis is a little over the top but I think it is the direction that the country is heading.

  12. Right Thinker says:

    Newsweek gave the GOP the Monica Lewinski scandal.

    Bill Clinton gave the GOP the Monica Lewinski scandal.

    All this past week news outlets have been laundering outright lies told by the GOP that the filibuster of judicial nominations hasn’t factored into the process since Democrats started doing it these past four years.

    I’m no fan of the media right now but I would say it’s not the job of the media to filter material or make opinion on what it truth vs. lie. The media reports what people say and what happened in certain events. Now, the type of coverage given to a lie i.e. Dan Rather for example is taking a know fabrication and running with it. But reporting the statements of politicians without edit or opinion is just basic reporting.

    What’s more important though? Maintaining the requirement of a concensus on judges being rewarded lifetime positions or this Newsweek article?

    Who is to say what is more important? There is room for more than one story in the news and a lot of things are happening around the world. Since the Newsweek story contributed to the deaths of at least 15 people so far in addition to massive social damage I’d have to go with Newsweek.

    I’m disgusted with the media as a whole. As should you Right. We deserve honesty, but what we get doesn’t come even close.

    I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter!!!

    This week’s filibuster battle is HUGE in terms of the country’s history…

    All the years Democrats have been in power there has been a gentlemans rule that the judiciary is off limits. At some point someone has to be in charge and made decisions and now it is George Bush. Just vote on these judges and get it over with, some will make it and some won’t. It’s the basis of democracy, the representatives of the people vote on the things that make governemnt run. Just let ’em vote.

    Right, if you consider the social security system ‘crubling’, than how would you describe Medicare?

    In absolute shambles. If I could only save one I’d save Medicare. I can save for retirement with retirement accounts but medical insurance is a different story.

    As for Iraqis being better off…that’s counting the chickens before they hatch.

    I don’t know, when we booted the English after the Boston Tea Party some could say America was worse off. Some liberals tend to think freedom comes at the snap of your fingers with no effort or hard work. Iraq could go either way but at least, for this period in time, they are free to determine thier own destiny. Now that’s freedom.

  13. Right Thinker says:

    one Asian diplomat who declined to be named

    I was just informed by a certain Swedish public official who shall remain annonymous that this is all crap.

    The seven Western countries — the United States, Canada, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Sweden — have either attempted to transfer or have already transferred some of their prisoners to countries

    I wonder if these prisoners are being returned to their coutry of origin/citizenship. I doubt that little tid bit would be told since it would gut the negativity that the article strives for.

    the Bush Administration blew the threat from Iraq wayout of proportion.

    No, Saddam was a proven threat and repeat offender. After 12+ years of serious problems it was time for him to finally go.

    I guess it is possible that they just believed the line that Chalabi and co fed to them, which would make them naive and stupid.

    Again, No, because Saddam had manipulated inspectors and was receiving huge financial and material support from France and Russia we know the threat was real. And because of this manipulation we had to rely on other intelligence gathering sources so the fault really lies with Saddam himself.

    Had Saddam been a good boy and allowed full discosure he wouldn’t have been taken advantage of by other parties. You can’t blame Bush for Saddam’s mistakes.

    it may have been as I suggest that they thought it would be an easy way to look tough.

    No, we already looked tough, we kicked the living shit out of them in Kuwait. Our new stealth fighters and bombers came our at around that time and the communist world was still reeling from the sting of Reagan. Tough is one of the things we do naturally.

    Plus the U.S has lost credibility, we used to be the good guys now we are a nation that outsources torture.

    As it turns out we are being vindicated for our actions. The french, Russians and Chinese among others turned out ot be as dirty as the mafia. We are uncovering mass graves in Iraq and the Iraqi people are electing their new government.

    The bad guys turned out to be the ones who were enriching themselves at the cost of Iraqi lives. Talk to Nick Berg and Daniel Perl about torture, oh you can’t because they are dead. This jumping to conclusions to suit the liberal ideology can only end in failure.

    One positive from this is that Bush and Co really do not have enough public support to go to war in Iran.

    Has Iran invaded another country that I have not heard about? Other than building nuclear weapons that will most likely be used on a heavily populated city for the purpose of making a point, there isn’t really anything to attack them for. Give it time though, until the world is ruled by islam there won’t be any peace.

  14. Chris Austin says:

    DI: Newsweek gave the GOP the Monica Lewinski scandal.

    RT: Bill Clinton gave the GOP the Monica Lewinski scandal.

    Do you condone what the GOP did with it after that? ‘No War For Monica’ following the embassy bombings in Africa? The legislature came to a grinding halt and millions upon millions went to Starr’s investigation that ended up with a tape recording of a staged phone conversation and a stained dress. In the end, what did the war actually accomplish of any substance?

    DI: All this past week news outlets have been laundering outright lies told by the GOP that the filibuster of judicial nominations hasn’t factored into the process since Democrats started doing it these past four years.

    RT: I’m no fan of the media right now but I would say it’s not the job of the media to filter material or make opinion on what it truth vs. lie. The media reports what people say and what happened in certain events. Now, the type of coverage given to a lie i.e. Dan Rather for example is taking a know fabrication and running with it. But reporting the statements of politicians without edit or opinion is just basic reporting.

    On your statuement of the media and their job, that would rightly invalidate CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews as all three are stuffed with pundits posing as news anchors. They launder the lies of these politicians by telling their audience that they agree.

    I will post several examples of the media and politicians who have lied concerning the judicial filibuster in recent days. It’s shameful.

    DI: What’s more important though? Maintaining the requirement of a concensus on judges being rewarded lifetime positions or this Newsweek article?

    RT: Who is to say what is more important? There is room for more than one story in the news and a lot of things are happening around the world. Since the Newsweek story contributed to the deaths of at least 15 people so far in addition to massive social damage I’d have to go with Newsweek.

    Here are the other instances where this same exact thing was reported without so much as a peep from the administration. Desecration of the Koran HAS taken place. If Newsweek didn’t have it right in their story, they deserve what they got, but let’s not pretend that it hasn’t happened. Ultimately, the interrogator who desecrates the book is responsible for the rioting and the deaths. Here are the prior reports:

    One such incident—during which the Koran allegedly was thrown in a pile and stepped on—prompted a hunger strike among Guantanamo detainees in Mar. 2002, which led to an apology. The New York Times interviewed former detainee Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi May 1, who said the protest ended with a senior officer delivering an apology to the entire camp.

    “A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans,” Times reporters Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt wrote in “Inquiry Finds Abuses at Guantanamo Bay.”

    The hunger strike and apology story was also confirmed by another former detainee, Shafiq Rasul, interviewed by the UK Guardian in 2003 (James Meek, “The people the law forgot,” Guardian, Dec. 3, 2003) It was also confirmed by former prisoner Jamal al-Harith in an interview with the Daily Mirror (Rosa Prince and Gary Jones, “My Hell in Camp X-ray World Exclusive,” Daily Mirror, Mar. 12, 2004).

