Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Friday, December 16, 2005

Definitions

"'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it."

- Sydney Harris, "Nations should submit to the rule of the law", Clearing the Ground (1986)

223 Comments:

Blogger David Tan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, December 16, 2005 12:05:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

"'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it."

Nah thats wrong.

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature;

Ahhh thats better ... a non politicised definition.

Friday, December 16, 2005 12:20:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

terrorism n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature;

Oh thank God! The 'insurgents' in Iraq aren't terrorists after all.

Friday, December 16, 2005 12:24:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Ah why not eddy?

Friday, December 16, 2005 12:30:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Because their use of violence is against the occupying military, not civilians. Sure, some civilians are getting injured and killed in the process - but that's just collateral damage right?

Point is, their sights are set on the military, not civilians, therefore they fall outside of your definition of terrorism.

Don't forget, though, we're not allowed to call them insurgents either for fear that it might imply legitimacy in their cause.

Friday, December 16, 2005 12:46:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Because their use of violence is against the occupying military, not civilians.

Tell that to the family of civillian contrator Nick Berg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Berg

That's terrorism clear and simple.

Friday, December 16, 2005 12:54:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

And what about:

Eugene Armstrong
Jack Hensley
Kenneth Bigley and
Shosei Koda ....

All civillians all killed in cold blood.

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:03:00 pm  
Blogger uphillsprinter said...

But all the civillians killed by the OCCUPYING millitary was not in cold blood.

Dan, your point is lost, if there was any to begin with.

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:10:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

But all the civillians killed by the OCCUPYING millitary was not in cold blood.

Can you give me one event where the US intentionally beheaded anyone?

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:10:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Dan, your point is lost, if there was any to begin with.

Its only lost on you uphill because you are wilfully blind.

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:11:00 pm  
Blogger uphillsprinter said...

"Can you give me one event where the US intentionally beheaded anyone?"

Oh!!...only beheadings is considered cold blooded terrorism. So 30 000 iraqi civillian deaths which arose from an illegal occupation of a country without provocation only to plunder her resources is fine with you.

huh... i wonder who is 'wilfully blind' again.

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:22:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

We only know the names of these people because they are American/western so they are considered important enough to name. Even if I could give you names of civilians slaughtered in Fallujah, it wouldn't mean anything to you because they're non-people.

Or how about the video I posted in another thread linked to Aegis - a private security firm in Iraq. If you missed it earlier, here it is again:

'Trophy' video exposes private security contractors shooting up Iraqi drivers

That's about as cold blooded as it gets if you ask me.

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:28:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

So 30 000 iraqi civillian deaths which arose from an illegal occupation of a country without provocation only to plunder her resources is fine with you.

Are there so many problems with that statement. I will give you a few uphill.

1. the 30,000 civillian deaths include some insurgents and deaths caused by insurgents so it is not accurate to pin those deaths on the US.

2. the deaths of Iraqi civillians cause by the US have never been intentional. There has been deaths caused by accidents and wrong information but that is War.

3. I could go on about the war being legal but that is off topic.

You cant provide me with an intentional US murder can you uphill?

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:29:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

David you are such a pin head it is unbelievable.

Was the Iraq invasion not a calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature?

You bloody well be they were.

What do you think shock and awe was supposed to be? A way to make the Iraqi public felel warm and fuzzy inside while 500 to 2000 pound bombs were dropped on them?

Does a 500 pound bomb blowing a person to pink mist make them any less dead than a man being beheaded?

Do people (who cant swim) who are forced to jump off a bridge into a river enjoy the experince any more than Nick Berg?

Do people being incinerated by WP thank thier lucky stars that they are not being beheaded?

You are truly and utterly braindead.

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:52:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Was the Iraq invasion not a calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature?

No the targets were military and political (Saddam & Ba'ath Party etc).

What do you think shock and awe was supposed to be?

See above.

Your insults make you look foolish. If you cant argue without personal abuse dont bother.

Friday, December 16, 2005 2:11:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, December 16, 2005 2:11:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

You drive me to exasperation with your naivity and ignorance David.

Saying that shock and awe was about targetting Saddam & Ba'ath Party is like saying that the plane that hit the Pentagon was trying to get Rumslfeld. Get real.

Shock and Awe was designed to demoralise the Iraqi military and it's people so that they would not stand up to the invasion.

The first strike that was supposed to get Saddam, killed 14 people, including decapitating the daughter (younger than 10 I believe) of one family.

What you gonna do now David, use Rummy's quote that shit happens?

and incase you haven't noticed. Everyone disagrees with you on this thread. I belive that makes you the fool.

Friday, December 16, 2005 2:22:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

Not everyone addamo...

Learn what words mean Antony (and those with him).

This bit of inept thinking under the heading "Definitions" - "'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it." shows you need a new dictionary.

Attempting to equate terrorism - the intentional killing of unarmed civilians (Eg, New York, Bali, Madrid, London and every second day in Baghdad) with war - conflict between two armed groups is pathetic - an example of the fallacy of moral equivalence.

None of you (who are with Antony) seem to understand why this reasoning is flawed. We decide whether a person is moral or not when we assign them praise or blame. Clearly you are deserving of a greater "amount" of blame (in terms of killing) when you intentionally kill unarmed civilians, than accidentally killing unarmed civilians. Yes, in both cases they are dead either way, but a thought experiment. Which is worse: being killed as a pedestrian when the person behind the wheel of the car suffers a stroke (of which they had no way of knowing that they were at risk of having), or being deliberately run into by a nutter who is just pissed at the world?

Please read about moral equivalence before you start spouting ill reasoned crap in response.

Friday, December 16, 2005 2:33:00 pm  
Blogger uphillsprinter said...

a fool and a degenerate who is merely excusing and endorsing one form of killing and condemning another based on sides... grade 2 idealogy really.

and David, how is the war legal again? How is occupying a country and plundering her resources legal again.

Friday, December 16, 2005 2:37:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

The 'thinking' goes something like this:

Western states don't conduct terrorism, we only kill by accident, for liberation etc.

Terrorists, non-state actors, or rogue states etc, kill civilians for no reason and are...terrorists.

Western exceptionalism is alive and well.

Friday, December 16, 2005 2:45:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Let me see if I understand what you are saying Teo
.
If they shoot first, it's an attack. If we shoot first, we are "defending ourselves preemptively."

Amazing what you can do with words.

The moral equivalence argument is absolute crap. It's nothing more than a clever way tro explain away Western exceptionalism.

Friday, December 16, 2005 2:45:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

You forgot to mention AL, the we don't torture either. We just liberate people from their dignity and help them to better understand pain.

Friday, December 16, 2005 2:47:00 pm  
Blogger anthony said...

Thankyou, Theo. It's a pity no one actually listened to what you said.

Terrorists, non-state actors, or rogue states etc, kill civilians for no reason and are...terrorists.

Not to create the straw man you guys love so much here, but your sarcasm implies that the murder of civilians in Iraq is not terrorism, i.e., attacks on mosque's and suicide-homicide attacks on children when they take lollies from US soldiers is not terrorism.

Sigh...

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:06:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

The 'thinking' goes something like this: ...

No the word terrorist has a meaning. See my definition above. No one here can cite me one example in Iraq of intentional killing of civillians by America? And yet the US is equivalent to terrorists? Come on the distinguishing nature is clear.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:09:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

So both of you leave no place for intentions?

Antony L - can I have examples of killings by the "West" equivalent to London, Bali and Madrid…

Addamo - Yes, it is amazing what people do with words, especially misusing them, which was the prompt for my 1st comment. Also, in what way (specifically) is the moral equivalence argument crap? (Overall, are you saying deliberate targeting of civilians - suicide bombing in the middle of a crowd is the same as accidental killing of civilians?) Overall, on average, what "we" have done is clearly different from what "they" have done.

Also, to both of you, where did I say the west should benefit from "exceptionalism"? I'm not saying you can't argue against the war (though I think it's a little bit pointless now - especially given most Iraqis are pretty optimistic about their future: BBC poll). I take exception to the misappropriation of words. We have two different words, war and terrorism, for a good reason, to describe two different things.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:10:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

My wife is telling me to get off the computer, so I bid you good- day... (I be back tonight I'm sure).

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:12:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Anthony,

Have you gone to the link Theo provided? It features a Photoshop distorted picture of AL. That's what bottom feeders like Theo call debate.

It's little wonder that you admire him.

Straw men and moral equivalnece aside. everyone knows that innoicents are killed in all wars. It is therefore no defense to state that harming civilians was not intended when you launch a war of agression.

What's the difference between murdering civilians and killing them? Do you think there is any regard given to dead innocents, when the coalition labels them with the dehumanising term of collateral damage?

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:14:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

a fool and a degenerate who is merely excusing and endorsing one form of killing and condemning another based on sides... grade 2 idealogy really.

Are you referring to me?

Im not endorsing the various killings. I am articulating the difference between the US and terrorists. If you cant see the difference between a stray bomb, a misaimed bullet, a mistaken identification on the one hand and carving into the neck of a bound man sitting at your feet on the other then I should leave you to your lack of insight.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:14:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

and David, how is the war legal again? How is occupying a country and plundering her resources legal again.

If it is illegal go and get your court order against Bush. Send me a copy of the Order when you get it.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:15:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Addam and Anth I will put you down on the "Reinstate Saddam" list. I think Saddam produced 600,000 corpses in 30 years. Maybe you want to me how that was justified.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:18:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

I'm flattered that the best a critic can do is distort my face. Brilliant. You should work for the Bush administration, with your skills of distortion.
As for Western 'accidents', not targeting civilians etc. This is not something many around the world are unclear about, only those in the West who are happy to support US militarism.
Talk to the victims of US-backed and funded death squads in Latin America, or perhaps you'd prefer providing deadly weapons to Israel, or better yet, look at Iraq.
Talk to people outside your little circle, ie. not in the West, and it's clear.
Accepting that the West endorses, funds and conducts terrorism is far too confronting for many.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:21:00 pm  
Blogger Marcian Sonnenkinder said...

That was a very poetic quote, Mr Loewenstein.

In your previous post, you mention Nepal. In regard to the Nepalese, I assume you will recall the nine civilian Nepalese cooks who were kidnapped and then beheaded by members of the Islamic insurgency in Iraq.

To concretely evidence your assertion that there is little or no discernable operational difference between the Islamic insurgents and American 'occupiers', I would very much appreciate it if you would produce for me a verifiable instance in which American troops knowingly and deliberately executed Muslim non-combatants in a calm, non-accidental manner, as a part of a larger strategic plan of intimidation.

Failure to do so will somewhat invalidate your position.

Please, no red herrings, no ad hominem attacks, distractions or misdirections. Let us keep our duel gentlemanly and civilized.

Attempts by third parties to do so toward me will be ignored. There will be no "ganging up". I insist upon this for your sake, for I would not want people to confuse you with a mob of those terribly racist Australians who riot for no reason whatsoever.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:23:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Talk to the victims of US-backed and funded death squads in Latin America

Different issue Antony. Stick to the issue at hand. You hold yourself out to know somthing about iraq. Engage on the issue.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:33:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

What's the difference between murdering civilians and killing them?

You get the chair or the rope for the former.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:35:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

"No the word terrorist has a meaning. See my definition above."

Saw your definition and it applies to the US perfectly.

"No one here can cite me one example in Iraq of intentional killing of civillians by America?"

1. Have you not seen footage of a crowd bombed by a US air force plane. The footage tracks the crowd people for a good minute, as they walk openly down streets. The plane fires a missile that taken them out (at least 30). The pilot can be heard saying “Dude”. The US explanation? That the civilians were shooting at the planes. Total BS. But that was the official story.

2. The November 2004 assault on Fallujah where they warned the locals that anyone who remained in the city would be considered an insurgent. Anyone who remained to protect their property was killed. Soldiers were ordered to shoot anything that moved.

3. That same assault. The US closed down the hospital in Fallujah so that there would be no propaganda opportunities for the insurgents. The wounded would not be able to receive medial aid.

4. Numerous examples of detainees at Abu Graib were murdered. Killed while in custody. One man, who was by all accounts innocent, had his legs broken and was beaten to death.

