WORLD: UN fabricates story of Israel shelling UNRWA school in Gaza (Confirmed)

reply to post by Obliterated


And this link doesn't back up your other claims. What this link shows is that the Palestinians have almost the highest birth rate on the planet while living on welfare.

The fertility rate in the Palestinian Territory is high compared to other countries. The total
fertility rate in 2006 was 4.6 births, 4.2 births in the West Bank and 5.4 births in Gaza
Strip.

Originally posted by Obliterated
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

Israelis, or Israel?

here's but one example that took 5 seconds of typing to find

www.haaretz.com...

There are numerous stories of Israeli settlers being forced to move by the IDF, so to try to portray settlements as the official policy of Israel is disengeuous.

Here is what I said.....
"Israeli's are still seizing land for settlements...."

I said Israeli's not Israel. Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that 75% of the settlements are illegal under Israels laws. Yet these people aren't forced out like the people they forced out, are they?.

Well if we're going to paint with big brushes, then that works for Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.. too. This thread/story is about Israel and Hamas, not Israeli settlers.

Originally posted by poet1b
Yeah, we do have radicals in the U.S., but the murder rate for political purposes in the U.S. is no where near what it is in the Middle East, and more importantly, people like myself condemn these acts,

Why murder them when you can lock them up by the millions? Perhaps if the middle east were not so economically and politically terrorized they could afford to build prisons on the scale they exist in the US? What would the murder rate in the US be like if it had the same GDP( inner cities?) as middle eastern countries? Funny how in the US all crimes are related to 'economics' ( unless your assassinating black panthers or trade unionist, etc) while in the middle east people fight over politics while their starving....

we don't approve of them as you approved of the murder in people in Europe because they insulted Islam.

I don't approve of it but since when does murder require the approval of the citizenry? Isn't that why we lock up murderers everywhere? What i said is that he thought it was OK ( and safe) to be a bigot who wished to exploit the general anger against Foreigners ( easy to target those who actually look different) for financial ends. Perhaps he could have tried to gain fame by something that wasn't quite so obviously dangerous?

You need to watch "The Sixth of May", a movie by a man who was killed by Islamic extremists.

I see more sense in watching movies about the US imperial war machine that has killed more than a million Iraqi's in less than two decades. I see even more sense in watching movies about western neo liberal economic terrorism that is killing tens of millions of people all over the world ever year. If more people did that we could save many more Muslim women ( and their children) than watching these videos ever would. But perhaps i am just not enough of a racist bigot to understand that EVERYTHING can be blamed on Islamic 'culture' which seem to be a few decades behind the west in women's rights. Perhaps i am misguided in thinking that the best way to help women everywhere is to raise their standard of living( which inevitable results in more personal freedoms) by discussing the economic systems of the world that are creating this world wide devastation.

It is an excellent portrayal of a situation, and your approval of the directors murder is beyond reasonable. Here in the U.S. we work hard to eliminate these radical elements, while in the Muslim world they are supported, and the public demonstrations clearly prove that.

Muslims evil; American folk good. Thanks for the update i don't get fifty times a day on ATS. If you could only understand how little i care about one film director ( what about all the Muslim film directors and journalist the US armed forces have killed in Iraq?) or another you could perhaps begin to understand why i can only see your defense of this one as bigoted and self interested.

Exactly what did these people say or comment on that makes you think they deserved to die? I am not trying to paint you as some kind of a radical, you have done that to yourself by this indefensible statement supporting murder in violation of free speech.

In this current world order most people who deserve a faster path to another life is benefiting from the the exploitation of the vast majority of the rest which are too a smaller or larger degree ( including Theo) victims of their machinations. Since Theo were drug using, chain smoking, binge drinking nihilist this sort of outcome probably surprised him less than it does you. Don't waste your tears on Theo; he didn't like life much any ways.

Really, where is your proof of this. This subject deserves a thread of its own, and this claim is grossly overstated.

As the imperialist keep telling me without ever assuming any type of burden of proof for their denials.

You want to judge the west by current Western standards, the the radical elements of Islam refuse to accept even today.

Say what? I am discussing IMPERIAL standards; not what Americans think of abortion or women's right in general.

You go back and examine the actions of the West over the last several centuries, and most often they were more civilized than the people they were confronting as they explored the planet.