    The toilet incident was reported in the Washington Post in a 2003 interview with a former detainee from Afghanistan:

    “Ehsannullah, 29, said American soldiers who initially questioned him in Kandahar before shipping him to Guantanamo hit him and taunted him by dumping the Koran in a toilet. ‘It was a very bad situation for us,’ said Ehsannullah, who comes from the home region of the Taliban leader, Mohammad Omar. ‘We cried so much and shouted, Please do not do that to the Holy Koran.’ (Marc Kaufman and April Witt, “Out of Legal Limbo, Some Tell of Mistreatment,” Washington Post, Mar. 26, 2003.)

    Also citing the toilet incident is testimony by Asif Iqbal, a former Guantanamo detainee who was released to British custody in Mar. 2004 and subsequently freed without charge:

    “The behaviour of the guards towards our religious practices as well as the Koran was also, in my view, designed to cause us as much distress as possible. They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.” (Center for Constitution Rights, Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, (Aug. 4, 2004, deposition available here.)

    The claim that US troops at Bagram airbase prison in Afghanistan urinated on the Koran was made by former detainee Mohamed Mazouz, a Moroccan, as reported in the Moroccan newspaper, La Gazette du Maroc. (Abdelhak Najib, “Les Américains pissaient sur le Coran et abusaient de nous sexuellement”, Apr. 11, 2005). An English translation is available on the Cage Prisoners web site (which describes itself as a “non-sectarian Islamic human rights website”): http://www.cageprisoners.com/print.php?id=6862

    Tarek Derghoul, another of the British detainees, similarly cites instances of Koran desecration in an interview with Cageprisoners.com, available at: http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=1611

    Desecration of the Koran was also mentioned by former Guantanamo detainee Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost and reported by the BBC in early May 2005. (Haroon Rashid, “Ex-inmates share Guantanamo ordeal,” May 2, 2005).

    http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm

    DI: I’m disgusted with the media as a whole. As should you Right. We deserve honesty, but what we get doesn’t come even close.

    RT: I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter!!!

    DI: This week’s filibuster battle is HUGE in terms of the country’s history…

    RT: All the years Democrats have been in power there has been a gentlemans rule that the judiciary is off limits. At some point someone has to be in charge and made decisions and now it is George Bush. Just vote on these judges and get it over with, some will make it and some won’t. It’s the basis of democracy, the representatives of the people vote on the things that make governemnt run. Just let ‘em vote.

    Ohhh…now this is incorrect. Are you aware of how many of Clinton’s nominations never even made it out of committee? This is an example of the ball-washing being done by the GOP to excuse for their actions in this attempt to abolish the filibuster. 210-10 is the count right now. Bush has gotten 95% of his nominees, and he’s crying about the 10 he didn’t get?!?!

    If there was a gentleman’s agreement in play, how do you explain 69 nominations who were never approved during Clinton’s two terms?

    DI: Right, if you consider the social security system ‘crubling’, than how would you describe Medicare?

    RT: In absolute shambles. If I could only save one I’d save Medicare. I can save for retirement with retirement accounts but medical insurance is a different story.

    I’d contend that to spend all of this time and energy on social security while a program that effects Americans on a larger scale is worse off is extremely dishonest. Their motives must come into question when they look at these two programs and decide to go after social security first.

    DI: As for Iraqis being better off…that’s counting the chickens before they hatch.

    RT: I don’t know, when we booted the English after the Boston Tea Party some could say America was worse off. Some liberals tend to think freedom comes at the snap of your fingers with no effort or hard work. Iraq could go either way but at least, for this period in time, they are free to determine thier own destiny. Now that’s freedom.

    The generalization of ‘liberals tend to think’ isn’t accurate. The comparison of our revolution against the Brittish and the situation in Iraq isn’t valid. The Iraqis weren’t under the thumb of a foreign power they rid themselves of. They were under the thumb of their own ruler who foreigners invaded and rid them of.

    The belief that Iraqis are better or worse off than they were before we arrived is largely based on ideology at this point. Employment and quality of life statistics come into play, but ‘faith’ cannot as far as I’m concerned. It has to be about the facts and about what the Iraqis themselves say about it, not you or I.

  15. karl says:

    Right thinker:
    where you talk about Berg and Perle are you trying to suggest that their murders justify torture? My whole point is that the US should be better than that, right now the US is losing the moral high ground which probably makes it much easier for Al quaida to recruit.
    In your last sentence you suggest that the goal of muslims is to make that the world religion, do you believe that this war is essentially christians vs muslims? If that is the case it is a unwinable war on either side as you are never going to stop people from believing in their chosen diety.
    Do you think Iran is a threat that needs to be dealt with? My whole point is that right now the US does not have a realistic plan to deal with Iran, either milatarily, as the army is busy right now. or diplomaticaly for several reasons. First we do not have enough credibility to get the rest of the world behind sanctions on Iran, and the current oil prices make economic arm twisting difficult in addition the low dollar and high US debt makes economic threats from the US less worrisome to Iran. All of these problems are the result of poor decisions that have been made over the last 5 years.

  16. Right Thinker says:

    Do you condone what the GOP did with it after that?

    This is the transparancy of government we all are after, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. It just happened to work with Clinton just as it did with Nixon. The public deserved an answer to what their representative in the world was doing on “company” time.

    On your statuement of the media and their job, that would rightly invalidate CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews as all three are stuffed with pundits posing as news anchors.

    Sounds like your mixing news with commentary. The journalists report what was said and how it was said. Commentators talk about their views of what was said and how they feel about it. This goes back to why I distrust the New York Times so much. They use the news page as their commentary area so the lines are blurred between what is accurate and what is spin.

    Why did the NYT need over 60 stories on the front page about Abu Ghraib? Because is was bad for America and that is the beliefs their constinuants want reinforced. Leave news to the news pages and opinions on the opinion page. Give this some thought, I think from what I’ve read this is the area you have concerns as well. Let me know.

    Desecration of the Koran HAS taken place.

    Even if this was true, who cares? Who cares that the book of a inherently violent and intollerant religious group gets thrown in the toilet? Did you know some asshole got public money to float a crucific in a glass vat of a mixture of blood and urine? The piss christ he calls it. I could give a rats ass about a book so filled with hate is has spawned numerous wars through out history since it’s inception.

    If there was a gentleman’s agreement in play, how do you explain 69 nominations who were never approved during Clinton’s two terms?

    Because they didn’t have the support or the votes. When democrats were in power they were a little more conversational and a little easier to work with. Now they are the minority they are trying to storm the castle with all decorum out the door. Clinton’s nominees could have gone to the senate for a vote and they probably wouldn’t have made it anyway. These Bush nominees are fresh and have a good chance of making it so why not just vote?