5. The Pentagon has been withholding photographs, videos and tape of torture said to be far more horrific than wthe material that has been released. The ACLU successfully dues to have the material released, but the judge gave the Pentagon till 2006 to appeal the descision.

The material depicts rape, sodomy, murder and torture. Senators and Congresmen who have witnessed the material have stated it was the most horrific thing they had ever seen.

6. Numerous accounts of Iraqi civilians being killed during house to house searches. One woman refused to remove her Hajib. When a soldier removed it forcefully, she spat in his face and she was shot.

7. A group of Iraqi bystanders, were held by US marines who then forced them to jump into a river killing at least one of them.

8. Tehj bombing of Al Jazeera in Bagdad. The US knew the co-ordinates of the station but bombend it anyway, killing an Iraqi camear man.

Need I go on?

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:35:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

"You get the chair or the rope for the former."

And imbeciles like you announce the latter to be acts of bravery.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:37:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

"Addam and Anth I will put you down on the "Reinstate Saddam" list. I think Saddam produced 600,000 corpses in 30 years. Maybe you want to me how that was justified."

Usual diatribbe from facists nutcases who are having their argument diced before their bery eyes.

Incidently, I think the number for Saddam was 300,000 max.

The US killed more than that by tying the Iraqi sanctions to regime change.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:39:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

I'm back. Was going to play tennis but it's raining

Addamo and AL - the photoshopped picture is my version of a caricature - a legitimate form of political satire - I just can't draw, and it's good fun, and yep you should be flattered, the last one I did was of Ronaldo, so you're in pretty high company!). There's a photo of me there too - go for it if you like.

Addamo - ignoring you re-hashing of old ground vis-a-vis ignoring moral equivalence, I agree with you completely that the term "collateral damage" is dehumanising. This, again, is exactly what prompted my initial comment. (Also, I guess I'll have to take your word on those examples of US intentional killings - references please?)

I have posted previously on Weasel Words such as "collateral damage". Accidental killings of civilians should be called "civilian deaths", or "casualties" when referring to injuries as well. Collateral implies something used as security (for a loan or something), ie, generally something non-living such as a building. The (mis)use of language tends to be a big part of arguments such as this.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:43:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Marcian,

Your logic is abismal.

Given that barely a handful of journalists are able to get around Iraq, what is the likelyhood of a story about cold blooded excecutions being carried out by the US makling to the MSM?

There are accounts, liek those that I have mentioned, but you have laid down the law that unles they are vetted by a mainstrean news outlet, you will not consider them.

One of the few indpendent, non embedded repoirters in Iraq, Dahr Jamail, has stated that many of the news stories about Iraq cited in MSM papers are from reports provided by locals in Iraq, not journalists, who are too afraid to do the job themselves.

He cited an example fo an Iraqi man, who has such a job, but gave it up becasue any stories that were distateful were ignored. For a man to give up a job, in a country that has 65% unemployment, this situation must have been significant for him to take such extreme measures.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:46:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Nothing specific hey Addamo. That is the problem with you guys on the left you cant provide anything specific. Its all emotion and vague commentary which. Give me description of offender, name of victim, date of event, location of event. Put yourself in the position of a criminal prosecutor ... that would impress me. Alternatively stick with personal insults.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:52:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

And imbeciles like you announce the latter to be acts of bravery.

Straw man. Can you give up on straw men arguments?

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:52:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

One final point to all of you (as it's stopped raining so I'm off...). I am neither right nor left wing (I give Tim Blair sh*t too), a trait that seems to be assigned to either or against "the war", or "the environment" etc. But I am against deliberate shoddy thinking in order to "win" an argument. Misappropriation of language is one of the main paths to shoddy thinking.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:55:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Nothign specific? Most of those items were reported in the MSM. I am writing furiously and don't have time to go digging up every source.

What you refuse to aknowledge is that the US controls 90% of news coverage comming out of Iraq. The US MSM wont televise footgae provided by Al Jazeera becasue it's considred terrorist propaghanda. And you, a devoted lemming of the right, are swallowing it hook, line and siker.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:59:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Nothign specific? Most of those items were reported in the MSM. I am writing furiously and don't have time to go digging up every source.

What you refuse to aknowledge is that the US controls 90% of news coverage comming out of Iraq. The US MSM wont televise footgae provided by Al Jazeera becasue it's considred terrorist propaghanda. And you, a devoted lemming of the right, are swallowing it hook, line and siker.

Friday, December 16, 2005 3:59:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Most of those items were reported in the MSM.

If its in the MSM it is true? Come on.

I am writing furiously and don't have time to go digging up every source.

One accurate source would be enough to give you some credibility. You have none at this stage.

What you refuse to aknowledge is that the US controls 90% of news coverage comming out of Iraq.

Any evidence? Doesnt seem right to me. Everyone from the BBC to AFP to CNN AP are there ...

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:03:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Theo,

Most of the itms I raised were reported by the MSM. 6 adn 7 were reported a while ago and stuck in my head. I will try to find the links. Item 1 I wil try to track down also.

The issue that infuriates me the most, is that the pro war party uses Western exceptionalism as an excuse for abhorent acts. Whatevr happens in Iraq, we are told that it was worse under Saddam, and that's supposed to suffice. The parallel defense is that thiose who argue otherwise must subscribe to moral equivalence.

I've come to think that the denigration of "moral equivalence" is prety much a racist term anyway, becasue we Westeners knwo what's right and that it is our reponsibility to same the Arab man from himself.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:05:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

Stev said:

" Because their use of violence is against the occupying military, not civilians... "

In month (I think it was last march/april) alone around 600 Iraqi civilians died. And no they werent killed by US forces...


"Point is, their sights are set on the military, not civilians, therefore they fall outside of your definition of terrorism."

Well, if you call mosques, market places and religious pilgramiges/gatherings, "military targets" all of which were delibratley targetted and where no American soldiers were in sight (let alone killed or injured)-- then I aint gonna argue with that. Even that Hotel in Amman, Jordan was a legitmate military target (the people celebrating a wedding there were apparently US imperalists in disguise who engaged in the oppression and occupation of the Iraqi people).



Concidentally, more Iraqi civilians have been killed by these insurgets/freedom fighters/heros than the so called "intended targets" - the US milirary. And 100 times as many Iraqi civilians were killed by the former as oppossed to those killed by US imperalist thugs.

Ok, forget about Nicholas Burg or any other civilian contractor killed in Iraq - their deaths are not going to move you because you see them as "occuppiers" and "legitmate military targets."

But how do you, how does Antony (or anyone else for that matter) justify their support for the "insurgency" and their subsequent refusal to call this "insurgency" terrorism, when the majority of the victims who are delibratley targetted are innocent Iraqis? You know the very same oppressed and occuppied people that you purpotdly speak up for? How on earth do you justify this? Will we get any good answers from you guys?
Are you going to run away again Lowy?

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:05:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

Oh great a gang of terrorist-lovers. What next? Swaztikas and jackboots. You men are vile and should be ashamed of yourselves.

The poor Israelis and what they have had to endure. I know there's no way I would have treated these terrorist fuckers with such kid-gloves.

Nuke 'em till they glow I say. Imagine Mecca ablaze!? Just fabulous.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:06:00 pm  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

Occidentalist Anty's definition of terrorism:

"Terrorism is something that free democracies commit in overseas countries and sometimes at home. Legitimate resistance is what oppressive dictatorships do to fight back".

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:06:00 pm  
Blogger anthony said...

Andre, the distorted picture of Antony is not offensive. If he took issue with it, then he's a wanker. No doubt you giggle at many of Leak's cartoons, as do I. Or CNNNN, for that matter.

I dont 'admire' Theo, either (perhaps if he played squash instead of tennis...)- I dont know the man! I just respect anyone who comes in here and challenges your collective cushy views and anti-Western sentiments.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:08:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

I've come to think that the denigration of "moral equivalence" is prety much a racist term anyway,

Yay I was waiting for the racist allegation from the left :) thanks.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:09:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Nuke 'em till they glow I say. Imagine Mecca ablaze!? Just fabulous.

You are making the lefties look good neo.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:10:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

david tan

Islam is anathema to western left-wing ideals. The misogyny and anti-semitism of the Islamo-fascists is far more vile than even the Nazis.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:13:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

David and Theo,

Here's just a handful fir starters:

Toture material mark 2: http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17637prs20050602.html

Claims that George Bush planned to bomb the Arabic TV news station al-Jazeera have fuelled concerns that an attack on the broadcaster's Baghdad offices during the war on Iraq was deliberate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1648988,00.html

New Details of Prison Abuse Emerge
http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/052104_wp.htm

U.S. Military Obstructing Medical Care
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000157.php

Lieutenant Gets 45 Days for Forcing Iraqis off Bridge
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9661

Soldier Gets Six Months in Case of Drowned Iraqi
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/009260.html

U.S. soldier shoots 56-year-old Iraqi woman to death in her home
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20521

Al Jazeera back on the job in Iraq
http://www.awitness.org/journal/al_jazeera_iraq.html

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:15:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

And its funny how your quick to condemn the zionists and their "oppression"/"genocide/"ethnic cleansing"/murder of Arab muslim people and yet cant come to terms with brining yourself to condemn the "insurgency" in Iraq. On the contrary you see their tactics as legitmate.

Yet in the three year (and still counting) Iraqi insurgency 20 times as many innocent Arab muslims have been killed by these brave freedom fighters than those killed in an entire 100 year period of conflict with the evil zio-nazis.

cant wait to hear the response from those who speak up for all the oppressed Arab/muslim peoples and their human rights and how they justify their position.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:17:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Just a quick google search turned this up David:

Journalists Take Flak in Iraq

An excerpt if you're not interested in reading the whole thing:

But journalists say that when there's bad news--a helicopter crash, a mortar attack--they are increasingly being blocked from covering the story by US soldiers, who frequently confiscate and destroy their film disks and videotapes.

An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah should give you at least one source for some of the info posted by Addamo

Here is a link referencing the DOD's refusal to release footage of torture despite a judge's order demanding they do so.

Here is analysis of the video Addamo mentions as one of his early points - the 'Aw Dude' video. There are stills on the site, I'm sure a more comprehensive search would turn up the video itself.

That's a few sources for you to start on anyway David.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:17:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Cheers Stev. Much appreciated.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:22:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

Neo:

"Nuke 'em till they glow I say. Imagine Mecca ablaze!? Just fabulous."

Yep, no racism or bigotry or ugliness there, just good ol' Western fun.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:22:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

antony

Here's a tip for you as you clearly are far from the sharpest knife in the political analysis drawer: Islam is not a "race:" it is an "ideology."

I hope this helps.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:26:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

As for the video.

If you were to view the actual footage, you would soon realise that the explanatino was absolute garbage.

1. Firstly, the people are strolling in a casual and relaxed manner.

2. There are no signs of anyone shooting anyone.

3. If these people were posing a threat to anyone off screen, then they would have run for cover at the sighting of the F16 jet. Instead, they make no effort to hide or protect themselves.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:27:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

Neo,
I'll ask you simply once. Do not continue commenting here. If you do, I will make sure your IP is banned.
Nobody calls for the anniliation of another race/people/religion and has a say here.
Clear? Good.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:29:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

A tip for you Neo,

You haven't a clue WTF you are talking about .

If you are such a genius, why not start your own blog? I'm sure other adherents to your frazzled ideology will flock to it.

Don't you see hun? You are missing your calling?

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:30:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

So no objection to your bigotry and ugliness then Neo?

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:30:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

stev

I am hardly "bigoted." I read, listen to, digest, and consider all sorts of perspectives on endless issues relating to politics, art, science, religion, gardening, fashion, music....On THIS particular issue I have considered many perspectives. I have delivered to you my summation.

But of course, most moral blowhards like yourself and some other males here, you do not even know what "bigotry" means.

And you want ugly? Go and hang out with Hamas and the PLO. I would also suggest Yasser Arafat, but thank the lord that evil fucker is dead.

I hope this helps.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:36:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

Neo,
You clearly can't read. Do not comment here anymore.
End of story.
Go spread your bile elsewhere...