If you would believe the imperialist who always seemed to have had bigger weapons ( which i suppose they got trough peaceable cooperation in Europe) and dim views on anyone who didn't like having their resources confiscated? I am talking about TODAY where the US national security state is proceeding to wreck what was just about the most modern and westernized nation to be found in the middle east. So much for you understanding the irony of 'spreading democracy and culture' to nations that were well on their way!

You read through these claims of Western atrocities, and they are all strawmen arguments based on ludicrous claims that ignore the activities of those that they were dealing with.

I have actually studied them and i just can't seem to ever come up with legitimate reasons ( other than economical and political one's) for terrorizing the third , and some of the first, world. Feel free to point to a 'good' 'intervention' as staged by the US national security state./

For example, just because the U.S. once associated with some group or individual, the propagandists want to claim that makes the U.S. responsible for all the atrocities committed by that radical element. This is a ludicrous position.

Unless that movement or group could not, did not or would not have existed but for US funding, US occupations or Us political meddling in that country. Name a few , or even one, of the terrorist organizations that have attacked US soldiers or soil ( i'll make it seem easy by including embassies)?

By the same logic, the same arguments makes everyone to blame for the actions of everyone else, and that is total nonsense.

Only in a casual reality where , you know, events has causes? Action reaction? Or do you have some other reality in mind?

Only Saddam Hussain was responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussain, only the members of the Taliban are responsible for the actions of the Taliban.

Sure only SH is 'responsible' for his own actions but would he have been able to take action in the Baath party without CIA backing oh so long ago? Would his faction in the Baath party have been able to systematically assassinate or exile the majority of quite progressive ( and SH instituted a very progressive social agenda) Baath party officials without CIA help? Would the Taliban have gained a foothold without the reign of terror of the US supplied warlord factions? Would the Soviet Union ever have gotten involved , they were 'invited' ( just like the South Vietnamese puppet president invited in the US) if the US did not start supplying warlords with weapon and resources to destabilize the incompetent progressive government? All good question you won't have answers to because you were not even aware of the facts.

I provide links as often as you do, you have made more than your share of audacious claims that you never back up with links.

Audacious claims isn't beyond me but i do try to differentiate between what i believe and what i know. Obviously i should do better but criticism coming from someone who does so comparatively little isn't why i aim to do better.

You want a link to terrorism in Germany, here ya go. You could have done this yourself.

www.google.com...

The evidence is overwhelming.

For what? Who did the 'terrorist' attack in Germany in recent times? Night clubs frequented by American soldiers perhaps? Funny that it's so easy to associate 'foreign' terrorism with American occupation personal. ....

You are far and away from a vast majority supporting your position, or the idea that we in the West are the root of all evil.

"We' in the west are not the 'root' of all evil'. 'We' are the cannon fodder drafted and taxed to bleed/die and work our asses off for corporate profit and third world misery and starvation. And then you accuse me of not understanding the issue when you presume that 'the west' means ' the people of the west' who clearly don't support imperialism and militarism. Sad stuff.

Continue

You represent a radical element in western liberalism that is attempting to take over the liberal movement and destroy it with kind of biased view against the West that you espouse.

My view is certainly biased in favor of the truth but i do aim to get it even closer. Currently it doesn't look good for western imperialism but perhaps perhaps the Vietnamese will still go 'communist' , the Cubans and Mexicans invade Florida and Texas, the USSR use it's massive nuclear arsenal to lay waste to the US, while shooting down the vast majority of American ICBMs, and the like. Yes, in this crazy world we have to watch the 'evildoers' because their just devious enough to want to kill us but not apparently devious enough to exploit the west as it has exploited the East. I suppose it's a different 'stupider' type of 'deviousness' as only lesser beings can possess. Imperialist voters logic in action.

This is why GW won over Kerry, it became clear that Kerry has a disdain for the U.S. and the West similar to your own.

George Bush lost to Kerry and Gore and had to steal both elections by perpetrating rather large frauds. I can't say that i think Kerry would have done much different ( Obama isn't) but i am trying to stay on topic.

Yours is the hate filled agenda, supporting the assassination of people for speaking their minds, supporting terrorism.

Don't know them so don't hate them. What i do know is that the imperialist ( not Theo ) are definitely for assassination so perhaps we should return the favor occasionally; we do after all have the numbers to sustain reprisals in kind. Since the whole killing thing tends to result in factions that just seem to kill each other other and not those in power who exploit us all i am certainly for putting off the assassinations and the like until a far larger proportion of western society have figured out what is being done to them and in their name trough their resources.