    I’d contend that to spend all of this time and energy on social security while a program that effects Americans on a larger scale is worse off is extremely dishonest.

    Your blaming the weatherman for the bad weather. Democrats are seriously obstructing the progress in this nation, they could have been working on a sid eby side fix but they instead are pluggin up the works. Bush has great plans that could work if only the democrats would participate in government, do their jobs for a change, and get the bills passed. Why are they bipartissan only when they rule the empire?

    The generalization of ‘liberals tend to think’ isn’t accurate.

    My bad.

    The comparison of our revolution against the Brittish and the situation in Iraq isn’t valid.

    Yes, it is. Both suffered from tyranical rule by those who had no interest in the wellfare of the people. Sure, stealth bombers didn’t sink to many British cannon galleons but what did happen for each is that the manacles were shed and the people were able to start anew according to their own destiny (damn star wars trailer). In both cases the people were freed after a time of harsh rule and then started their own governments. Watch this close, it’s like looking back in time to the period when our own wnation was born, it stirs an excitement in those who value freedom of the people.

    The belief that Iraqis are better or worse off than they were before we arrived is largely based on ideology at this point.

    I base it on the interviews with the iraqi people that have slipped through the liberal media’s ban on anything positive from Iraq. The media could hide some of the jubilation within Iraq but the celebrations from Iraqis living abroad said it all. Like I said before, watch closely, a baby democracy has been born, watch with awe, hope, joy and good tidings. This was us hundreds of years ago, when we were young.

    where you talk about Berg and Perle are you trying to suggest that their murders justify torture?

    No, I am saying that going to bed without a night light or being captured while trying to kill people and then having your feeling hurt isn’t torture. Nick Berg and Daniel Perl knew real torture. Abu Ghraib wasn’t even close to torture, it is a disgrace to degreade real victims of torture such as Jews in concentration camps, American soldiers in communist prisons and the Iraqi people themselves.

    I think your use of the word torture is too cavalier and waters down the real victims of actual torture. Pinochet, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao Se Tung, Stalin, Huissein, Chavez just to name a few. These people were torturers and their victims knew what torture really is. Getting your photo taken with underwear on your head isn’t torture, neither is humilliating poses or having your war manual flushed down a toilet.

    In your last sentence you suggest that the goal of muslims is to make that the world religion, do you believe that this war is essentially christians vs muslims?

    No, I believe is it Muslims against everyone, just look at Europe. There will be no peace until Islam rules the world or at least has free reign in it. Islam was designed to focus energies into conquest, like the crusades on crack. The Koran basically says to fight until the world is ruled by islam.

    Can we win? Not without making islam illegal. I predict a European civil war where all the islamic imagrants take to the streets and essentially rule by force and fear.

    Do you think Iran is a threat that needs to be dealt with?

    That is kinda like being in the lion’s exhibit at the zoo and trying to figure out which hungry lion is the dangerous one. They all are dangerous and while they may not normally work together multiple lions have been know to work together to take down prey. The world way underestimates the threat from islam.

    All of these problems are the result of poor decisions that have been made over the last 5 years.

    I’m not with you on that one, I think Bush is dealing with the errors made from the Reagan era on. This was going to boil over at some point and Bush just happens to be at the wheel when it did. Clinton was a cataclysmic failure in dealing with islam, people who use children as suicide bombers are not necessarily won over with diplomacy.

    Bush is handling this just as he should, he needs to show these butchers that our bombs are big, out guns are deadly and was are easily pissed off. Dealing with people who have no conscience or respect for life is not very pleasant and your only effective weapons are pain, suffering and death.

    There is not series of chess moves that will end with islam conceeding defeat, you say checkmate, he says allah akbar and blows up your house along with your family.

    low dollar and high US debt

    How about a post about the pros and cons of inflationary pressures? Do you know who owns the bulk of U.S. debt and why? How about when the dollar drops in value? It’s actually quite fascinating, but then again, I am in the finance business.

  17. Chris Austin says:

    Do you condone what the GOP did with it after that?

    This is the transparancy of government we all are after, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. It just happened to work with Clinton just as it did with Nixon. The public deserved an answer to what their representative in the world was doing on “company” time.

    Comparitively, Nixon lied to the public about Vietnam, about operations in Laos, and he illegally wiretapped political opponents. Clinton cheated on his wife. While the marital infidelity may seem worse to someone, if they’re Republican – it’s not like presidents of the past haven’t been guilty of the same exact thing, to include Bush Sr. It was an ‘excuse’ to shut things down, and that’s just what Republicans did during that time.

    Tense period of history for me as we were on alert over in Germany during that time. Looking at Headline News and reading the internet news sites…I kind of felt like what we were doing wasn’t worth a moment’s notice. Following the embassy bombings, Clinton’s attempts to strike back were met with, ‘No War For Monica’ as I’ve said before – and as a soldier, to see the leadership of the country act in such a way merely for the sake of…what, I don’t know, but it became clear to me that nobody really cares. Those who claim to care the most will sometimes be the first to start throwing feces all over the walls with half an excuse to do so.

    If a marriage infidelity is that egregious and worth that much righteous indignation in the face of actual WORK to be done…well, it would be outlawed by now.

    On your statuement of the media and their job, that would rightly invalidate CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews as all three are stuffed with pundits posing as news anchors.

    Sounds like your mixing news with commentary. The journalists report what was said and how it was said. Commentators talk about their views of what was said and how they feel about it. This goes back to why I distrust the New York Times so much. They use the news page as their commentary area so the lines are blurred between what is accurate and what is spin.

    The opinion section of most newspapers is two pages at the back of the first section. These ‘news’ channels are now wall to wall commentary. Back in the day, the local broadcast would have a minute or two at the end of the broadcast for commentary. Having all commentary for hours at a time and calling it news is dishonest.

    Why did the NYT need over 60 stories on the front page about Abu Ghraib? Because is was bad for America and that is the beliefs their constinuants want reinforced. Leave news to the news pages and opinions on the opinion page. Give this some thought, I think from what I’ve read this is the area you have concerns as well. Let me know.

    I was watching Bill O’Rieley regularly back when that was happening, and the thing he always seemed to leave out of it was the fact that regardless of how many articles the NYTimes printed on the front page about Abu Gharib – torture still takes place. Here’s a man who will tear up the ACLU every single night on his show, yet he has a problem with the NYTimes doing the same exact thing about Abu Gharib.

    In his case, it’s about prayer being outlawed in schools or whatever ridiculous witchhunt the ACLU is undertaking on a given day. It’s his bread and butter. So he can sensationalize every single ACLU tussle, but there’s something wrong with reporting on state sponsored torture? It’s perspective that his argument lacks.