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:39:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Neo baby,

Hate to break it to you, but You are the epitome of biggotry. And sorry to break it to you hun, but your summation isn't exatly catching on if you hadn't noticed.

You speak as someone who regards themselves something of an expert in matters of the world, when it is clear you have none.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:41:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Neo,

I don't really see what my (or any of our) gender has to do with the issue at hand, but I'll chalk that up to your own sexist issues (sorry, but that's about the only way I can explain it)

I'm not going to deny that there is much ugliness surrounding the PLO and Arafat and others, just as there is much ugliness surrounding Sharon.

bigot
n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


I'm glad you have considered many perspectives, but anyone who settles on the summation that an entire race, religion or cultural group should be wiped out and sees no kind of ugliness in that solution whatsoever seems to have some major tolerance issues.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:47:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

"Nobody calls for the anniliation of another race/people/religion and has a say here."

I cant argue with that.

Does your endoresment of the "Iraqi insurgency" count though?

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:48:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:48:00 pm  
Blogger Marcian Sonnenkinder said...

For the benefit of the children.

Individual incidents of soldiers exceeding their lawful mandate and rules of engagement are, by definition, not examples of soldiers carrying out civilian murder as a part of a larger strategic plan of intimidation.

This was my specific challenge to Antony. It was a precise challenge because your fumbling innaccuracy and obsession with irrelevant distractions muddies the issue for all.

To help you further - Prison abuse is not terrorism. Prison abuse occurs in all prisons in all nations of the world. It has more to do with the mechanisms of power between individuals. This includes torture. Torture cannot be equated with terrorism because terrorism involves the senseless, pointless extermination of civilians. Torture is carried out in a systematic way in order to derive information. It, like prisoner abuse, is carried out by all nations.

Airstrikes which hit the wrong target are not terrorism. The most cursory examination of the history of airstrikes swiftly reveals that tactical ground support and strategic strikes by aircraft are things that go wrong frequently, often claiming the lives of those allied personnel it is designed to aid.

President Bush only laughing made a joke about bombing Al Jazerra. Much as many of you leftists would have made a joke about bombing the White House. Or should all those protest placards be taken literally? Should you all be arrested pre-emptively?

A direct comparison has been made here between terrorist insurgents and western democracies. It has been propagated with the assistance of the inaccuracies and messy imprecisions detailed above.

My challenge to Antony is a precise one. He must answer it precisely if he is to continue accusing the western powers (namely America) of terrorist actions with any validity.

My challenge is not presented to any of you. Please refrain from hurling any more noise in my direction, hoping to assist Antony by obfuscating the matter.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:53:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

No one is endorsing violence of any kind Comical. There is hoever a political agenda that is served by grouping Islamic radicals with those who are resisting the occupation.

Let's be reminded that under international law, resiting illegal occupation is alowed.

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:55:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

As far as I can tell, nobody here has endorsed the Iraqi insurgency, just petitioned that the deaths associated with the insurgency be considered equally with the deaths associated with the US occupation. That's my understanding of the discussion so far anyway.

I wonder if you would do the following for me though, Ali:

-Point out where anyone has endorsed the insurgency

-Explain how the insurgency equal to the annihilation of a race/religion etc

Friday, December 16, 2005 4:56:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

Let's start from the 1st post here:

David Tan said...
" "'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it."
Nah thats wrong.
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature;
Ahhh thats better ... a non politicised definition. "

Based on this definition the US and coalition have been the exemplars of state terrorism with very little personal risk.
Dropping bombs in WW2 London, Dresden firebombing, Hiroshima (any troops there? nope, tanks? nope)How about B52's in Hanoi, Cambodia perhaps? Or how about Baghdad and the civilian deaths (give us a number between 30,000 and 190,000).

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:01:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Well put Marcian Sonnenkinder.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:04:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

I feel very comfortable claiming the US is a terrorist state. The evidence is clearly on the public record. I have written about it here, in my forthcoming books and a host of other places.
Not good enough for you? Too bad.
Once again, the inability to see Western nations as terrorists astounds. Of course, Kissinger's record is exemplary, and the bombing of Cambodia, to name just one more example, wasn't terrorism at all. It was liberation by another name.
This won't satify many, but then, I wish I cared...

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:11:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Marcian,

Your post to the thread is arbitrary bile that we are all forced to contemplate. If you insist on having a stage for your insufferable outpourings, then prepared to be rebutted by those who have to suffer you.

“Individual incidents of soldiers exceeding their lawful mandate and rules of engagement are, by definition, not examples of soldiers carrying out civilian murder as a part of a larger strategic plan of intimidation.”

That is a assuming that these are individual incidents, and evidence would suggest otherwise. These incidents recived reprimands because they were reported to the public. It would be a safe assumption that a great deal more such incidents have taken place, which we will never hear about.

Furthermore, your assumption that these incidents were no endorsed or condoned is flawed. When the Abu Graib scandal broke, the official story was that it too was an insolated incident. What was revealed was that these same incidents were taking place at Guantanamo and Bragram.

Since them, we have learned that such practices are official policy, so it is reasonable to assume that other attrocities are likewise.

“This was my specific challenge to Antony. It was a precise challenge because your fumbling innaccuracy and obsession with irrelevant distractions muddies the issue for all.”

Says you with the fumbled logic. Perhaps you shoudl make a cntribution with links perhaps, That woudl be a good start.

“Torture cannot be equated with terrorism because terrorism involves the senseless, pointless extermination of civilians. Torture is carried out in a systematic way in order to derive information. It, like prisoner abuse, is carried out by all nations.”

You’re thoughts are interesting but your invented definitions makes you sound like a deluded, pompous twat.

Terorists are accused of performing torture, so it is reasonable ot assume that torture is the tactic of the terrorist.

“President Bush only laughing made a joke about bombing Al Jazerra.”

Laughingly? If it were such a laugh, then perhaps you might explain why the Blair government reacted so overtly to ensure the memo's detailing this conversation never saw the ligh to of day.

The reference was made to the US bombing of Al Jazeera in 2003, killing an Iraqi journalist.

“A direct comparison has been made here between terrorist insurgents and western democracies. It has been propagated with the assistance of the inaccuracies and messy imprecisions detailed above.”

Not at all. You have made some absurd assumptions and drawn some lame conclusions.

“He must answer it precisely if he is to continue accusing the western powers (namely America) of terrorist actions with any validity.”

Oh for God’s sake, will you please drop the Shakespearean hackery. Who the hell are you to demand anything from ayone?

“My challenge is not presented to any of you. Please refrain from hurling any more noise in my direction, hoping to assist Antony by obfuscating the matter.”

Please seek medical help.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:13:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

"-Point out where anyone has endorsed the insurgency"

Sure. It was only a few months ago that Antsky expressed his hope that the coalition would lose. In my book, thats pure endoresment.

Likewise, his idol John Pilger expressed similiar sentiments, where he called for the deaths of allied troops. And upon recieving the Sydeny peace prize, Arundathi Roy urged people to back and support the "insurgents" - much to the applause of the so called peacenik crowd.

Are you now going to tell me that you disagree with Roy?

"-Explain how the insurgency equal to the annihilation of a race/religion etc"

simple. it was only a few months ago that the leader of al-qaeda in Iraq explicity called for the complete and total anniahlation of the Iraqi Shia and Kurdish populations. The shia population alone accounts for 60% of the entire Iraqi population.

If such an explicit statement is "not equal to the annihilation of a race/religion", than what exactly is?

Its no suprise that the majoirty of those murdered in the "Iraqi insurgency" are Iraqi civilians. And the silence of those who purpotdly speak out for innocent Iraqis and muslims in the west, is almost deafening.

Is this how define "legitmatley fighting against a military occupation?"

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:17:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

I feel very comfortable claiming the US is a terrorist state. The evidence is clearly on the public record. I have written about it here, in my forthcoming books and a host of other places.
Not good enough for you? Too bad.


Antony if you wont/cant back up your arguments why do you blog?

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:18:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

Marcian Sonnenkinder said...

For the benefit of the children..."
etc.

You keep pleading that Ant respond to you and please no distractions by anyone else. You are either so gobsmackingly naive or being facetious. (Or a fucking idiot - but I won't say that)

GW Bush, the son of his father the ex CIA top dog, If he doesn't know what the CIA does, he must be deaf dumb and blind or on coke or something when his father was doing it ....

No. I can't do this.

You are absolutely right. Whatever civilians are being killed by our guys in airstrikes, torture, you mame it, is definitely not terrorism because it's done with pure intentions.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:18:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

“Sure. It was only a few months ago that Antsky expressed his hope that the coalition would lose. In my book, thats pure endoresment.”

Wrong Comical. A defeat for the Coalition would spell the end to preemptive wars.

“Likewise, his idol John Pilger expressed similiar sentiments, where he called for the deaths of allied troops.”

See above. Pilger has said the insurgents have a right to resist the occupation. So does international law and the UN.

“simple. it was only a few months ago that the leader of al-qaeda in Iraq explicity called for the complete and total anniahlation of the Iraqi Shia and Kurdish populations. The shia population alone accounts for 60% of the entire Iraqi population.”

Zarqawi is not the leader of anything but a small group of followers. He speaks for no one and has no authority in any land or country.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:22:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

David,

Anthony backs up his arguments repetaedly. He writes books about it. He writes news items in the SMH about it. If you and Martian can't be bothered to do your homework, then that;s your problem.

You can hardly expect Anthony to reply with chapters of material everytime one ogf your ilk asks for it. No one asks for a journalist to include their CV every time they report something.

Get real. Then get a life.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:26:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Incidently David,

Ant mentioned one of the greatest terrorist acts of the 20th century in his reply. Not good enough for you?

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:27:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

"No one is endorsing violence of any kind Comical. There is hoever a political agenda that is served by grouping Islamic radicals with those who are resisting the occupation. "

Pray, tell me, in the context of Iraq - what is the difference between the two?


"Let's be reminded that under international law, resiting illegal occupation is alowed."

Well if murdering their own people in cold blood (see my reply to Stev) is your definition of "resisting illegal occupation", than I cant argue with your fine logic.

B/thw, we can devote another endless debate on the legality of Americans being there - if we consider that Saddam did after all breach a binding UN resolutions by kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq. And the consequences for breaching it were spelled out in that same resolution - military intevention. But lets save that debate for another time.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:30:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

"Wrong Comical. A defeat for the Coalition would spell the end to preemptive wars....
See above. Pilger has said the insurgents have a right to resist the occupation. So does international law and the UN."

So how is that not an endoresment?

"Zarqawi is not the leader of anything but a small group of followers. He speaks for no one and has no authority in any land or country."

It has been widley accepted by everyone involved/ concerned with this conflict, that Zarqawi is the leader of the "insurgency" against the Americans.

So we have newsflash from you? And do you care to back it? And how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of those purposly targetted in Iraq are Iraqi civilians with no American soldier in sight?

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:38:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Anthony backs up his arguments repetaedly. He writes books about it. He writes news items in the SMH about it. If you and Martian can't be bothered to do your homework, then thats your problem.

Its not for Marcian or I to argue or research Antonys case for him.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:39:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Ant mentioned one of the greatest terrorist acts of the 20th century in his reply. Not good enough for you?

Where?

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:42:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

A defeat for the Coalition would spell the end to preemptive wars.

There are a series of errors with this statement.

The coalition have won. What we have left is a rag tag bag of religious extremists, criminals and idealogues. A few thousand.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:47:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

You are either so gobsmackingly naive or being facetious. (Or a fucking idiot - but I won't say that)

Insults is what the left offers not rational discussion.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:50:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

When the Abu Graib scandal broke, the official story was that it too was an insolated incident. What was revealed was that these same incidents were taking place at Guantanamo and Bragram.

Since them, we have learned that such practices are official policy, so it is reasonable to assume that other attrocities are likewise.


Some reservist MP take matters into their own hands (and ane changed and convicted in a court of law) is the same as slicing the head off a bound man at your feet? Very very different.

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:55:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

The last half dozen comments are yours, David, and you have written many more words than were in the original post. Why don't you start your own blog? You seem to have a lot to say. I'll come and read it if it's any good.

Friday, December 16, 2005 6:02:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

"The coalition have won."

This is excellent news. Hip hip, Hooray! Hip hip, Hooray!