I consistently come here to speak out against violence like terrorism and honor killings, and stand up for those who act in their own defense. People do have a right to defend themselves against those, like Hamas, who swear to destroy them

And i have always been left with the distinct impression that these things are only problematic for you if they are being done by the societies that are squirming under the boot of foreign oppressors. Why is it that you seem to be so desperately interest in making apologies for the invaders( who have created the political and societal free for all in Iraq and across much of the world) and occupiers by blaming all the problems normally associated with war on those being invaded and suffering the most?

People most certainly have the right to defend themselves but apparently this is only when they are Westerners ( including Israeli's; funnily?) and thus deserving of status enough to get their deaths covered in the western media? Why do you think so much less of those Iraqi's, Afghans and others who stand up to act in self defense of their countries or just families? Why are you , a apparent racist, so quick to point fingers when anyone suggests that westerns might , and the case of Theo ,did, face retribution for what their governments are doing in the Middle east and elsewhere?

Striking to say the least.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


You really need to get your facts straight.

Millions have not been killed in Iraq by the U.S., and most of the people killed were killed by terrorist organizations aiming to impose Sharia law on the people. The terrorists are killing far more people than U.S. soldiers.

usliberals.about.com...

Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14

Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70

Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163

Your bias is definitely not for the truth, you don't even know what imperialism means. You talk about oppression, all the while ignoring the fact that the wealth of the Middle East is directly due to the Western nations developing their resources for them. All you have done is spew propaganda nonsense.

Should you ever care to start to look at the truth of the situation, you would realize that the bad guys in the West are working with the bad guys in the Middle East. These terrorists you want to support are on the same side as the people in the West who you want to call imperialists.

You call for the destruction of the U.S., and yet claim to be on the side of justice? You know nothing about the quality of the people of the U.S., or the quality of the soldiers who put their lives on the line in another country in to re-establish order. If you think the terrorists are the good guys and U.S. soldiers the bad guys, you are completely clueless.

Originally posted by poet1b
You really need to get your facts straight.

I do my best.

Millions have not been killed in Iraq by the U.S.,

The sanctions killed at least half a million Iraqi children ( lack of medicine embargoed by west) with fatalities amongst the elderly and the rest accounting for at least as much during the 13 years of sanctions. A million more have died since as result of the instability and violence that resulted from the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

and most of the people killed were killed by terrorist organizations aiming to impose Sharia law on the people

So the occupiers tell us. I can understand why you believe them without doubt ( In your alternate reality we found bushes WOMD and discovered the links to terrorism) but what i can't understand is how sharia law got dragged into this. I suppose it's because it's related to Islam?

. The terrorists are killing far more people than U.S. soldiers.

usliberals.about.com...

Daily Insurgent Attacks, Feb 2004 - 14

Daily Insurgent Attacks, July 2005 - 70

Daily Insurgent Attacks, May 2007 - 163

Why do you site 'USliberals' ( the brookings insitute for pete's sake) ? Who cares what the mock liberals ( and it's a really bad act) thinks?

The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006.[4] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, and 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), and unknown (2%).

en.wikipedia.org...

ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Hard to say who's killing who but basically the US forces are in the middle of a bloody civil war ( now largely ended with a shia victory) where they completely failed the protect the Sunni minority against roaming Shia death squads that were returning the favor after a few decades of US backed Sunni control and oppression in that country. I am not trying to suggest that the US forces have physically bombed or shot to death a million Iraqi's but that the deaths came as direct result of the destruction of Iraq civilian and social infrastructure. But what is another million deaths in terms of what economic imperialism has been creating for decades?

Your bias is definitely not for the truth, you don't even know what imperialism means.

Imperialism is when tyrants believe they have sufficient control at home to set their aims on distant economic plunder.

You talk about oppression, all the while ignoring the fact that the wealth of the Middle East is directly due to the Western nations developing their resources for them.

You talk about oppression and all you see is the tyrants the US has not backed or created which really don't ammount to many any ways. The middle east could and would have been developed by their own people if they were allowed the oppertunity but since that would not have filled western corporations and government coffers with extraordinary wealth they were not allowed. Isn't it striking how the oldest cultures on the face of the Earth can't seem to do anything without western help these days? How do you guys come up with this illogical nonsensical reasoning?

All you have done is spew propaganda nonsense.