    I honestly think that if you go up and down the dial of right-wing commentary, to a person – they could care less about torture or the negative effect it has on our image around the world. The White House is hammering Newsweek and lecturing them on how their actions can have a negative effect on our image worldwide – but how about actually cracking down on the behavior that prompts press coverage in the first place. When they torture somebody who’s innocent, and have to let them go one day…what do they think is going to happen?

    I read an article on one of the earliest examples of this…a Swedish man who was kept in Guantanamo, tortured, and eventually released. He was giving interviews the very next day. The only way to prevent people from telling these stories is to stop doing it. Bush made a huge mistake by ignoring this issue. And that he looks the other way up until someone gets caught is horrible. It’s like a neverending repeat of ‘A Few Good Man’, only the two marines get life in prison every time.

    Desecration of the Koran HAS taken place.

    Even if this was true, who cares? Who cares that the book of a inherently violent and intollerant religious group gets thrown in the toilet? Did you know some asshole got public money to float a crucific in a glass vat of a mixture of blood and urine? The piss christ he calls it. I could give a rats ass about a book so filled with hate is has spawned numerous wars through out history since it’s inception.

    OK Right – you may not think it to read my stuff, but I’m not lightweight when it comes to the bible…

    Romans 2:1
    [ God’s Righteous Judgment ] You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

    You mentioned the cross in a bottle of piss and blood…and expressed apathy over the desecration of the Koran – – – to the larger point though of what you profess is an inherent evil within that religion…another passage of scripture:

    Deuteronomy 13:6-10 “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die…”

    With this in mind – are you aware of the Hundred Years War? What it was fought over and how many lives it claimed? This is a conversation I’m always excited to have, but from the start I have to say that politics cannot transcend our religious beliefs. Having a code means having it every day of our lives. For Christians to be calling the war in Iraq a holy war against Islam…or to be quoting portions of scripture to prove inherent hostility…the Bible has the same ideas within it’s covers as well.

    If there was a gentleman’s agreement in play, how do you explain 69 nominations who were never approved during Clinton’s two terms?

    Because they didn’t have the support or the votes. When democrats were in power they were a little more conversational and a little easier to work with. Now they are the minority they are trying to storm the castle with all decorum out the door. Clinton’s nominees could have gone to the senate for a vote and they probably wouldn’t have made it anyway. These Bush nominees are fresh and have a good chance of making it so why not just vote?

    What? I’m extremely confused by your explaination. Numerous Clinton nominees never made it out of committee. Do I get this right…that Clinton’s nominations that were shot down were the fault of Democrats – AND – the Democrats are responsible for the current snafu? How can that be? I’m quite sure that’s the type of spin being put on it in right-wing media, but it makes no sense.

    I’d contend that to spend all of this time and energy on social security while a program that effects Americans on a larger scale is worse off is extremely dishonest.

    Your blaming the weatherman for the bad weather. Democrats are seriously obstructing the progress in this nation, they could have been working on a sid eby side fix but they instead are pluggin up the works. Bush has great plans that could work if only the democrats would participate in government, do their jobs for a change, and get the bills passed. Why are they bipartissan only when they rule the empire?

    The Democrats have blocked what exactally? Other than a handful of judges and Social Security (which Bush and the Republicans haven’t presented legislation for yet)? If you put up a chart and list the amount of legislation blocked by Republicans during Clinton’s years in office and then you listed the amount of legislation blocked by Democrats in the past five years…

    I honestly think this is a matter of selective blindness on your part Right. I remember quite well the political happenings of the 90s. I’d like to hear a rundown of what the Democrats have obstructed…can you provide that? It seems to me like Republicans are insisting that they have everything, when that never happens in a presidency.

    The generalization of ‘liberals tend to think’ isn’t accurate.

    My bad.

    The comparison of our revolution against the Brittish and the situation in Iraq isn’t valid.

    Yes, it is. Both suffered from tyranical rule by those who had no interest in the wellfare of the people. Sure, stealth bombers didn’t sink to many British cannon galleons but what did happen for each is that the manacles were shed and the people were able to start anew according to their own destiny (damn star wars trailer). In both cases the people were freed after a time of harsh rule and then started their own governments. Watch this close, it’s like looking back in time to the period when our own wnation was born, it stirs an excitement in those who value freedom of the people.

    This is a romanticized view of it. Also, until the Whiskey Rebellion – there wasn’t an insurgency or rioting against the government from inside. What Iraq is facing is enormously more difficult and different than the American Revolution. The British had a stake in our country, but eventually could not fight a war of such distance. The insurgency hasn’t slowed down since the war started. The Iraqis may be able to draw up a wonderful system of laws and self governance, but to say they’re comparable to the great men who formed our system of government (some of whom cheated on their wives, just like Clinton…Jefferson and his black babies come to mind) is counting the chickens before they hatch.

    The belief that Iraqis are better or worse off than they were before we arrived is largely based on ideology at this point.

    I base it on the interviews with the iraqi people that have slipped through the liberal media’s ban on anything positive from Iraq. The media could hide some of the jubilation within Iraq but the celebrations from Iraqis living abroad said it all. Like I said before, watch closely, a baby democracy has been born, watch with awe, hope, joy and good tidings. This was us hundreds of years ago, when we were young.

    An Iraqi living abroad doesn’t live there. I’m not basing the history of everyday life in Iraq on the opinion of someone who wasn’t even there. Right, the words of Iraqis there now will be recorded and their stories will exist as standard. I want to hear it from the Iraqis living in country, the ones who lived through this war.

    where you talk about Berg and Perle are you trying to suggest that their murders justify torture?

    No, I am saying that going to bed without a night light or being captured while trying to kill people and then having your feeling hurt isn’t torture. Nick Berg and Daniel Perl knew real torture. Abu Ghraib wasn’t even close to torture, it is a disgrace to degreade real victims of torture such as Jews in concentration camps, American soldiers in communist prisons and the Iraqi people themselves.

    Don’t confuse the pictures we saw with all that went on there. Guantanamo survivors tell the story.

    I think your use of the word torture is too cavalier and waters down the real victims of actual torture. Pinochet, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao Se Tung, Stalin, Huissein, Chavez just to name a few. These people were torturers and their victims knew what torture really is. Getting your photo taken with underwear on your head isn’t torture, neither is humilliating poses or having your war manual flushed down a toilet.

    The pictures we were allowed to see do not exist as the brackets between which everything that happens falls in between.

    In your last sentence you suggest that the goal of muslims is to make that the world religion, do you believe that this war is essentially christians vs muslims?

    No, I believe is it Muslims against everyone, just look at Europe. There will be no peace until Islam rules the world or at least has free reign in it. Islam was designed to focus energies into conquest, like the crusades on crack. The Koran basically says to fight until the world is ruled by islam.