(what a dolt)

Friday, December 16, 2005 6:05:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Journalists Take Flak in Iraq

But journalists say that when there's bad news--a helicopter crash, a mortar attack--they are increasingly being blocked from covering the story by US soldiers, who frequently confiscate and destroy their film disks and videotapes.


That isnt terrorism.

An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah should give you at least one source for some of the info posted by Addamo

Well I started reading that article. Line one says ... "including the use of napalm and chemical weapons by the US"

phosphorus (the chemical weapon referred to) is as much a chemical weapon the lead in a bullet. To call it a chemical weapon is false and misleading.

Here is a link referencing the DOD's refusal to release footage of torture despite a judge's order demanding they do so.

That isnt terrorism.

Here is analysis of the video Addamo mentions as one of his early points - the 'Aw Dude' video. There are stills on the site, I'm sure a more comprehensive search would turn up the video itself.

Show me the video. I dont want analysis from someone I dont know.

All crap sources.

Friday, December 16, 2005 6:05:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17637prs20050602.html

They are not talking about terrorism. Unauthorised abuse un Abu Gharib only and its the ACLU a leftist pressure group. Get a real source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1648988,00.html

It was a joke not a real story (Only the guardianista could take that seriously).

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/052104_wp.htm

Your source is Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace? Come on. Be serious.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000157.php

Not terrorism.

Lieutenant Gets 45 Days for Forcing Iraqis off Bridge
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9661

Rule of Law in place. 1 event, not authorised. Not terrorism.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/009260.html

talkleft is your authority?

http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20521

One off event, not authorised. No plan to terrorise. Not terrorism.

http://www.awitness.org/journal/al_jazeera_iraq.html

The link to original article is not functioning.

CAN SOMEONE GET ME SOME REAL EVIDENCE?

Friday, December 16, 2005 6:15:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

ummmm, nick berg,
great choice of 'terrorist' victim

1] Berg had connections to al Qaeda terrorists strong enough to be questioned by the FBI. His email was used by accused terrorist Zacharias Moussaoui. He reportedly gave his email to an affiliate of Moussaoui's while on a bus ride in Oklahoma. During this period he was arrested several times for vagrancy on his college campus where he was apparently homeless.

2] The United States and the Iraqi police detained Berg for 13 days, not releasing him until his father filed suit. He was detained as a suspected Israeli spy. The US now denies it had anything to do with the detention despite correspondence to the contrary. The Iraqi police also deny any involvement in his detention. They are playing hot potato with it.

3] When Berg was detained he, a Jew, had a copy of the Koran and an anti-semetic book entitled 'The Jewish Problem'. That is just strange. Some have speculated the Koran may have been to help him travel in an Islamic nation, but if Berg took such preparations why didn't he have the Israeli stamp in his passport put in a temporary add in page; This would be normal for someone traveling to both Israel and a Muslim nation since both have problems with the visa stamps of the other.

4] Nick Berg's dad and Berg's tower company appear on a Free Republic 'enemies' list. The list isn't too long. I'm not on it under any alias I've used.

5] Nick Berg's tower company is not registered in his home state of Pennsylvania. While not a legal requirement, state officials report it would be nearly impossible to do business without registering.

6] One of the towers Berg worked on, the biggest and most damaged one, was next to the prison.

7] No one can account for Berg's whereabouts from between April 10th (when his father believes he was killed) and the day his body was found. He looks very clean and well fed to have been held prisoner by savages for over a month.

8] The US has not stated how his body was identified. It didn't have a head. It should have taken some time to ID. Reports have stated that 'his headless body was found ..." His body was identified and his parents notified before the video aired.

9] Berg's body, though he was a civilian, was flown by the military to Dover Air Force Base. According to Department of State Publication 10391, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Revised September 1996, "The U.S. Government cannot pay to have your body buried overseas or returned to the United States." This is a publication intended for Americans living / working abroad as Berg was. His parents requested to be there when it arrived but were denied.

Friday, December 16, 2005 6:20:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

PLEASE STOP..!!!! We give up !!! You da man ...I can't stand this anymore.. It was me Yes I did it I shot Bobby ....NOOOO PLEASE DON"T RESPOND AGAIN!!!!!!WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Friday, December 16, 2005 6:21:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Who are these people..? Seriously.

Friday, December 16, 2005 7:05:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

David,

Here is the full video mentioned earlier.

And I think it's fair to say that a chemical that causes harm and death to humans through its toxic properties is a chemical weapon.

I recommend you read that full report - even if only a third of the things listed are true, it's still pretty intense.

Sorry Marcion, I hope you can handle some more noise in your direction

as a part of a larger strategic plan of intimidation.

You ask for evidence of the large strategic plan. Surely any large strategic plan of this nature would be highly classified no? And if any hard evidence of it existed then we wouldn't be talking about war crimes, we would have trials. All we really have to go on is the widespread nature of torture and disregard for the civilian population. Are we to believe it's just a case of servicemen gone wild? When you look at the cold resolve of the hawks behind it all, it's hard to imagine it's not part of a plan. Can you not just hear Rummsfeld saying "You gotta talk to these guys in a language they understand"? You want hard evidence of that plan? Really, you ask knowing that no such evidence exists. But a crime can still exist, even if no hard evidence can be found.

Friday, December 16, 2005 9:05:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

Of course it's absurd to imagine the treatment of prisoners was/is anything else except policy. When the atrocities surfaced a few token hill billies get thrown in jail and we are supposed to think that justice is served because "the guilty" have been tried and punished because we are civilised. Our collective self dignity is therefore restored. - Ha! Then we get (from the right wing running dogs) yeah and how can you compare this with Saddam - he had meat grinders, well you've heard it all before. Just as well people forget/forgive with time. I think. I hope.

Friday, December 16, 2005 9:54:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Ok watched the video what am I supposed to see? Seems like a fairly standard lazer target designator film.

And I think it's fair to say that a chemical that causes harm and death to humans through its toxic properties is a chemical weapon.

It is not the toxic property which causes the damage. It is the combusion of the chemical which does it. It is as much a chemical weapon as is a standard high explosive weapon.

if any hard evidence of it existed then we wouldn't be talking about war crimes, we would have trials.

Generally I wait for evidence before making allegations. That is the difference between you and I stev.

Of course it's absurd to imagine the treatment of prisoners was/is anything else except policy.

You do imagine a great deal orang.

Friday, December 16, 2005 11:40:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

David Tan said...

Can you give me one event where the US intentionally beheaded anyone?

Do you know how hard it is to behead someone with a machine gun? It's not as easy as it is in the movies .... and Lord, the COST! Forget about it!

Friday, December 16, 2005 11:52:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

uphillsprinter said...

Oh!!...only beheadings is considered cold blooded terrorism. So 30 000 iraqi civillian deaths which arose from an illegal occupation of a country without provocation only to plunder her resources is fine with you.

But uphillsprinter, don't you get it? They are A-RABS -- A-RABS I tells ya. Don't you know how dangerous they are? They even kill each other - think what they would do to us civilised races! The sooner you see The Troof - Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! - the sooner you'll stop making these statements that are undermining civiliation itself. *rolls eyes*

Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:01:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

But uphillsprinter, don't you get it? They are A-RABS -- A-RABS I tells ya. Don't you know how dangerous they are? They even kill each other - think what they would do to us civilised races! The sooner you see The Troof - Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! - the sooner you'll stop making these statements that are undermining civiliation itself. *rolls eyes*

What is the point of this comment?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:10:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Theo said...
Attempting to equate terrorism - the intentional killing of unarmed civilians with war - conflict between two armed groups is pathetic - an example of the fallacy of moral equivalence.

You're right. There is no moral equivalence to be had in the Iraq case. 30,000 civilians dead because of the war has no moral equivalent; it's just out-and-out evil.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:05:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Theo said...
So both of you leave no place for intentions?


Even if Addamo_01 hadn't provided you with oodles of examples of intentional killing (murder) of civilians for you to ignore, this remains: when it's tens of thousands of civilians dead, "Whoops, sorry, didn't mean it," just doesn't cut it anymore. Wilful disregard of A human life is manslaughter; when it's wilful disregard of one human life TIMES TENS OF THOUSANDS, it's something a little more than that.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:11:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

"Ok watched the video what am I supposed to see? Seems like a fairly standard lazer target designator film."

David, your standard response to any evidence is either to ignore it or decry is as not legitimate.

How can you call this a standard military target? Does a target walk aimlessly along and not take cover?

You prove time and time again, that you have become a brainwashed, right wing drone. You weep over Nick Berg (a barbaric act) because you find it distasteful, yet you shrug at 20-30 innocent people being blown to bits. Incidentally, it’s interesting that Nick Berg’s father blames Bush for what happened to his son, and there is a lot fo controversy about who held Berg in custody the last of his life (i.e. FBI).

You asked for evidence of Iraqi's being humiliated and intimidated, and I gave you the first hits from a Google searches at 1:00 am my time.

Let me ask you this. Do you think insurgents or suicide bombers would maintain the same methods if they had Apache Helicopters and Abrams Tank?

No, when people have big guns, they become rogue states, which as we saw with Saddam, is only one step away from obtaining legitimacy.

Do you believe it when the US military says it's conducting precision strikes when they use a Specter AC130 gunship to take out entire city blocks?

Shutting down a hospital is not an act of terror per se, but it is a war crime. Giving a soldier a six month sentence for murder shows exactly what the military think of this conduct (i.e. condone it), and the only reason such a trial took place was because it was reported in the media.

You name me any example of the military charging a soldier for a crime that was NOT reported in the media.

WP is designated a forbidden substance by the US military, who's own manual says it is against US military rules to use it on personal.

No there won't be any war crime trials about this war, because such trials are always conducted by those with the biggest guns. As Stev posed is a crime still a crime even if there is no hard evidence to prove it?

And like we have seen with the DSM, even evidence can be spun fif you can controk the media these days.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:16:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Addamo_01 said...
the pro war party uses Western exceptionalism as an excuse for abhorent acts. Whatevr happens in Iraq, we are told that it was worse under Saddam, and that's supposed to suffice.

Exactly. Even if the Coalition of the Killing slaughtered every single person in Iraq (as neonazichick helpfully suggests), the blood-bayers would simply say, "Sure, but we got rid of Saddam - worth it in itself - and all the Islamo-fascist insurgents too - which also makes it worth it". The cost is NEVER too high. This cannot be questioned, it cannot be challenged, no matter what happens, no matter what evidence you have, because it is a Secularised Divine Truth. It is the a priori truth of US foreign policy.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:19:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Theo,

What were the intentions of the US military for the residents of Fallujah, when they closed down the hospital?

What were the intentions of the US military when, during the first assault on Fallujah, they stopped any male of fighting age (teenage upwards) of leaving the city?

What are the intentions of the Pentagon when Rummy and his band of merry men contemplate activities like the Savlador option? A plan to insert death squads into Iraq?

As Edward said, intentions don't cut it any more, and even then, who in their right mind will take the intentions of serial liars like Bush, Blair and Howard at face value anymore?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:22:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

neoleftychick said...
Oh great a gang of terrorist-lovers.

Liar.

The poor Israelis and what they have had to endure.

Israel? What the...? This is about the Iraq situation. Is EVERYTHING about Israel for you? I'm eating some ice-cream right now - I'll bet that's about Israel too.

Nuke 'em till they glow I say. Imagine Mecca ablaze!? Just fabulous.

Ahhh - a truly enlightened suggestion. Finally we have the final solution to the problems of the Middle East: genocide. (I believe it was you who was referring to the "Swaztikas and jackboots".)

Antony Loewenstein said...
I'll ask you simply once. Do not continue commenting here. If you do, I will make sure your IP is banned.

Bye bye neonazichick.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:25:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

"You do imagine a great deal orang."

And you go into denial even more David.

The US Senate voted 90-9 against torture, and Bush shows his app[reciation by threatening to veto the motion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/07/wus207.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/07/ixworld.html

Move along, nothing to see here right Mr Tan?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:24:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

poor eddie, reduced to relaying second hand threats to silence his betters.