And that's how the truth would look to a imperialist. Do you at least understand that you are not part of the imperialist plan and that you have not been enriched by it? That you are entirely expendable and not part of the grand plan to economically gang rape the third world into oblivion?

Should you ever care to start to look at the truth of the situation, you would realize that the bad guys in the West are working with the bad guys in the Middle East.

Plenty of bad guys in the west did help to fund the bad guys in the middle east ( they funded SH for two decades) but how does that help to explain why the Iraqi society is being utterly destroyed? Or are you suggesting that the US 'liberals' are somehow conspiring with Iran ( hehe) who is funding the resistance in Iraq?

These terrorists you want to support are on the same side as the people in the West who you want to call imperialists.

I don't support terrorism or ethnic cleansing of any sort. How are the Iraqi resistance on the same side as the Neocons who wish to take control of the entire middle east to ensure European dependence on the US struggle against Russia?

You call for the destruction of the U.S., and yet claim to be on the side of justice?

I don't call for the destruction of the US any more than Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel. I have suggested that the US national security state should go in the same way that the Zionist controllers of Israel needs to go. If only you could read English or find a reliable translator life would be much simpler.

You know nothing about the quality of the people of the U.S., or the quality of the soldiers who put their lives on the line in another country in to re-establish order.

There was order in Iraq before the US instituted devastating sanctions that didn't allow Iraqi's to rebuild all civilian infrastructure that were destroyed. What The US didn't destroy by bombing or sanctions in the 90's they bombed to oblivion in 03' and practically nothing has been rebuilt. I have never had a problem with the 'quality' of people of the US ( beside radical racist imperialist such as yourself) but i do understand the US soldiers are risking or, and in a few tens of thousands of cases, destroying their lives while having brought death to a million Iraqi's and misery and pain to the rest. Lives are being wasted on both sides but as is obvious we can apparently only accurately count the American one's.

If you think the terrorists are the good guys and U.S. soldiers the bad guys, you are completely clueless.

You say terrorist and i say national liberal fighter ( who really knows who's planting the roadside bombs; heard about the SAS caught with bombs in the trunk and turbans on their heads?) but clearly Iraq is such a mess that i don't know who's who and who's just settling old scores. That's what you create when you invade countries on false premises and then refuse to carry out even the basic Geneva convention role of safeguarding those who are now under your control. US soldiers where the bad guys In Korea, were the 'bad guys' ( as we are simplifying everything) in Vietnam, Panama, Somalia and practically everywhere else they went so why should this be any different or the Iraqi resistance be any more 'evil' and 'immoral' than the Vietnamese turned out to be?

You really need to stop trusting others with your beliefs and start investigating what you think you know all by yourself.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


I don't think you try at all. I don't think you care about the truth one bit.

Let me get this straight, the U.S. is responsible for all deaths in Iraq while Saddam ran the country because Saddam once worked for the U.S. for a short time. If you really believe this, then you will believe anything in order to justify your hate against the U.S..

You don't like my first source, at least I provided a source. Wikpedia is completely unreliable as a source, anyone could have put that information on wikipedia, including you.

Here is another source.

www.nytimes.com...

Terrorist attacks against noncombatants nearly doubled in Iraq from 2005 to 2006 and were up sharply in Afghanistan, with those two countries alone accounting for a 29 percent increase in terrorism worldwide, according to a report released Monday by the State Department.

Daily in the news we stories of suicide bombers in Iraq attacking other Iraqis over fanatical religious beliefs.

It is all about Islam, all about religion, because it is the religious fanatics who are indiscriminately murdering people around the world in order to convert the world to Islam. Whether it is in Israel or India, or Europe, or Africa, Islamic fanatics are killing people to force their religious agenda on the world.

It is not about Israel, or the U.S., Islamic fanatics are carrying on terrorist attacks everywhere they are found, If not in Europe or Africa, then against Russia, China, India, The Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, everywhere the cancer of Islam is spread.

Here is another article on the situation in Iraq.

news.yahoo.com...

Baghdad's sectarian violence began as early as 2003 but picked up dramatically after suspected Sunni militants blew up a revered Shiite shrine north of the city in 2006. At its peak, dozens of bodies, some decapitated or with execution-style gun wounds, turned up at outlying areas of the city or in the Tigris each day.

What does this have to do with Israel? Everything. It is all about religious control. Two different points of view of the same religion are at a constant state of aggression against each other. Even within the same religion they can not get along.