    Can we win? Not without making islam illegal. I predict a European civil war where all the islamic imagrants take to the streets and essentially rule by force and fear.

    This is science fiction. Your characterization of the religion is misguided. Christian leaders spread this point of view. It’s all about numbers and is as sacreligeous as it gets.

    Do you think Iran is a threat that needs to be dealt with?

    That is kinda like being in the lion’s exhibit at the zoo and trying to figure out which hungry lion is the dangerous one. They all are dangerous and while they may not normally work together multiple lions have been know to work together to take down prey. The world way underestimates the threat from islam.

    All of these problems are the result of poor decisions that have been made over the last 5 years.

    I’m not with you on that one, I think Bush is dealing with the errors made from the Reagan era on. This was going to boil over at some point and Bush just happens to be at the wheel when it did. Clinton was a cataclysmic failure in dealing with islam, people who use children as suicide bombers are not necessarily won over with diplomacy.

    Bush is handling this just as he should, he needs to show these butchers that our bombs are big, out guns are deadly and was are easily pissed off.

    Kind of makes us sound like a rapist, doesn’t it? butchers-bombs-deadly-easily-pissed-off…it’s very paranoid if we’re to be like this. If you haven’t noticed – they’re not scared of us. The amount of attacks per week hasn’t gone down, and there’s absolutely nothing solid that has occured to this day that has happened which affected the level of violence in any positive way that I’ve seen. The violence is what the war is, and we don’t know how many there are of them, how many new recruits they get per week, how they’re financed so well, if the string of volunteers for a jacket of bombs will ever dry up. The talk of training Iraqi forces to defend themselves has been at the same stage of development for two years now. There’s still no reduction of forces on our side, long after our rotations were draining significantly from the overall force – shortages of recruits, with no call from the President for volunteers to serve – which tells me that there aren’t enough Iraqi trained and willing to serve to allow us to do so. And what happens when we simply don’t have the bodies to keep up any longer? Is Bush hoping it happens when he’s out of office? And would that sound familiar in any way to any other war America has fought in the past 50 years?

    Leadership is needed, realism is needed, and those of us saying, ‘the leaders of our government can do better, but chose not to’ – no, it’s Boeing missiles to the country Osama lays his head in, and another long restless, deadly week for a lot of people in Iraq.

    The concept of someone with a bomb straped to them detonating right in front of me has to be the most terrifying thing I can imagine. The fact that it’s happening with such frequency tells me that we’re pushing our own face against the hot grill every week we remain. We’re good at demolishing them, horrible at rebuilding them. Everytime we try to do this, it doesn’t work.

    low dollar and high US debt

    How about a post about the pros and cons of inflationary pressures? Do you know who owns the bulk of U.S. debt and why? How about when the dollar drops in value? It’s actually quite fascinating, but then again, I am in the finance business.

    China, Japan, South Korea…one of them are the highest, but I think it’s in the order I listed. We sell bonds to these countries that appreciate over a number of years. When the dollar falls, countries buy more of our stuff.

  18. Right Thinker says:

    Here is why Nixon and Clinton are identical. They both thought of themselves as being above the common man. They felt exempt from ethical obligations and that their status protected them from their actions. Both were sadly mistaken.

    Clinton lied his ass off on national television, “I did not have relations with that woman!!” If he can lie about something a small as a BJ what else will he lie about, what else will he conceal? Why do these men think that I don’t have a say in the actions of my own leaders?

    I read an article on one of the earliest examples of this…a Swedish man who was kept in Guantanamo, tortured, and eventually released. He was giving interviews the very next day.

    Of course they are going to say that, ask the inmates at levenworth Federal Pen. if they are innocent of the crime they committed. I bet you’d find a whopping 99% of these inmates are falsely accused. Charles Manson claims innocence. These guys, captured in illegal activity come out knowing that anything they say will be believed hook, line and sinker back home. I put as much stock in these interviews as I do in Social Security.

    Do I get this right…that Clinton’s nominations that were shot down were the fault of Democrats – AND – the Democrats are responsible for the current snafu? How can that be?

    I’ll tell you, not all Democrats supported Clinton’s nominations. Just because they are Democrats, many actually vote their conscious and many vote to punish for some grievance. If Clinton had the full support of all Democrats (and the Nation for that matter, remember he first became president with about 35% of the vote.) we probably wouldn’t be short any judges at all.

    I’m not basing the history of everyday life in Iraq on the opinion of someone who wasn’t even there.

    They aren’t there because they fled for their safety but can now return without fear of persecution. Would you happen to know any Cubans? They can tell you all about what I’m saying.

    Guantanamo survivors tell the story.

    They are survivors now? Great weather, plenty of food, freedom of religion and no fear of death caused by war. The only downside is they couldn’t cut peoples heads off on TV or blow up children. Would you happen to know any Jews who were in concentration camps? They can tell you all about what I’m saying.

    This is science fiction. Your characterization of the religion is misguided.

    Possibly, but read some of the book. Islam is by islam, for islam and we are all second class citizens. It’s what the book says. Radicals want to openly force it on us and the moderates just think it to themselves always growing their numbers. I hate to use a Star Trek reference because I am not a fan but the Borg comes to mind.

    Your probably going to say something about early Christian Missionaries doing the same thing so right of the bat I’ll agree with you on that. The difference is it’s happening now on a global scale and I don’t want to be muslim or a second class citizen.

    If you haven’t noticed – they’re not scared of us.

    Oh contrare mon frare, they are terrified of us, why do you think they use women, the disabled and children as human shields and human bombs. The attack by surprise and run away like cowards. They won’t engage in dialogue because so few share their entire ideology which is what you must do to be on their side.

    They attack the weak and unaware, they cut the heads off of handcuffed people and it still takes five or six of them to muster the balls to do it. They make videos and sneak them into tv stations. There are no greater cowards in the world.

    Kind of makes us sound like a rapist, doesn’t it?

    Show some pride, it’s ok you deserve it. Since you bring up rapists, what do we tell women on how to avoid rape? Don’t be a victim in wait. Stare strangers down, don’t cower, don’t be meek, look tough and walk with purpose. Don’t look like an easy target.

    I saw a special on the DMZ in South Korea. Every U.S. Soldier is required to be over 6 feet tall and the South Korea troops always stand in a karate stance half obscured buy structures. Always look pissed and stare the North Koreans down.

  19. Chris Austin says:

    RT: Here is why Nixon and Clinton are identical. They both thought of themselves as being above the common man. They felt exempt from ethical obligations and that their status protected them from their actions. Both were sadly mistaken.

    Clinton lied his ass off on national television, “I did not have relations with that woman!!” If he can lie about something a small as a BJ what else will he lie about, what else will he conceal? Why do these men think that I don’t have a say in the actions of my own leaders?