The thousands of deliberate civilian deaths caused by the organized illegal iraqi militia is not terrorism?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:41:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

"The thousands of deliberate civilian deaths caused by the organized illegal iraqi militia is not terrorism?"

No more than the thousands of delibrate civilian deaths casued by the organized illgal US occupation.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:52:00 am  
Blogger Human said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:00:00 am  
Blogger Human said...

Mr Tan - The Family of Nick Berg holds the Government directly responsible for the death of their son. I also had the honor of marching with Mr. Berg in a demonstration against the American-Iraq War. I've heard him speak in person and not just short clips on TV.
Anyone who advocates violence sows the seeds of their own destruction.
Peace

Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:01:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

And for mindless droines like Mr Tan, who refuse to believe anything unless it's reported in the MSM, here is an interesting report.

U.S. military officials expelled two embedded journalists in Kuwait, reportedly for photographing a shot-up military vehicle.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001699490

Don;t you just love freedom of the press? If there is no one there to report it, it can't be a fact can it?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:50:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

But there were no deliberate civillian deaths caused by US forces. The US did not target civilians.

And the Illegal Iraqi militia did.

Now you can lie about it all you'd like but the facts are well proven.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 6:18:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

No facts have been provided. Nothign has been proven.

A White house press conference or Pentagon press release does not a fact make, nor does it contitute proof.

In fact, these clowns are openly admitting to planting propaghanda. The US does not toture? The US does not use WP as a weapon? tehre can be no doubt Iraqi has WMD?

You need to get out more. Only a fool would accept anyting they have to say.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 6:40:00 am  
Blogger Shabadoo said...


And I think it's fair to say that a chemical that causes harm and death to humans through its toxic properties is a chemical weapon.


Shit, I hope the UN doesn't come snooping around my bar cabinet, I got British chemical weapons (Bombay Sapphire), French chemical weapons (calvados), Russian chemical weapons (vodka), even chemical weapons from Castro's Red Cuba (Havana Club Anejo Reserva).

I'm very ecumenical in my taste in WMDs. You may be suprised to learn that I most often deploy these bad boys on right-wingers. Anyone have a good recipe for a Willie Pete cocktail?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:14:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

The US Senate voted 90-9 against torture, and Bush shows his app[reciation by threatening to veto the motion.

If the proposal is that popular the alleged veto will have no effect at all. See article one of the US constitution. You shouhld know this if you want to talk politics.

How can you call this a standard military target?

I didnt say that. Another lie by you.

Does a target walk aimlessly along and not take cover?

Yes, guided bomb was dropped from a great height as is evidenced by the apparently slow change in angle of the video. Wih the guided munitions you dont need to fly low and slow over the target. You can be fast and high and off to the side and still slip it in and it is US doctrine to do this to stop enemy combatants from taking cover.

What makes you think these people were innocents? You cant see whether they were armed or not. You can see whether they are soldiers or not. You cant see whether they are insurgents. The video shows nothing. Distinguish that video to Nick Berg's murder: Intentional killing of a defenceless civillian.

... you shrug at 20-30 innocent people being blown to bits.

You claim they are innocent. Like Ive said before give me names. Give me statements of evidence. You have none of this. You have nothing.


Incidentally, it’s interesting that Nick Berg’s father blames Bush for what happened to his son

So?

You asked for evidence of Iraqi's being humiliated and intimidated,

Another lie by you adamo.

Let me ask you this. Do you think insurgents or suicide bombers would maintain the same methods if they had Apache Helicopters and Abrams Tank?

Without a doubt. Even if they had gunships and tanks the US would rapidly deal with that threat. They are geared up for that. The US needs to change their equipment now. No more 120 million dollar fighters. How about some IED proof vehicles. That would be nice.

No, when people have big guns, they become rogue states, which as we saw with Saddam, is only one step away from obtaining legitimacy.

Oh so you are giving me my answers now? Good on you.

Do you believe it when the US military says it's conducting precision strikes when they use a Specter AC130 gunship to take out entire city blocks?

The largest weapon on a C130 is the 105 mm gun. Its not the weapon to use to take out city blocks. If the US wanted to take out a city block they would use a fuel air explosive or a series or JDAMS or something like that not a c130. What you say is nonsense.

Shutting down a hospital is not an act of terror per se, but it is a war crime.

You really do have no idea do you?

Giving a soldier a six month sentence for murder shows exactly what the military think of this conduct (i.e. condone it),

You got a link for this matter? I really dont trust your word anymore. And what does an insurgent get for murdering berg? A medal.

and the only reason such a trial took place was because it was reported in the media.

Good on the media. That is part of their job.

You name me any example of the military charging a soldier for a crime that was NOT reported in the media.

What would that prove?

WP is designated a forbidden substance by the US military,

Wrong. See: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/22/132558/42

And like we have seen with the DSM, even evidence can be spun fif you can controk the media these days.

DSM?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:24:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

“If the proposal is that popular the alleged veto will have no effect at all. See article one of the US constitution. You should know this if you want to talk politics.”

My point clearly went straight over your head. You alluded to the notion that torture being sanctioned and widespread and s figure of Orangs imagination. This proves you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

“I didnt say that. Another lie by you.”

You said this “Ok watched the video what am I supposed to see? Seems like a fairly standard lazer target designator film.”
You are a liar David.
“With the guided munitions you dont need to fly low and slow over the target.”

Planes at 30,000 feet are clearly visible to the naked eye. The only panes in Iraq would be coalition ones, so any people with hostile intentions would definitely want to make themselves invisible.

”You cant see whether they were armed or not.”

There was no muzzle flashes visible. They were moving slowly. No evidence of a mob closing in on US troops that may have been cornered.

“The video shows nothing. Distinguish that video to Nick Berg's murder: Intentional killing of a defenceless civilian”

It’s Nick berg times 30. Intentional killing of a defenseless civilians.

”You claim they are innocent. Like Ive said before give me names. Give me statements of evidence. You have none of this. You have nothing.”

Who’s going to give the statement you moron? The US military guys who perpetrated the crime? Yeah right? And I suppose you would have also advocated having Al Capone doing his own tax return.

See the post about the reporters that were sent packing for publishing pictures of a bullet riddle Hum V. Yeah, I can see how all the facts are getting to the public.

By your brilliant logic, if it isn’t reported in the media, it doesn’t happen. Go back to sleep.

”So?”

So he evidently Nick Bergs father does not agree with you, and there is more to this story than you are prepared to admit.

”Another lie by you adamo.”

You wouldn’t know evidence if it kicked you in the teeth.

“Oh so you are giving me my answers now? Good on you.”

Helping you with the process of thinking outside the box. You don’t seem to have the capacity to do that.

”The largest weapon on a C130 is the 105 mm gun. Its not the weapon to use to take out city blocks.”

Do you have any idea how big a crater from one of these shell creates? City blocks in Fallujah are hardly populated with sky scrapers.

“If the US wanted to take out a city block they would use a fuel air explosive or a series or JDAMS or something like that not a c130. What you say is nonsense.”

Oh damn, I forgot there is a 100 ways to blow up a city block. So by your demented logic, a Specter Gunship is a precision weapon?

”You really do have no idea do you?”

That’s right. American’s don’t do war crimes. Only the losers of wars are ever guilty of those. You haven’t the foggiest idea about anything.

”You got a link for this matter? I really dont trust your word anymore. And what does an insurgent get for murdering berg? A medal.”

Learn to read you idiot. I provided a link. Better yet, look it up on Google.

”Good on the media. That is part of their job.”

Listen to you!! You have no idea that you just contradicted yourself. Fell for your own trap. You have accused me of not being able to provide evidence to your liking and, then turned around and explained precisely why it’s so rare in the MSM.

What’s worse is that you are advocating propaganda, censorship and misinformation. Way to go Mr Goebbels!!!

”What would that prove?

What it proves is that military crimes are only prosecuted when the media expose them. Otherwise, they are ignored and allowed to be repeated.

”Wrong. See: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/22/132558/42”

Try again moron:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327926.ece

In 1999 the Army published a handbook that read, "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

”DSM”

Dowing Street Memo.

You should get out more.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:59:00 am  
Blogger Human said...

Addamo - "And I suppose you would have also advocated having Al Capone doing his own tax return." A classic. Can I use it?

When oh when will there be a contra view presented from the far right that has any wothwhile argument? All they do is repeat the same lies Bush spews.

Once more - Every death from the Illegal Immoral American-Iraq War lays at the feet of those that started it and supported the CHOICE to do so.

Peace

Saturday, December 17, 2005 9:46:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Bushbots like David are a right wing politicians wet dream. Just pump out the propaghanda and let the lemmings do the rest.

Of course you can use that quote Human. I'm not sure it's even mine, or if I heard it elsewhere.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 9:54:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

“If the proposal is that popular the alleged veto will have no effect at all. See article one of the US constitution. You should know this if you want to talk politics.”

My point clearly went straight over your head. You alluded to the notion that torture being sanctioned and widespread and s figure of Orangs imagination. This proves you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.


More lies from you.

“I didnt say that. Another lie by you.”

You said this “Ok watched the video what am I supposed to see? Seems like a fairly standard lazer target designator film.”
You are a liar David.


Huh? What is the lie?

“With the guided munitions you dont need to fly low and slow over the target.”

Planes at 30,000 feet are clearly visible to the naked eye. The only panes in Iraq would be coalition ones, so any people with hostile intentions would definitely want to make themselves invisible.


A couple of things:
1. Its night vision (just after dusk) - look for the "shadow" on both sides of the L shaped wall - so they cant see the plane;
2. Seeing a thin wing and a 12 foot wide fuselage at 35,000 feet is the same as seeing an average biro at about 40 metres.
3. How can you say they were not armed? Nor insurgents? I can barely tell they are humans.

”You cant see whether they were armed or not.”

There was no muzzle flashes visible. They were moving slowly. No evidence of a mob closing in on US troops that may have been cornered.


Enemy combatants are fair targets whether they are firing or attacking or not.

“The video shows nothing. Distinguish that video to Nick Berg's murder: Intentional killing of a defenceless civilian”

It’s Nick berg times 30. Intentional killing of a defenseless civilians.


Any evidence of them being civillians? Anthing at all?

”You claim they are innocent. Like Ive said before give me names. Give me statements of evidence. You have none of this. You have nothing.”

Who’s going to give the statement you moron? The US military guys who perpetrated the crime? Yeah right? And I suppose you would have also advocated having Al Capone doing his own tax return.


Alcapone is not relevant. Another red herring from you. The fact remains you have provided no evidence at all. Its all emotion and anger and no substance. I wouldnt hang a dog on your crap evidence.

See the post about the reporters that were sent packing for publishing pictures of a bullet riddle Hum V. Yeah, I can see how all the facts are getting to the public.

Well get your ass over there and collect some evidence. I know you wont though evidence is not important to you.

By your brilliant logic, if it isn’t reported in the media, it doesn’t happen. Go back to sleep.

No I just want evidence not words.

So he evidently Nick Bergs father does not agree with you, and there is more to this story than you are prepared to admit.

Berg's dad can say what he likes. That is his right. Good luck to him.

You wouldn’t know evidence if it kicked you in the teeth.

Yeah I know more about evidence that you pal it is what I do on a daily basis.

“Oh so you are giving me my answers now? Good on you.”

Helping you with the process of thinking outside the box. You don’t seem to have the capacity to do that.


If someone needs help it is you.

”The largest weapon on a C130 is the 105 mm gun. Its not the weapon to use to take out city blocks.”

Do you have any idea how big a crater from one of these shell creates? City blocks in Fallujah are hardly populated with sky scrapers.


its just not logical for the US to do that. It would take hundereds of flights to do that. It makes no sense.

“If the US wanted to take out a city block they would use a fuel air explosive or a series or JDAMS or something like that not a c130. What you say is nonsense.”

Oh damn, I forgot there is a 100 ways to blow up a city block. So by your demented logic, a Specter Gunship is a precision weapon?


It is precission but it attacks soft targets, primarily troops. It was created for vietnam to attack troops and to loiter as necessary.

”You really do have no idea do you?”

That’s right. American’s don’t do war crimes. Only the losers of wars are ever guilty of those. You haven’t the foggiest idea about anything.