Originally posted by poet1b
I don't think you try at all. I don't think you care about the truth one bit.

But i would have to value your opinion about these matters, or what you think about me, to care what you think about my attempts.

Let me get this straight, the U.S. is responsible for all deaths in Iraq while Saddam ran the country because Saddam once worked for the U.S. for a short time.

He worked for and with the US right until he got double crossed and Iraq invaded in the first gulf war. You see he actually believed he had permission to invade Kuwait but yeah, he got set up by the US which had been building up it's conventioan forces for a decade without the satisfaction of a war with the shape shifting USSR. The social reforms and economic progress made in Iraq simply had to be undone and it's cheap oil had to disseaper from the markets if the US were to maintain dollar hegemony that allowed massive deficit spending. The US national security state where aware of all SH's atrocities but in fact supported and provided aid in the decade he commited the vast majority of outrages

If you really believe this, then you will believe anything in order to justify your hate against the U.S..

I don't hate the U.S as a nation as the vast majority, such as yourself, are utterly unaware of what is being done in your name. I don't even hate the US national security state as i have never met any of it's functionaries. Hate doesn't come into this at all.

You don't like my first source, at least I provided a source. Wikpedia is completely unreliable as a source, anyone could have put that information on wikipedia, including you.

Wipedia provides it sources and if you were or are too lazy to check them that is your business. Wikipedia IS reliable but since i am aware of where that information comes from ( the actual sources) i could use wikipedia to quickly get the info. As for 'anyone' being able to edit wikipedia that is only the case in theory as in practice all changes or noted and inspected for sources of basic authenticity. You really need to investigate issues before sharing your opinions with us.

Here is another source.

www.nytimes.com...

Terrorist attacks against noncombatants nearly doubled in Iraq from 2005 to 2006 and were up sharply in Afghanistan, with those two countries alone accounting for a 29 percent increase in terrorism worldwide, according to a report released Monday by the State Department.

So what? As the sources i provided shows those studies notes quite accurately that large numbers of people in Iraq and Afghanistan are being killed in secterian violence. What does that change about the fact that the US invasion of at least Iraq allowed such conditions to come about? Why has the US failed in it's convention obligation to protect the citizens of Iraq from such types of violence? No matter which way you look at it the US occupation of Iraq is both illegal and criminally prosecuted.

Daily in the news we stories of suicide bombers in Iraq attacking other Iraqis over fanatical religious beliefs.

That's all you hear yes, nothing about the tens of thousands of shooting deaths and deaths by air bombardment, tank shells and diseases caused by the destruction of iraq civilian infrastructure. And then people call the American press 'liberal'.

It is all about Islam, all about religion, because it is the religious fanatics who are indiscriminately murdering people around the world in order to convert the world to Islam.

Islam is blamed but it's rarely the root cause of the violence. The root cause of the violence is foreign oppression and economic deprevation that results in people unifying as best they can to resist. Sadly normal political organization isn't allowed, and frequently bombed/assasinated, so the only way the west allows Iraq's and others to practically express themselves is trough religion which then called fanatacism which can then be used as reason for bombing them even more and perpetuating the cycle of oppression by which the third world always ends up in worse condition than it was. Isn't it striking that you always find a way to blame those who suffer most while finding twisted paranoid plots ( 'they just hate our guts'. Why don't they hate the swedes? Are you so easily taken in?) by which to excuse the criminal behaviour of those making the exceedingly large profits. Perhaps it would help if you could simply accept that i don't 'hate' the American people?

Whether it is in Israel or India, or Europe, or Africa, Islamic fanatics are killing people to force their religious agenda on the world.

And they have, are , and will continue to fail horribly if that was ever their goal given how the US and others will employ that belief ( which they propagandized you with) to further their imperial aims. Why can't we start talking about the fundamentalist Christians in America then? What have they done lately that has made the US safer by supporting the war on Iraq and 'terrorism' which didn't exist on the scale it does now?

It is not about Israel, or the U.S., Islamic fanatics are carrying on terrorist attacks everywhere they are found, If not in Europe or Africa, then against Russia, China, India, The Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, everywhere the cancer of Islam is spread.