    Perspective is lost in this comparison. Clinton could have violated 10 interns and it wouldn’t compare with the impact that Nixon’s actions during the Vietnam war had. He singlehadedly wiped out around a 1/4 of the Laotian population.

    DI: I read an article on one of the earliest examples of this…a Swedish man who was kept in Guantanamo, tortured, and eventually released. He was giving interviews the very next day.

    RT: Of course they are going to say that, ask the inmates at levenworth Federal Pen. if they are innocent of the crime they committed. I bet you’d find a whopping 99% of these inmates are falsely accused. Charles Manson claims innocence. These guys, captured in illegal activity come out knowing that anything they say will be believed hook, line and sinker back home. I put as much stock in these interviews as I do in Social Security.

    The difference is the people you’re talking about is they were convicted in a court of law, whereas the detainees who are released never had the benefit of such proceedings. You’re saying that they’re all lying. I don’t know what makes it our right to pick and chose who’s telling the truth and who’s lying. If an innocent man was wrongly tortured, it’s a crime that should not repeat itself.

    We cannot trumpet our virtue in our mission in Iraq and how it’s for the people, yet remain arbitrarily dismissive when it comes to these torture claims. It creates a situation where our credibility gets lower by the day. The tough guy approach is to say, ‘I don’t care’…but that doesn’t make it smart or right.

    DI: Do I get this right…that Clinton’s nominations that were shot down were the fault of Democrats – AND – the Democrats are responsible for the current snafu? How can that be?

    RT: I’ll tell you, not all Democrats supported Clinton’s nominations. Just because they are Democrats, many actually vote their conscious and many vote to punish for some grievance. If Clinton had the full support of all Democrats (and the Nation for that matter, remember he first became president with about 35% of the vote.) we probably wouldn’t be short any judges at all.

    There are several examples that I heard today on CSPAN of Republicans obstructing the nomination process.

    DI: I’m not basing the history of everyday life in Iraq on the opinion of someone who wasn’t even there.

    RT: They aren’t there because they fled for their safety but can now return without fear of persecution. Would you happen to know any Cubans? They can tell you all about what I’m saying.

    They’re not living there now, so how can they be asked to give an honest assessment? If you’re not physically there, how can you tell stories of how it’s like to be there?

    DI: Guantanamo survivors tell the story.

    RT: They are survivors now? Great weather, plenty of food, freedom of religion and no fear of death caused by war. The only downside is they couldn’t cut peoples heads off on TV or blow up children. Would you happen to know any Jews who were in concentration camps? They can tell you all about what I’m saying.

    Yea, it’s club med down there I’m sure. Not all of them come out of there alive.

    DI: This is science fiction. Your characterization of the religion is misguided.

    RT: Possibly, but read some of the book. Islam is by islam, for islam and we are all second class citizens. It’s what the book says. Radicals want to openly force it on us and the moderates just think it to themselves always growing their numbers. I hate to use a Star Trek reference because I am not a fan but the Borg comes to mind.

    Your probably going to say something about early Christian Missionaries doing the same thing so right of the bat I’ll agree with you on that. The difference is it’s happening now on a global scale and I don’t want to be muslim or a second class citizen.

    The world was ‘smaller’ back in the day. All of Europe suffered from the 100 Years War. It’s a piece of history that my knowledge of provides an incredible amount of perspective on these matters. I posted the scripture that said the same thing as you’re condemning Islam for. There are people in Africa, neighbors killing each other over whether or not they’re Muslim or Christian…religion is religion and it does this to people. When one demonizes the other, this is the result. When neither’s leadership can turn the other cheek.

    DI: If you haven’t noticed – they’re not scared of us.

    RT: Oh contrare mon frare, they are terrified of us, why do you think they use women, the disabled and children as human shields and human bombs. The attack by surprise and run away like cowards. They won’t engage in dialogue because so few share their entire ideology which is what you must do to be on their side.

    They attack the weak and unaware, they cut the heads off of handcuffed people and it still takes five or six of them to muster the balls to do it. They make videos and sneak them into tv stations. There are no greater cowards in the world.

    I know what they do Right. Would you be willing to kill yourself for the sake of the mission? We can’t get enough young people to join up, while they’re getting young people to strap a bomb to themselves. The level of dedication involved is infinitely higher on their side of it than our own.

    You’re faulting them for not fighting fair, but the obviously cannot win that way. They’re fighting the most effective way they can. They’re terrorists…this is what they do. If you call blowing yourself up as a sign of fear…I’m not with you. That’s something opposite of fear.

    DI: Kind of makes us sound like a rapist, doesn’t it?

    RT: Show some pride, it’s ok you deserve it. Since you bring up rapists, what do we tell women on how to avoid rape? Don’t be a victim in wait. Stare strangers down, don’t cower, don’t be meek, look tough and walk with purpose. Don’t look like an easy target.

    Look – I’m not proud of the effectiveness of our weaponry compared with that of the rest of the world…I really don’t take pleasure in the knowledge of what we ‘could’ or ‘have’ done with our toys. Our ability to kill people is a skillset that comes in handy, but to me it doesn’t define what makes our country great in the least bit.

    RT: I saw a special on the DMZ in South Korea. Every U.S. Soldier is required to be over 6 feet tall and the South Korea troops always stand in a karate stance half obscured buy structures. Always look pissed and stare the North Koreans down.

    What channel was that on? What was it called? I’m a big documentary buff. Can’t get enough of them.

  20. Right Thinker says:

    Perspective is lost in this comparison. Clinton could have violated 10 interns and it wouldn’t compare with the impact that Nixon’s actions during the Vietnam war had. He singlehadedly wiped out around a 1/4 of the Laotian population.

    You can’t blame the defenders, had they not invaded the democratic south there wouldn’t have been such a loss of life. Communism killed a 1/4 of the population.

    The difference is the people you’re talking about is they were convicted in a court of law, whereas the detainees who are released never had the benefit of such proceedings.

    American criminal courts and our constitution have no application to enemy combatants on the battle field. If we applied their home country’s laws to them we would have beheaded them long ago. You need to be careful about applying American laws to foreign criminals.

    I don’t know what makes it our right to pick and chose who’s telling the truth and who’s lying.

    Well everyone can’t be right and motive is a huge factor. I don’t understand the question, if people are so whipped up over this, I won’t even call it torture, bad treatment of war driminals don’t they have the right to determine who’s lying? Doesn’t the military have the right to fight false allegations?

    It comes down to this. If the guy wasn’t trying to kill innocent people and focused his energies on the betterment of his people he wouldn’t be in prison in the first place. Let’s give credit where credit is due and blame the guy who commited the crime.

    They’re not living there now, so how can they be asked to give an honest assessment? If you’re not physically there, how can you tell stories of how it’s like to be there?