War crimes is a word you toss about like small change. It has a meaning. Try looking it up. If you want to make the allegation please have some evidence. So far its just leftie allegations and lies.

”You got a link for this matter? I really dont trust your word anymore. And what does an insurgent get for murdering berg? A medal.”

Learn to read you idiot. I provided a link. Better yet, look it up on Google.


What is the link?

”Good on the media. That is part of their job.”

Listen to you!! You have no idea that you just contradicted yourself. Fell for your own trap. You have accused me of not being able to provide evidence to your liking and, then turned around and explained precisely why it’s so rare in the MSM.

What’s worse is that you are advocating propaganda, censorship and misinformation. Way to go Mr Goebbels!!!


Are you mentally unwell? You just get so upset at words yet you cant use words yourself.

”What would that prove?

What it proves is that military crimes are only prosecuted when the media expose them. Otherwise, they are ignored and allowed to be repeated.


Evidence! Plese get some.

”Wrong. See: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/22/132558/42”

Try again moron:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327926.ece


The indepoendent article is wrong. The reference to the use of WP on people is from an incorrect US journal. It is inconsistent all other US battle journals. In any case wp is not a chemical weapon.

”DSM”

Dowing Street Memo.

You should get out more.


Is that supposed to mean something? Hearing this sort of one liner is similar to the religious zealots who say "Allah wills it" as if that is some sort of rational response.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 10:32:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

As usual David, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
“More lies from you.”
Your standard response when you have nothing to come back with. Just admit you are wrong and put it behind you.

“With the guided munitions you dont need to fly low and slow over the target.”

“1. Its night vision (just after dusk) - look for the "shadow" on both sides of the L shaped wall - so they cant see the plane;”
You are guessing. It depends on what the time of the year it is.
“2. Seeing a thin wing and a 12 foot wide fuselage at 35,000 feet is the same as seeing an average biro at about 40 metres.”
Anything in the sky is either a US or UK vehicle. It could be a pin prick and it would make no difference. Furthermore, it’s not like these things don’t make a lot of noise either.
“3. How can you say they were not armed? Nor insurgents? I can barely tell they are humans.”
Their behavior. The way they move. These guys are not going to battle or joining comrades to confront US coalition troops.

“Enemy combatants are fair targets whether they are firing or attacking or not.”
Or if they just happen to be Iraqis right? Such details make no difference to blood crazy nutters like you. Do you even realize that the term enemy combatants was invented out of thin air by the Bushies so as to circumvent international law?
“Any evidence of them being civillians? Anthing at all?”
Any evidence to the contrary? I’d guess 99% chance that they are locals and more than likely civilians.

“Alcapone is not relevant. Another red herring from you.”
You place enormous stake in the capacity of the US military, and other US government agencies to investigate it’s own conduct and draw a non partial conclusion. Who was Buch’s first pick to head up the 911 Commission? Henry Kissinger, a man who cannot travel to half a dozen countries in the world because he is regarded as a war criminal. That’s what we’re dealing with here, but as far as you concerned, it’s all above board. The Capone example was very relevant.
“The fact remains you have provided no evidence at all. Its all emotion and anger and no substance. I wouldnt hang a dog on your crap evidence.”
But I’m sure you would gladly hang lost and lost of Iraqis you fascist psychopath.

“Well get your ass over there and collect some evidence. I know you wont though evidence is not important to you.”
As usual, you are talking and saying nothing.

“No I just want evidence not words.”
You don’t understand evidence. You are brainwashed not to see it.

“Yeah I know more about evidence that you pal it is what I do on a daily basis.”
Evidently you really suck at your job. If you had an investigative bone in your body, you would be a lot less inclined to believe every piece of BS government sources throw at you.

“its just not logical for the US to do that. It would take hundereds of flights to do that. It makes no sense.”
Fallujah blocks are small. The houses are small. AC130’s are indiscriminate killing machines. They are obviously not being used to take out infrastructure, but they sure certainly capable.

“War crimes is a word you toss about like small change. It has a meaning. Try looking it up. If you want to make the allegation please have some evidence. So far its just leftie allegations and lies.”
Number one war crime as defined by the Nuremberg principals is an act of unprovoked military aggression. That is precisely what the US has committed in Iraq. All other war crimes stem from it. It doesn’t get any worse than that.
Try reading about it some time.

“Are you mentally unwell? You just get so upset at words yet you cant use words yourself.”
You just advocated censorship and propaganda., while at the same time espousing the virtues of evidence. What are you, schizophrenic?

“Evidence! Plese get some.”
I asked you to provide an example of when the US military has tried one of it’s own for inappropriate conduct. You have refused to acknowledge it because you know you can’t. Thanks for proving my point yet again.

“The indepoendent article is wrong. The reference to the use of WP on people is from an incorrect US journal. It is inconsistent all other US battle journals. In any case wp is not a chemical weapon.”
Well perhaps your genius should explain that to the Pentagon. In 1995 Pentagon intelligence document reads QUOTE "Iraqi forces loyal to president Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels."

Isn’t it funny how the US military seemed happy about referring to WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam was using it. In know - we are the good guys so it doesn’t count right?

“ Hearing this sort of one liner is similar to the religious zealots who say "Allah wills it" as if that is some sort of rational response.”

And listening to you is reminiscent of the Brown shirt of Nazi Germany.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 11:10:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

Their behavior. The way they move. These guys are not going to battle or joining comrades to confront US coalition troops.

Yeah soldier cant walk as a group they march everywhere ... how ignorant are you?

Or if they just happen to be Iraqis right?

Probably. Many of the Ba'athists are Iraqi. Isnt this obvious?

Such details make no difference to blood crazy nutters like you.

Personal insults are not arguments.

Anything in the sky is either a US or UK vehicle. It could be a pin prick and it would make no difference.

Thats just the point you cant see a pin prick from a long way away.

Furthermore, it’s not like these things don’t make a lot of noise either.

They travel at high sub sonic and super sonic speed. You dont hear them until the've already passed over you. A child knows this.


Do you even realize that the term enemy combatants was invented out of thin air by the Bushies so as to circumvent international law?

Oh stop you are making my sides hurt. hahahahaha ..... ohhhh .... thats funny. The term hs been around for a while. It is in the 1925 Geneva convention. Maybe Bush has a time machine addamo. He is evil like that. hahahaha

But I’m sure you would gladly hang lost and lost of Iraqis you fascist psychopath.

Another straw man argument.

You don’t understand evidence.

You dont work in the law do you?

It doesn’t get any worse than that.

Stalin killing 20 million is not worse? Hitler killing 6 million is not worse? Pol Pot Killing 3 million is not worse? Get a sense of proportionality.

You just advocated censorship and propaganda.,

Straw man and more lies.

Isn’t it funny how the US military seemed happy about referring to WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam was using it.

A link?

And listening to you is reminiscent of the Brown shirt of Nazi Germany.

If you disagree with a leftie you are a nazi. That is leftie logic 101.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:05:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

“Yeah soldier cant walk as a group they march everywhere ... how ignorant are you?”
Ummm in case you hadn’t noticed, these guys are not calling the shots when it comes to firepower. They only option is stealth.

“Probably. Many of the Ba'athists are Iraqi. Isn’t this obvious?”
Not relevant. Try as you might to argue the point, Ba'athists are a small percentage of the insurgency.

“They travel at high sub sonic and super sonic speed. You dont hear them until the've already passed over you. A child knows this.”
Not when their dropping bombs they’re not.

“Oh stop you are making my sides hurt. hahahahaha ..... ohhhh .... thats funny. The term hs been around for a while. It is in the 1925 Geneva convention. Maybe Bush has a time machine addamo. He is evil like that. Hahahaha”
And the Bushes were the first to use the term since then. Their basis for the designation? Because the insurgent don’t have uniforms. How pathetic is that?

“Another straw man argument.”
You are obsessed with that term.

Stalin killing 20 million is not worse? Hitler killing 6 million is not worse? Pol Pot Killing 3 million is not worse? Get a sense of proportionality.”
Proportionality? I thought that numbers were not relevant David? Now they are all of a sudden? How convenient. Let’s see. How about the US bombing Cambodia which killed how many exactly? Or killed how many in Vietnam? How about the millions that died in Iraq as a result so sanctions which were tied to Iraqi disarmament, but which were enforced by the US to obtain regime change?

“Straw man and more lies.”
No I nailed you and you are sulking. You really are a bad loser David.

Isn’t it funny how the US military seemed happy about referring to WP as a chemical weapon when Saddam was using it.

“A link?”
You don’t get out much do you?
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00282.htm

Aren’t you the least bit curious as to why the Pentagon’s first response was to deny having used WP as a weapon against Iraqi’s, later to admit it when the “evidence” forced them to concede otherwise, if was all above board?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:29:00 pm  
Blogger Human said...

Mr Tan-Go here for proof of innocent - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11283.htm
Peace

Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:47:00 pm  
Blogger Marcian Sonnenkinder said...

To quote Mr Loewenstein:

"I feel very comfortable claiming the US is a terrorist state. The evidence is clearly on the public record. I have written about it here, in my forthcoming books and a host of other places.
Not good enough for you? Too bad.
Once again, the inability to see Western nations as terrorists astounds. Of course, Kissinger's record is exemplary, and the bombing of Cambodia, to name just one more example, wasn't terrorism at all. It was liberation by another name.
This won't satify many, but then, I wish I cared... "


But you do care what people think of your opinions, Mr Loewenstein, else you would have chosen a vocation in which you were not afforded any degree of limelight. Of course you enjoy the attention of others. To suggest otherwise would merely be dishonest.

You state that the "public record" clearly shows that the United States is a "terrorist state". Yet you cannot seem to evidence this assertion in the least way.

All of the "evidence" your happy cohorts have flung at David Tan and myself have been misdirections. I'm sorry, but simple logic states that an act is categorized in a certain way because of the constituent elements and context in which it is enacted. The United States adheres to a conventional war format, and when civilians are killed, it is both clearly accidental and unintentional. It is not condusive to their war aims to do otherwise. Their objective is to bring into being a viable, functioning democracy in Iraq. For that, they need the Iraqi people onside. Not dead, in a ditch, unable to vote.

Your characterization of them as wild, rampaging Vikings is grossly unsupported by the available evidence. Your ilk seems to believe that the lack of evidence for US terrorist actions is a result of the media being blindfolded and gagged. This is base denial in action. Journalists are freely able to be embedded with most frontline units.

Why have you not endeavoured to embed yourself with one of these outfits, Antony? Surely it could only serve to provide you with evidence of these murderous Americans. I am curious to know why you are not willing to do so. Surely you aren't a coward.

You'll forgive me, but through some academic friends, I checked you out. You have no formal qualifications in either politics, history, conflict studies or Arabic/middle eastern studies. You have some flimsy journalistic credentials, and a murky, limited CV.

You seem to be expert in, well, nothing whatever.

Your pretensions to expertise do not seem to be founded upon anything concrete. Much like your "observations".

But my undoing is simple, if you are indeed all that you say you are, and your arguments likewise unassailable. Simply provide me with some evidence of a systematic, authorized action against civilians in Iraq, by the military of the United States.

That is, after all, precisely what the terrorists are doing every single day, killing dozens of Iraqi citizens at a time, and claiming responsibility immediately afterward.

If you cannot prove this to be the case, then you must either concede that there is far more evidence which suggests that the United States is not acting as a terrorist state, than there is indicating otherwise.

This should give you pause for thought. Because if you are willing to go on embracing the view that the United States is a terrorist state, when there is little or nothing to prove that the case, you should question why it is that you believe the things you do. Because if there is no reason behind your beliefs, you are in danger of becoming what some would characterize as insane.

Oh yes, and in regard to Cambodia. You do recall a little something called the Ho Chi Minh trail, don't you? That is, after all, what they were bombing.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 3:39:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Good sir, your summer duelling aside, what is the relevance of the name, Sonnenkinder?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 3:50:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

“You state that the "public record" clearly shows that the United States is a "terrorist state". Yet you cannot seem to evidence this assertion in the least way.”

You are grossly mistaken. The secretive and illegal bombing of Cambodia in the 60’s which killed half a million people was a terrorist act of enormous scale. Your refusal to acknowledge it as such is evidence of an ideological refusal to accept it

“All of the "evidence" your happy cohorts have flung at David Tan and myself have been misdirections.”