What a bigot you are. Do i ever talk about Christian US/western imperialism? Why do you so persistently fail to seperate national self defense from whatever religions might be involved? Why are Muslim minorities resorting to violence in so many places? Why are they the one's that were suffering the most before they started violent resistance and why are they still the one's being killed at 100 to 1 ratio's? Frankly i don't even know how to talk to someone that believes such nonsensical stuff about the world. It's demeaning and embarrassing to even have to try to explain how illogical and racist your way of thinking is.

Originally posted by poet1b
Here is another article on the situation in Iraq.

What does this have to do with Israel?

Everything yes. People who happen to be Muslim have mostly realised that the US have sided with Israel ( or at least it's imperialist Zionist rulers) and is hell bent on painting Muslims as 'evildoers' who are somehow mostly terrorist. I mean it's not that Bush is a christian who really want to kill Muslims but rather the fact that the Muslim world happen to be sitting on a very, very resource rich and strategically valuable real estate. This has very little to do with religion and everything to do with the same old imperial control and profit motive that have always inspired the best armed to try to take wealth from less well armed and organized societies. IT's sad that you can always trust a bigot to reduce the world to interfaith struggles when it's so much simpler to understand and make sense of the very real class struggle behind it all.

Everything. It is all about religious control

Well that is what the people who control western media would like you to think! A 'class of civilizations's' so to speak. Such nonsense.

Two different points of view of the same religion are at a constant state of aggression against each other. Even within the same religion they can not get along.

Sunni and Shia have not always had problems getting along ( no more so than the Christian factions any ways) and the split isn't more significant than in many other religions. Only 10-15's of Muslims follow the Shia branch leaving the vast majority to be Sunni's. The only large concentration of Shia in the middle east is in fact in Iran where 90% of the population are Shia which is why the US backed SH and the Sunni minority 15% ( as i recall and they have long been the allies of the Imperialist British occupiers) in Iraq to bring them into conflict with Iran over which the US national security state had lost control when their puppet their tried to give away the resource wealth too fast. Basically it was a good way to keep the middle east unstable and ever more dependent on foreign aid to finance their decade long war.

But more basically your bigotry is once again exposed when you can only seem to find the divides in other religions which happens to be the exact religion that is being manipulated by the west, and more specifically the US national security state, for economic and strategic control. Let it never be said that propaganda does not effect all people.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


Maybe I was out of line to state that I don't think you care about the truth at all, maybe.

Saddam did not work For the U.S. up until the first Gulf War. Saddam might have worked with factions within the U.S., the very same people who later betrayed him, but Saddam also worked with the Soviets, and anyone else who furthered his agenda. Saddam was a mad man, that is clear, and if you don't see it, I feel sorry for you.

If the Muslim extremist would stop murdering people in order to further their radical agenda in Iraq, Iraq could be a decent place to live right now. U.S. troops would leave much more quickly, and Iraqis could get on with becoming a prosperous democracy. As the evidence shows, it is Muslim extremists who are doing most of the killing in Iraq.

If wipedia provides its sources, than you should post those sources, being that wipedia is not the original source. Use wipedia as a search engine if you like, but you should link to the original source. I shouldn't have to chase down your sources.

The thing is, how can you expect any legitimacy when you post statements like this.

What a bigot you are. Do i ever talk about Christian US/western imperialism?

Here are quotes from you throwing around the imperialism claim left and right just in this very post where you claim not to do such a thing, and the previous post.

This has very little to do with religion and everything to do with the same old imperial control and profit motive that have always inspired the best armed to try to take wealth from less well armed and organized societies.

( as i recall and they have long been the allies of the Imperialist British occupiers)

But what is another million deaths in terms of what economic imperialism has been creating for decades?

And that's how the truth would look to a imperialist. Do you at least understand that you are not part of the imperialist plan and that you have not been enriched by it?

( beside radical racist imperialist such as yourself)

How is it that everywhere around the world, where ever they go, even Sweden, Muslims wind up having to carryout terrorist murders because they are the victims? Somehow they always find a way to become the victims.


[edit on 29-3-2009 by poet1b]

quote]Originally posted by poet1b
Maybe I was out of line to state that I don't think you care about the truth at all, maybe.

Maybe i don't think your anywhere close to convinced , in that paranoid seeming mind of you, that i am not in fact 'anti american' ( whatever that means to you) and somehow hell bent on destroying the bastion of 'freedom'? Maybe we would both be much better off we we stropped trying to discover or assume each others motives and instead focus on what is in fact being said?

Saddam did not work For the U.S. up until the first Gulf War.