    That’s the way it is with exiles, Cubans, for example, maintain contacts with family and friends in Cuba. They are political dissidents and such, how can you say they have no opinion on the fates of their people back home.

    I don’t know how to explain it anyother way, Mexicans come here to earn money and send it back to Mexico, are they not experts on life in Mexico? It’s not like you leave your place of birth and home for the last 30 years and forget everything you knew about it in 12 months time.

    Hell, I’m from Washington and I have a lot of family and friends still there, if Mt. Ranier erupts tomorrow do I have no connection to how life was before and after the event? Can I not say how my famliy is affected and how I am affected?

    These Iraqis would be there now had it not been for the genocidal nature of Saddam Hussein.

    Yea, it’s club med down there I’m sure. Not all of them come out of there alive.

    Who was murdered down there? I hear a lot about vaccinations and dentists and health care but never anything about a guy being killed. And compared to the harsh environment in Arabia, Cuba ain’t lookikng too shaby. Afganistan has diseases we haven’t seen in any real quantites for century or two.

    Would you be willing to kill yourself for the sake of the mission? We can’t get enough young people to join up, while they’re getting young people to strap a bomb to themselves. The level of dedication involved is infinitely higher on their side of it than our own.

    Absolutely wrong!!! Children and the mentally ill are not dedicated, they are manipulated. If there is so much dedication, why are not the clerics blowing themselves up? Are they too important to take a real risk? Is it easier to mislead some down and out person into a great afterlive via the slaughter of innocents? Why not, his life isn’t worth much really, the pporest of the poor, pawns of the psychos like Al-Sadr and Zarcowi(sp?).

    This isn’t dedication, it’s a scam perpetrated against the weak minded, deceiving someone into taking their own life and the lives of innocents. I can think of no time that would be so bad that I would be compelled to press homeless people and mental patients into service as walking bombs.

    Again, the cowardice of their actions comes to light.

    You’re faulting them for not fighting fair, but the obviously cannot win that way. They’re fighting the most effective way they can.

    So why is it ok for them to do this stuff but treat one of them poorly and were doing the devil’s work? Taking the high road because we are strong doesn’t cut it either. You say that’s their nature as terrorists but we can’t sink to their level or even devise strategies to counteract their barbarism. This doesn’t float at all.

    They choose to be terrorists because there is not capacity for compromise with them. It’s all or nothing and they’ll get it anyway they can. I refuse to be the only one held to a standard everyone else ignores.

    Look – I’m not proud of the effectiveness of our weaponry compared with that of the rest of the world…I really don’t take pleasure in the knowledge of what we ‘could’ or ‘have’ done with our toys. Our ability to kill people is a skillset that comes in handy, but to me it doesn’t define what makes our country great in the least bit.

    Remember the phrase “speak softly and carry a big stick”? What makes us great is we are able to speak softly but it is our opponents that choose the stick. We talked with Saddam for more than a decade but he chose the stick.

    For the amount of force we have at our disposal we use relatively little of it. When we need it it is there but we have to be pushed pretty far to use it and by that time our opponents know what’s coming.

    So you might do well to be proud of our military systems because that is what convinces most people to talk first before things get out of hand.

    What channel was that on? What was it called? I’m a big documentary buff. Can’t get enough of them.

    History Channel, baby!!! Love that network. It was late last year sometime, there is this building that straddles the border where the diplomats meet. It taes three guys to lock and unlock a door, it’s hard to explain but when they unlock the N korean side two guys hold onto the third so he can’t be dragged into N Korea.

    Also, the building on the N korean side is suspected to be filled to the brim with artillery and weapons. The only means of communication is a single fax machine supplied by us (naturally) and it takes 6 people to go service it. It’s a huge amount of bureaucracy just to get a toner cartridge changed.

    Don’t remember the name but it was cool. Our people go live fire into the jungle of the DMZ on patrol, it’s goota be nerve wrenching to go out there at night with all the n korean agents out there.

  21. Chris Austin says:

    BAD NEWS –

    U.S. CONGRESS MOVES AGAINST IRAN
    WASHINGTON [MENL] — The U.S. Congress has decided to support efforts to overthrow the Islamic regime in Iran.

    A bill has been introduced in the Senate that would support the opposition in Iran. The legislation, termed the Iran Freedom and Support Act, would require that the United States work to ensure a referendum in Iran on the type of regime sought by the people.

    The legislation was introduced by Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican and a member of the GOP leadership in the Senate. Santorum has served as chairman of the Republican Conference and the third-ranking member of the Senate Republican leadership.

    In a statement, Santorum said Iran has been linked to strikes against U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia in 1996 and Al Qaida attacks against civilians in Saudi Arabia in 2004. The United States has never blamed Iran for Al Qaida’s campaign in Saudi Araiba.

    http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2005/may/05_18_3.html

  22. Chris Austin says:

    DI: Perspective is lost in this comparison. Clinton could have violated 10 interns and it wouldn’t compare with the impact that Nixon’s actions during the Vietnam war had. He singlehadedly wiped out around a 1/4 of the Laotian population.

    RT: You can’t blame the defenders, had they not invaded the democratic south there wouldn’t have been such a loss of life. Communism killed a 1/4 of the population.

    You’re talking about Laos?

    DI: The difference is the people you’re talking about is they were convicted in a court of law, whereas the detainees who are released never had the benefit of such proceedings.

    RT: American criminal courts and our constitution have no application to enemy combatants on the battle field. If we applied their home country’s laws to them we would have beheaded them long ago. You need to be careful about applying American laws to foreign criminals.

    Regardless, there have been instances where detainees have died. Torture took place against those who were innocent, so the word ‘survivor’ is appropriate as I see it.

    DI: I don’t know what makes it our right to pick and chose who’s telling the truth and who’s lying.

    RT: Well everyone can’t be right and motive is a huge factor. I don’t understand the question, if people are so whipped up over this, I won’t even call it torture, bad treatment of war driminals don’t they have the right to determine who’s lying? Doesn’t the military have the right to fight false allegations?

    It comes down to this. If the guy wasn’t trying to kill innocent people and focused his energies on the betterment of his people he wouldn’t be in prison in the first place. Let’s give credit where credit is due and blame the guy who commited the crime.

    In Iraq it’s been common for a raid to take place in search of a specific wanted individual. The military will also detain the neighbors of this person…thereby flooding the prison system with people who should not be there, people who will not be processed or vetted for an inapropriate amount of time…this innocent man is unable to work or provide for his family, who cannot communicate with him – to even find out whether he is still alive. There are mobs of people outside the gates of that prison hoping that their relative is released, or that they’d be allowed to know whether they are still alive or not. It’s counterproductive and wrong…this practice of simply rounding people up without a plan of what to do with them.

    DI: They’re not living there now, so how can they be asked to give an honest assessment? If you’re not physically there, how can you tell stories of how it’s like to be there?