You appear to assume some authority in these matters, yet you have provided nothing to substantiate this other than an overt sense of superiority which borders on vulgar.

“I'm sorry, but simple logic states that an act is categorized in a certain way because of the constituent elements and context in which it is enacted.”

By applying you your “simple” logic, you would have to agree that the attacks on US forces in Iraq are actually legitimate because they are predominantly motivated by a desire to rid the country of the occupiers (elements and context). This is supported as legal by the UN and international law.

“The United States adheres to a conventional war format, and when civilians are killed, it is both clearly accidental and unintentional.”

False. One does not name an operation “shock and awe” without an implied desire to terrorize the people of that country.

“It is not condusive to their war aims to do otherwise. Their objective is to bring into being a viable, functioning democracy in Iraq. For that, they need the Iraqi people onside. Not dead, in a ditch, unable to vote.”

This objective was arrived at post facto, when the original objective prior to the invasion, the search for WMD, links to Al Qaeda and 9/11, al proved baseless.

“Your characterization of them as wild, rampaging Vikings is grossly unsupported by the available evidence.”

Evidence you appear unable to provide.

“Your ilk seems to believe that the lack of evidence for US terrorist actions is a result of the media being blindfolded and gagged. This is base denial in action. Journalists are freely able to be embedded with most frontline units.”

You are extremely naïve and ignorant of the events that have taken place in Iraq. Prior to the Fallujah assault, all reporters were ordered to leave the town,. How do you suggest real reporting was achieved during that assault? Here is an example of how real news reporting is treated in Iraq:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001699490

“Why have you not endeavoured to embed yourself with one of these outfits, Antony? Surely it could only serve to provide you with evidence of these murderous Americans. I am curious to know why you are not willing to do so. Surely you aren't a coward.”

Why aren't you positing the same questionn to John Howard as to why he is not leading the charge he so believes in?

“You'll forgive me, but through some academic friends, I checked you out. You have no formal qualifications in either politics, history, conflict studies or Arabic/middle eastern studies. You have some flimsy journalistic credentials, and a murky, limited CV.”

Ones ability to gather a community that inspires debate and the sharing of ideas does not require such credentials. You are being presumptions in the extreme to suggest that Anthony is not qualified or entitled to host such a forum.

“You seem to be expert in, well, nothing whatever.”

And you are what exactly?

“Your pretensions to expertise do not seem to be founded upon anything concrete. Much like your "observations"”

And your rebuttal have been entirely vacuous and devoid of significance, supported only by sweeping platitudes.

“That is, after all, precisely what the terrorists are doing every single day, killing dozens of Iraqi citizens at a time, and claiming responsibility immediately afterward.”

That’s what the terrorists are doing. Insurgents are not terrorists. They are indigenous people’s combating an illegal occupation.

“If you cannot prove this to be the case, then you must either concede that there is far more evidence which suggests that the United States is not acting as a terrorist state, than there is indicating otherwise.”

Donald Rumsfeld did suggest that absence of evidence is not evidence of absencem, di dhe not?

“Because if you are willing to go on embracing the view that the United States is a terrorist state, when there is little or nothing to prove that the case, you should question why it is that you believe the things you do.”

The United States was found guilty of state terrorism for it’s unprovoked and aggressive attack on Panama, by the International Court of Justice.

“Oh yes, and in regard to Cambodia. You do recall a little something called the Ho Chi Minh trail, don't you? That is, after all, what they were bombing.”

And they were doing so illegally, and secretly. That’s what terrorists do and why Henry Kissinger is wanted in a number of countries for war crimes.

Do you reveal something called the Bay on Tonkin incident, which has been reveled to have been entirely fabricated?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 4:13:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

What is the evidence that david tan is a dick head? Well, the presence of pubic hairs around his ears and smegma in his eyes. -Plus the fact he has to pull down his hood before he can see. Which is not the case for marcian (long second name) who-if they were a dick head would have no hood - but instead looks like dog shit, smells like dogshit , and if you stand on them, they stick around on your shoes like dog shit - with all that evidence we have Dick Head and Dog Shit wasting our time. This is not definitive of course - you won't read it in the Oz. But it feels right.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 4:16:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Correction to my last post:

In 1986, the United States was found guilty by the World Court of “unlawful use of violence” (international terrorism) for its actions in Nicaragua. The United States then promptly vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to adhere to international law.

Care to explain Marcian?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 4:20:00 pm  
Blogger Marcian Sonnenkinder said...

Dirtbike, it is wonderful to see that civilized and polite men do indeed stalk these halls.

It is my surname. It was taken by my father (his birthname was Schumann), he was German and very much a victim of his upbringing.

I keep the name instead of revert to Schumann because it serves as a nice reminder of the gross inhumanities which my grandfather helped to perpetrate against the peoples of Eastern Europe.

And because it is a delicious irony.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:02:00 pm  
Blogger Marcian Sonnenkinder said...

Addamo, do you often interfere in duels?

I stated quite clearly that third party interference would be ignored. I am not so prolific an advocate that I would take on Antony and his legion of adoring followers.

Please, hurl no more triviliaties in my direction. I am eagerly awaiting Antony's imminent decimation of my argument.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:06:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Marcian,

Your subtle nuance has been duly noted. You are correct in poininting out that civlity is sadly lacking in many posts - including mine.

If you do indeed revere polite and civilised discourse however, then perhaps you might want to consider that appreciate that referring to the other frequenters on this forum as children and happy cohorts does imply your contempt for those opinions.

The only person apart from Dirt (and Anthony) you have actually referred to by name has been David Tan, which betrays your bias.

And if I may be so presumtuous, I suspect that you are not inetersted in being persuaded by Anthony;s arguments, but to negate whatever he has to say.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:16:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

My bio:

Antony Loewenstein is a freelance journalist and author. He has written for the Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney's Sun-Herald, The Bulletin, Znet, Counterpunch and many others. Antony contributed a major chapter to 2004's best-seller, Not Happy, John! on the Hanan Ashrawi affair and is currently writing a book on the Israel/Palestine conflict for Melbourne University Publishing, due July 2006. Random House will publish his next book, on the Australian media, in 2007.

He writes a fortnightly column for online magazine New Matilda and is a board member of Macquarie University's Centre for Middle East and North African Studies. He appears regularly on radio discussing current affairs and politics.

Yep, no qualifications or ideas about anything at all.

As for the US being a terrorist state, read my previous work, read more widely and just read.

Every evidence is dismissed as untrue in your hilarious world, so keep living your delusions, brave truth teller. After all, your favourite little terrorist state needs all the support it can get these days.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:17:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

Regardless of all previous comments, as believers in Democracy and the right of all people to choose their destiny through representation, I'm sure we can all congratulate Iraq and all Iraqis on the successful election on Friday. Especially important, in terms of the future of this fledgling democracy, was the high turnout by the Sunnis, even in areas of high insurgency. I look forward to your post on this momentous event for the Middle East Antony! (Or is that going too far?)

Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:56:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

It is momentous-its fantastic. I hope that the Sunnis get adequate representation and everyone there is ecstatic with the outcome. I have doubts that women for instance will get social and political freedom under what will be a Shia dominated landscape, but hopefully this will turn out OK.- But do I think this would vindicate the invasion of Iraq? Kiss my black arse!!!

Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:26:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Marcian Sonnenkinder said...
The United States adheres to a conventional war format, and when civilians are killed, it is both clearly accidental and unintentional.

Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.
Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.Whoops.

NOW TIMES THAT BY TWENTY or so to get a rough underestimation of the number of "unintentional" and "accidental" killings of Iraqi civilians.

If this is "unintentional" killing as you say, in a perverse way, this is worse than intentional murder. When an army seeks to murder a person, they are at least according them the dignity of recognising certain essential features of their humanity - that s/he is a cognitive, purposeful being. The civilians killed by the US army however, don't even rank at this level. They are less than that. They are the "Nothings" of the US Administration's war - and that's why the "accidents" can go on and on and on and on without concern.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 10:45:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

I know I'm re-joining the fray (perhaps a poor choice of word) a little late (perhaps too late - though then I'll get the last word!), but as they say, "Better late than never".

Addamo - continually you fail to address specific questions, but rather "move the goal posts" and change the topic of debate.

Marcian Sonnenkinder gave a very specific and clear challenge (to AL):

Simply provide me with some evidence of a systematic, authorised action against civilians in Iraq, by the military of the United States. That is, after all, precisely what the terrorists are doing every single day, killing dozens of Iraqi citizens at a time, and claiming responsibility immediately afterward.

Yet you ignore it...? On top of this (though I say this with some hesitation, as if you finally comprehend my prose, which I admit, though sometimes prolix, it is hardly discombobulating, I might be held responsible for your subsequent episode of cognitive dissonance*), you seem to find fault with the US, et al. for killing civilians (the majority as an unfortunate consequence of war - please note my deliberate use of the word "majority"). Yet somehow insurgents are immune from this criticism? Indeed, you give implied support (by your noble description) for their killings:

That’s what the terrorists are doing. Insurgents are not terrorists. They are indigenous people’s [sic] combating an illegal occupation.

I am somewhat bemused by this stance. Especially given the majority of insurgent attacks, on average (the mean, median and mode), are deliberately aimed at unarmed groups of civilians and a burgeoning police force attempting to uphold the rule of law. A response requires no research (and no insults), just a clear, well reasoned line of thought that explains to me why the US military ought to be vilified and the insurgency to "illegal occupation" (though given the current Iraqi government want the US et al. to remain in Iraq it's hardly illegal) admired.

If you choose to respond, please do not ''move the goal posts", but rather, address my specific points. (Eg, earlier you just said moral equivalence is crap - and didn't explain why you found my analogy regarding the pedestrian faulty - or do you just think a dead guy, is a dead guy, is a dead guy? Which, incidentally, would invalidate all our laws which take intentions into account.)

Though my comments are directed at addamo all others are more than welcome to jump to addamo's defence (AL?). Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps it's just a paucity of cognitive ability on my part, and if your response is monosyllabic I'll finally "see the light" (after all, how could a mere Physics teacher hope to come terms with such complex geopolitics). Okay, that last bit was somewhat disingenuous, I'm clearly the smartest person here (FIGJAM).

Edward: Let me get this right? You believe it's worse to accidentally kill than to deliberately kill? You're right, your thinking is perverse. Also, most of the civilian deaths have occurred during occupation, not invasion. Therefore, if there was no insurgency, there would be far less civilian deaths and US et al. forces would already be out of the country. Ergo, the majority of civilian deaths lie at the feet of the insurgents. (QED.)

Ps: Marcian Sonnenkinder - I trust you'll have no objection to my posting (part of) your comment (as an example of clear thinking) on my blog?

*Cognitive Dissonance: A mental state achieved as the unpleasant result of holding two or more incompatible views. Most humans tend to avoid this state by wilfully ignoring this incompatibility.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:14:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

"Also, most of the civilian deaths have occurred during occupation, not invasion. Therefore, if there was no insurgency, there would be far less civilian deaths and US et al. forces would already be out of the country. Ergo, the majority of civilian deaths lie at the feet of the insurgents. (QED.)"

..another stinking t*rd.


Now I'm asking a direct question of the poster of this trash. (...Noooo I don't want anyone else to interrupt because I am really important. ) Prove to me that the "US et al. forces would already be out of the country." if there was no insurgency.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:45:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

What a bullshit question.

Prove to us they won't.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:57:00 am  
Blogger Theo said...

Thanks ibrahamav, but I got it.

Orang. QED is a Latin term (quod erat demonstrandum) which is used to mark the conclusion of a formal proof. Hence my argument is proved, as my reasoning is flawless. Given my clear and pointed prose, this should self-evident to even the sharpest of intellects (maybe you should re-read it, this time slowly). However, perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps in my tiredness (due to a hard day's cricket watching) I have erred. I'll take a look at your response.

I'm pretty sure "..another stinking t*rd" isn't an actual refutation of my logic. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Note, my main argument (as I clearly stated) was that if there were no insurgents then the civilian death toll would be far less than half of what it now is (given most of the deaths have occurred during occupation). Also, do you have a problem with this analysis? (Which you conveniently ignore - I sure hope you're not attempting to "move the goal posts", because people ignoring my main argument tends to leave me thinking I must be right.)