I am wrong to say that he 'worked for' the U.S national security state as the relationship is obviously much more complex than that. The U.S national security state interests at mostly coincided with SH's when he took over the Baath party and slowly worked towards expelling or killing all those progressives who wanted reform and a truly democratic process. With the failure of the US NSS in Iran it shifted much of it's operation over the Iraq and in so doing helped to encourage SH to invade Iran thus keeping the entire middle east destabilized and Iran occupied and subverted for more than a decade. This led to the large scale disruption in both societies once again furthering US aims of keeping progressive ( 'leftist') movements very much suppressed. Up until the reorganization of the USSR SH were a useful ally/puppet but clearly not following the imperial script closely enough hence rapid escalation to war over the little dictatorship that is Kuwait. At the initiation of the gulf war i think it became clear to SH that his usefulness had mostly expired and that he had no more free pass to continue making Iraq a beacon of economic and social reform in the middle east. Perhaps had he read recent history he could have discovered that setting a alternative example is a very, very bad idea in this corporate capitalist dominated world?

Saddam might have worked with factions within the U.S., the very same people who later betrayed him, but Saddam also worked with the Soviets, and anyone else who furthered his agenda.

More throwaway claims that i would like to see you prove. Who did SH 'conspire' with and to what ends other than national independence? Would you perhaps like to discuss why Cuba, Vietnam, Korea and so many other nations turned to the USSR AFTER the US national security state essentially told them that their democratic and economic redistribution( which means giving back to the poor what had previously been stolen from them) policies were simply not acceptable? Perhaps you want to investigate how hard Castro and Ho Chi Minh tried to cooperate with the United States of America before eventually turning to the USSR for protection in this hostile capitalist controlled world?

Saddam was a mad man, that is clear, and if you don't see it, I feel sorry for you.

I don't see how SH was a mad man and i doubt i could as i can't even begin to comprehend how a truly mad person can so effectively control the people that are required to make a modern nation function. If you wish to suggest that he was completely immoral , a racist ( killing Kurds, other minorities) , imperialist for attacking Iran and Kuwait or possessed other qualities that made him a less than 'nice' human being i could understand but but definition 'mad' isn't close.

If the Muslim extremist would stop murdering people in order to further their radical agenda in Iraq

Actually it's either sectarian violence ( religious/ethnic factions) or the resistance movements fighting against either those who cooperate with the occupiers or with the occupation troops directly. I don't think it's useful or accurate to believe that the violence in Iraq is based on 'muslim' extremism when things were pretty quite under SH despite the generous use of violence on the side of state police/army units. I am quite confident that the recent invasion had everything to do with the breakdown of law and order and the resulting free for all that is ongoing despite the deaths of so many.. Again I don't hear any talk of Christian extremist when bombs go off in Northern Ireland despite the fact that it is as much a issue there as in Iraq. Until people such as yourself can begin to understand that Muslims are people too ( not the only people who kill over religion or foreign troops who occupy them) i have a hard time seeing your response in anything but racist imperialist term ai, it's all 'their' fault.

Iraq could be a decent place to live right now.

Iraq used to be a decent country to live in that were utterly destroyed by two invasions, more than a decade of sanctions and now 6 years of occupation that has done practically nothing to rebuild the country's vital civilian infrastructure. Iraq's muslims did not and could not destroy the civilian infrastructure and even if they murdered each other for years they would still have had all the infrastructure in place that were so uttery destroyed by air bombardment and sanctions. If you can find a way to blame Iraqi's for being in this situation i would like to hear what you think about starving people in Sudan, the genocide of a minority tribe in Rwanda and all the people who still find themselves living in dictatorships who have open trade relations with the US national security state. So much for 'liberating' people when the trade partner can keep his people poor and generally working hard for western corporate profit?

U.S. troops would leave much more quickly, and Iraqis could get on with becoming a prosperous democracy.

Germans are not killing each other at all and the US still has troops there. South Koreans are not killing each other and the US still has troops there. The Japanese have not invaded anyone in half a century and the US still has troops there. In fact it's not hard to find peace loving people who live next to US bases that they just can't seem to get expelled no matter what their government does. Why do you still believe in this mythology that the US national security state will 'leave' Iraq if the violence stops? Why did you believe them when they said there were WOMD or ties to terrorism? Why can't you let history educate you about US national security state foreign policy directives? What have they ever had to do with keeping the peace if shooting someone or something turned a profit?