    RT: That’s the way it is with exiles, Cubans, for example, maintain contacts with family and friends in Cuba. They are political dissidents and such, how can you say they have no opinion on the fates of their people back home.

    I don’t know how to explain it anyother way, Mexicans come here to earn money and send it back to Mexico, are they not experts on life in Mexico? It’s not like you leave your place of birth and home for the last 30 years and forget everything you knew about it in 12 months time.

    Hell, I’m from Washington and I have a lot of family and friends still there, if Mt. Ranier erupts tomorrow do I have no connection to how life was before and after the event? Can I not say how my famliy is affected and how I am affected?

    These Iraqis would be there now had it not been for the genocidal nature of Saddam Hussein.

    I understand what you’re saying in terms of communications with those who are there, but for my money, if a book were to be written on life in Iraq, I’d like for it to be by someone who was actually living there during all of this.

    DI: Yea, it’s club med down there I’m sure. Not all of them come out of there alive.

    RT: Who was murdered down there? I hear a lot about vaccinations and dentists and health care but never anything about a guy being killed. And compared to the harsh environment in Arabia, Cuba ain’t lookikng too shaby. Afganistan has diseases we haven’t seen in any real quantites for century or two.

    I’d have to look it up. I’m not sure. I was speaking in terms of all detainees under our control.

    DI: Would you be willing to kill yourself for the sake of the mission? We can’t get enough young people to join up, while they’re getting young people to strap a bomb to themselves. The level of dedication involved is infinitely higher on their side of it than our own.

    RT: Absolutely wrong!!! Children and the mentally ill are not dedicated, they are manipulated. If there is so much dedication, why are not the clerics blowing themselves up? Are they too important to take a real risk? Is it easier to mislead some down and out person into a great afterlive via the slaughter of innocents? Why not, his life isn’t worth much really, the pporest of the poor, pawns of the psychos like Al-Sadr and Zarcowi(sp?).

    This isn’t dedication, it’s a scam perpetrated against the weak minded, deceiving someone into taking their own life and the lives of innocents. I can think of no time that would be so bad that I would be compelled to press homeless people and mental patients into service as walking bombs.

    Again, the cowardice of their actions comes to light.

    Straping a bomb to yourself and committing suicide in the name of your beliefs is not cowardice. A coward would never be able to bring themself to do it. The definition of the word is: One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

    DI: You’re faulting them for not fighting fair, but the obviously cannot win that way. They’re fighting the most effective way they can.

    RT: So why is it ok for them to do this stuff but treat one of them poorly and were doing the devil’s work? Taking the high road because we are strong doesn’t cut it either. You say that’s their nature as terrorists but we can’t sink to their level or even devise strategies to counteract their barbarism. This doesn’t float at all.

    They choose to be terrorists because there is not capacity for compromise with them. It’s all or nothing and they’ll get it anyway they can. I refuse to be the only one held to a standard everyone else ignores.

    Stories of abuse stoke the flames. How do you defeat an enemy like this? Nobody knows.

    DI: Look – I’m not proud of the effectiveness of our weaponry compared with that of the rest of the world…I really don’t take pleasure in the knowledge of what we ‘could’ or ‘have’ done with our toys. Our ability to kill people is a skillset that comes in handy, but to me it doesn’t define what makes our country great in the least bit.

    RT: Remember the phrase “speak softly and carry a big stick”? What makes us great is we are able to speak softly but it is our opponents that choose the stick. We talked with Saddam for more than a decade but he chose the stick.

    For the amount of force we have at our disposal we use relatively little of it. When we need it it is there but we have to be pushed pretty far to use it and by that time our opponents know what’s coming.

    So you might do well to be proud of our military systems because that is what convinces most people to talk first before things get out of hand.

    Those military systems aren’t doing us much good over there now. It’s an urban environment, an invisible enemy.

    DI: What channel was that on? What was it called? I’m a big documentary buff. Can’t get enough of them.

    RT: History Channel, baby!!! Love that network. It was late last year sometime, there is this building that straddles the border where the diplomats meet. It taes three guys to lock and unlock a door, it’s hard to explain but when they unlock the N korean side two guys hold onto the third so he can’t be dragged into N Korea.

    Also, the building on the N korean side is suspected to be filled to the brim with artillery and weapons. The only means of communication is a single fax machine supplied by us (naturally) and it takes 6 people to go service it. It’s a huge amount of bureaucracy just to get a toner cartridge changed.

    Don’t remember the name but it was cool. Our people go live fire into the jungle of the DMZ on patrol, it’s goota be nerve wrenching to go out there at night with all the n korean agents out there.

    I’ll keep my eye out for it. If you happen to see that it’s made it back into the rotation, give me a head’s up. I love that channel as well. They replay Band of Brothers episodes every once in a while. Everyone should see that series.

  23. Right Thinker says:

    I’d have to look it up. I’m not sure. I was speaking in terms of all detainees under our control.

    Me too.

    Straping a bomb to yourself and committing suicide in the name of your beliefs is not cowardice. A coward would never be able to bring themself to do it. The definition of the word is: One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

    Let’s see here, if I strap a bomb to myself and go off to bomb a daycare center what would the risks be? Will, the blast would kill me instantly, so no pain. I’m wearing a great disguise, maybe it’s chilly and I have abig coat on, there are a lot of people around to blend in with. People don’t think muslims are evil enough to bomb a daycare center and I wouldn’t fear anything form a bunch of kids and some babysitters. Oh yeah, I’ve been promised an eternal life in heaven with 72 virgins by the clerics of Allah and the koran tells me the same. Also, if I am caught, I am sure I won’t go to a prison like the one back home in good ole’ Syria so I know I’ll be treated humanely, not that I would do the same for anyone else.

    There. Cowardice, plain and simple. They strike at the defenseless while feeling no pain and being in no danger. Hell, if I’m caught, then I didn’t kill anyone so I’ll probably get freed in a prisoner exchange and can try again.

    If there was pain and danger in homicide bombing I am sure no one would do it, they are the quintessential coward.

    Stories of abuse stoke the flames. How do you defeat an enemy like this? Nobody knows.

    I know my flame is stoked, how do you think islam is going to defeat me. Still with the one sided analysis, like they are the only ones who can be antagonized.

    I’ll keep my eye out for it. If you happen to see that it’s made it back into the rotation, give me a head’s up. I love that channel as well. They replay Band of Brothers episodes every once in a while. Everyone should see that series.

    Band of Brothers is good. Hey what was with that guy from Oregon who went into the german army and was captured with some fellow germans? The Americans stopped by and the two talked about life back home, the germans got cigarettes and the american walked away. Then the was shooting, I didn’t get what happened.

  24. Pingback: d e a d i s s u e . c o m » Blog Archive » Big Government

Comments are closed.