As the evidence shows, it is Muslim extremists who are doing most of the killing in Iraq.

The major killer in Iraq is a lack of clean water, sanitation and health care services. Since that death toll is so high i am not really concerned with who is shooting who or bombing what considering how significant the basic higher mortality rate is. Either way the sources we have discussed shows quite clearly that despite US popular propaganda to the contrary many tens of thousands of people have surely died as result of fighting both each other and the US forces. I think the higher end estimates are much more useful ( they were good enough when they were used to 'prove' that the Serbs had killed tens of thousands of people) and accurate considering the scale of this war but i am not fixated with the death toll be it 100 000 or 1 000 000.

What i find most distressing is that despite the invasion of and occupation of a foreign nation you are still somehow managing to believe that 'they' are to blame; the Nazi party would have really liked your type helping to spread this notion that 'they' will always be killing themselves with or without foreign intervention. It's this type of supremacist reasoning that makes me wonder why i should be cordial at all.

If wipedia provides its sources, than you should post those sources, being that wipedia is not the original source. Use wipedia as a search engine if you like, but you should link to the original source. I shouldn't have to chase down your sources.

I agree that you shouldn't have to 'chase' ( is citing wikipedia making it that difficult for you?) and would have had a much easier time of it if you actually did the research yourself instead of relying on hearsay and popular propaganda. Basically i will continue to site whatever sources i like ( secondary or otherwise) as long as i believe them to be accurate representations of the original fact sets. If you disagree with the analysis in the secondary or primary sources you should post the source material you are basing your disagreement on. If have come a long way past the half way mark to meet you and i am not coming any further.

The thing is, how can you expect any legitimacy when you post statements like this.

What a bigot you are. Do i ever talk about Christian US/western imperialism?

Here are quotes from you throwing around the imperialism claim left and right just in this very post where you claim not to do such a thing, and the previous post.

Agreed. I made the mistake of adding the slash when i meant to specify that i didn't discuss western imperialism in religious terms; i have not stated and don't believe modern western imperialism to be based on western religious beliefs and i have seen no evidence that Islam is responsible for the hostile actions/ imperialism ( Ottoman empire) of largely Muslim.

That's the distinction i tried to make and i don't think it should have been that hard to 'uncover' as the last section of my post makes clear.

Continued

The thing is, how can you expect any legitimacy when you post statements like this.

What a bigot you are. Do i ever talk about Christian US/western imperialism?

Here are quotes from you throwing around the imperialism claim left and right just in this very post where you claim not to do such a thing, and the previous post.

Agreed. I made the mistake of adding the slash when i meant to specify that i didn't discuss western imperialism in religious terms; i have not stated and don't believe modern western imperialism to be based on western religious beliefs and i have seen no evidence that Islam is responsible for the hostile actions/ imperialism ( Ottoman empire) of largely Muslim.

That's the distinction i tried to make and i don't think it should have been that hard to 'uncover' as the last section of my post makes clear.

How is it that everywhere around the world, where ever they go, even Sweden, Muslims wind up having to carryout terrorist murders because they are the victims?

Well they do not go around carrying out terrorist murders wherever they go; certainly not more so than Christians. Can we not rather ask why violence perpetrated by Christians are never discussed in religious terms in the western media? Why do you think it is that all the violence committed by Muslims are always seen as purely religious motivated? Where is your proof that they are in fact 'Muslims' other than media claims that they are? It's racial profiling at it's worse and i think it's revealing that this isn't as obvious to you as it is to me.

Somehow they always find a way to become the victims.]

Actually they don't as the media we watch surely condemns them as religious fanatics that obviously could not and did not commit violence for the same reason totally non religiously inspired reasons that Christians and other religious denominations normally does. This is the crux of the matter and how you can and have been propagandized to hate one group more than another for committing the very same offensives for supposed different motivations is very revealing of the imperial method of doing what you want in the world and then inventing racist excuses for consumption by your foot soldiers who are after all doing the dirty work they couldn't do unless they believed themselves to be so superior. It's a racist way of thinking ( other people are so widely differently motivated than myself) and if it wasn't so covertly inserted and commonplace perhaps we could get it banned from ATS.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX

Well they do not go around carrying out terrorist murders wherever they go;

You're SO right Stellar... There just a victim of... , that might be a tough sell to the almost 8,000 Frenchmen who had their cars burned recently.