As requested, here is my formal proof of my main argument in the form of a syllogism:

Premise 1: Troops are only required in Iraq to fight insurgents (otherwise no democracy etc.)
Premise 2: Insurgents stop fighting
Conclusion: No more fighting.


Following on from this comes the "no more deaths" bit.

Further to this, it is not unreasonable to assume that if this had happened a year or two ago (given the declining support for having troops in Iraq by most Poms, Aussies and Yanks), there would only be minimal troop numbers in Iraq (and again - given no fighting anyway - the number of troops would not affect the "no fighting" and "lack of deaths").

If you choose to respond, perhaps you could explain why my argument is a "stinking t*rd" rather than merely stating it is? Given it's in the most basic form of logic, surely a maestro of reasoning, such as yourself, will have little trouble refuting it?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 1:28:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

I yield.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 2:10:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Marcian, David and Theo base their belief system on the notion that any misappropriate conduct that has been exposed has been al there is to know about and isolated. This completely flies in the face of reason and history.

Reporters Iraq are primarily embedded or are still reporting from the safety of their hotel rooms. As Dahr Jamail has stated, most reports that are published in the western media are second hand accounts provided by Iraqi civilians. According to Jamail, those accounts that are not on message are ignores or filtered. Logic dictates that any such process is completely and utterly compromised. I linked to a story about how 2 reporters were sent back home for publishing pictures of a Hum V that was bullet riddled. No, that’s not a smoking gun, but smoke nonetheless.

Does anyone of you honestly believe the crimes of Mi Lai would have been brought to justice in any way had they not been exposed to the public?

Marcian’s assertion that the US has a free press is pure comedy, especially after the Judy Miller fiasco and the complicity of what is the most highly reported publication in the US. The NY Times played a pivotal role in drumming up support for the war and providing an echo chamber for the government.

Theo, you insists that I continually you fail to address specific questions, but rather "move the goal posts" and change the topic of debate. That’s absolutely absurd. I provided al the links you requested. I addressed every question posed to be and I have completely and thoroughly answered every one. Your ideological belligerence dictates that you will refuse to acknowledge all evidence that conflicts with your predetermined bias. That’s your choice, and your burden.

“Simply provide me with some evidence of a systematic, authorized action against civilians in Iraq, by the military of the United States. That is, after all, precisely what the terrorists are doing every single day, killing dozens of Iraqi citizens at a time, and claiming responsibility immediately afterward.”

You are insisting that the absence of official reports or documents is proof that we are mistaken or spreading false assertions. Our conclusions are based on many factors

1. The stated aims of the US government to invade Ira, which have been changed and recycled so often it has become a farce
2. The obvious conclusion that the US government manipulated and lied about intelligence to frighten the public into supporting the war
3. The manipulation of the events of the anger that was produce on 911 to create a desire to attack anyone
4. The first attack on Fallujah amounted to nothing less that collective punishment for the 4 US contractors that had been publicly executed.
5. The fact that, during the first assault on Fallujah, the US military prevented all men of fighting age from leaving the town. This amounts to a systematic, and authorized action against civilians.
6. The fact that the US military banned all reporters from Fallujah prior to the second assault of on Fallujah. There is no way one could argue that this was done for the benefit of the reporters.
7. That the stated aim of the second assault on Fallujah was to pursue Al Zarqawi, when it was known that he had already left the town prior to the assault, along with his accomplices.
8. The fact that prior to the second assault on Fallujah, any person who refused to leave the town was designated as an insurgent or enemy combatant, inclufing those who remained to protect their home and their belongings. Fallujah was designated a free fire zone during the assault. Anything that moved was destroyed. Without a doubt, a systematic, authorized action against civilians in Iraq

Nothing has been ignored except that evidence, largely prima face, that has been provided.

“I am somewhat bemused by this stance. Especially given the majority of insurgent attacks, on average (the mean, median and mode), are deliberately aimed at unarmed groups of civilians and a burgeoning police force attempting to uphold the rule of law.”

Your bemusement stems from the limited news sources you are exposed to. Dahr Jamil has stated that there is a concerted effort on the part of the coalition to paint the entire conflict in Iraq as being secular in nature. But what’s worse, is that your flawed reasoning flies in the face of logic. Every time the coalition destroys a home or the family of an Iraqi, they are producing a potential insurgent. Statistics gathered about foreign insurgents arriving into Iraq conclude that nearly all of them are individuals with moderate ideology who have been radicalized by the occupation.

“A response requires no research (and no insults), just a clear, well reasoned line of thought that explains to me why the US military ought to be vilified and the insurgency to "illegal occupation" (though given the current Iraqi government want the US et al. to remain in Iraq it's hardly illegal) admired.”

See above. The right of the insurgents to resist occupation is recognized by international law, whereas the occupation preceded the current government of Iraq as was based on false claims and illegal action.
Furthermore the fact that the majority of Iraq’s want the US to leave has been acknowledged by the Iraqi leadership:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/22/iraq.conference.ap/

“If you choose to respond, please do not ''move the goal posts", but rather, address my specific points. (Eg, earlier you just said moral equivalence is crap - and didn't explain why you found my analogy regarding the pedestrian faulty - or do you just think a dead guy, is a dead guy, is a dead guy? Which, incidentally, would invalidate all our laws which take intentions into account.) “
Explain to me how I have moved the goal posts. As for you pedestrian analogy, I missed it. The charge of moral equivalence has been used by the right to invalidate the notion that responsibility for the certainty of deaths arising from military aggression, is tantamount to murder. The now defacto rational for the invasion of Iraq was to remove Saddam Hussein, and that no matter what the cost or blood involved, it was all worth it.
Did anyone care to consult the Iraqi’s if they wanted to spare 30,000 lives, along with the loss of sewage, fresh water, electrical, and health services in exchange for removing their dictator? Did anyone care to consult the Iraqi’s (who’s death toll was alarmingly high from the sanctions) whether they were willing to foot the bill for the whole disastrous adventure?
No. As our western exceptionalism would dictate, we took it upon ourselves to decide what was best for the Iarqis, and to save them from themselves. What gives us the divine right to decide how the peoples of the rest of the world should act, and to tutor them in the ways of righteousness and democratic practice? People like you Theo, proudly hold the most unattractive smug self-satisfaction – encouraged by our leaders, our schools, and most of our media, of course – that our society is something close to the perfect social yard stick.

In fact, almost the only way one could entertain the conceit that of west actually could run other countries better than they can run themselves – leaving aside for the moment the question of whether our government has anything resembling a right to do so – is to be profoundly ignorant about those other places. Only profound lack of knowledge – perhaps even a stubborn and determined refusal to acquire knowledge – could have led people to believe we could waltz into Iraq, for example, spend a few moments straightening them out, and fix them up so they could be just like us.

Theo, your premise about accidental killing as oppose to deliberately killing is naïve in the extreme. As I have pointed out many times, civilian casualties are a certainty in any war. One cannot claim therefore that such casualties are unintended when they are assured beforehand. This war was 100% optional. The risk of civilian casualties was 100%. Explain to me how that distinguishes itself from murder? It was not a defensive war in any way, shape or form.

“Also, most of the civilian deaths have occurred during occupation, not invasion.”

Yes they did occur after the invasion and the only numbers we have been given report deaths as a consequence of violence. You ignore the deaths of lack of fresh water, electricity, medial services or food. Even worse you are ignoring the incalculable deaths and illness that will result from the thousands of tons of depleted uranium that has littered the country.

“Therefore, if there was no insurgency, there would be far less civilian deaths and US et al. forces would already be out of the country. Ergo, the majority of civilian deaths lie at the feet of the insurgents. (QED.)”

You are incredibly naïve or worse, ignorant. How many times must it be drilled into your collective heads that the US had/have no exit strategy? How many times must it be pointed out to you that the US had no plans for free and open elections, and that these only came to pass because Al Sistani brought the Shiite to the streets in mass demonstrations to demand it? You refuse top acknowledge that Chalabi was the chosen and preordained leader of Iraq.

You are unable to confront the fact that there are 4 permanent military bases being built in Iraq, and that this signifies a permanent US presence in the country.
You have no explanation for the fact that the US has already misappropriated US$2000 billion of Iraq’s oil wealth.
You have ignored the statements by Paul Wolfowitz that the reason for attacking Iraq was because “it sits on a sea of oil”

As for your premises, they are laughable. Had things gone according to plan, we would be subject to similar plans for forays into Syria and Iran. More violence, more deaths, and conducted primarily from the bases in Iraq.

In lieu of addressing specific points about the Kurds seeking independence, the imbalance in terms of the training of Shiites and Kurds vs Sunnis,the prevalence and power of religious militias, or the strong Iranian link with the two largest Shiite political parties, I suppose the best you can do is think positive!

There is a Hindu saying that, you can wake up a man who is sleeping, but you cannot wake up a man who pretends to sleep.

Which one are you?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:36:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Another morsel for those who insist that that the only credible information must come from official government sources:

http://newsmine.org/archive/war-on-terror/iraq/insurgency/undercover-brits-basra/british-special-services-men-dressed-as-arab-men.txt
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1556
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1796566,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1788054,00.html

This describes what took place in Basra in September.

Two British undercover intelligence agents were approached by the Basra police. They were stopped because they aroused suspicion. Both were dressed as Arab men, and were driving a car filled with ammunition, explosives and a remote controlled detonator.

When the Basra police stopped them, they opened fire, killing one of the police officers. After being captured they were taken to the police station. The British demanded their immediate release, and when the local police declined, they sent an armory of tanks and helicopters to break the men out - by essentially blowing down wall, which resulted in150 inmates escaping.

What is so distasteful about all this, is the litany of lies from government sources.

First announcement from the British government was that the men had been released through a negotiation (lie number 1).
When it was revealed that this was not the case, the British argued that the lives of the men were at risk (lie number 2).
Then the British insisted that the men were not at the prison, but had been taken away by local militia to a secret location (lie number 3).

The urgency with which this operation speaks volumes. The motivation was not the safety of thee men so much as denying the Basra police the opportunity to interrogate these men about their activities.

The British argued that seeing as British forces are immune from Iraqi law, it was their right to break the men out. Weeks later, the British government apologized to the Basra officials for the situation.

Neither men have faced any charges relating to the incident.

Theo and his colleagues, would argue that this is an isolated incident, because one of very few reported. Yet the actions taken by the British forces reveals that the actions of the men, and their clandestine actives, was indeed part of a sanctioned campaign.

What do you think these men were intending to do with a car full of explosives and a remote controlled detonator? In the even of a successful operation, who do you think would get the blame for the car bomb?

I have read unofficial accounts of Iraqi men being stopped by coalition troops and having their cars confiscated and wired with explosives.

I have read an account of an abandoned car in an Iraqi neighborhood that the locals suspected of being wired with explosives. US coalitions troops investigated it and said it was safe, then after leaving, the car exploded claiming tens of lives most of them children

Recently, there was a report of how many cars used in car bombings in Iraq are being sourced from the US. The official story suggested this was achieved by an international network of criminal gangs selling these cars to insurgents after shipping them to Iraq. Anyone who has ever tried to ship a car oversea knows how highly implausible this is without official complicity.

I can search for links to these sources for those who insist.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:58:00 am  
Blogger Human said...

Bravo-Addamo. They won't click on the links though. Facts that don't jive with their preconceptions are just ignored.

The aim of the Facsists is to create as much death and destruction as they can. It is the same profit-power scheme they have been running for years.

They are not the least interested in Peace. Without fear and hate they are powerless.
Peace.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 5:19:00 am  
Blogger Theo said...

Addamo: I know most of the conversations have moved on from AL's initial post (war and terrorism are the same thing), but my main critique has been continually ignored (or at most, insufficiently rebutted). My first question was - which is worse: being killed as a pedestrian when the person behind the wheel of the car suffers a stroke (of which they had no way of knowing that they were at risk of having), or being deliberately run into by a nutter who is just pissed at the world? Though the analogy is not exact, it illustrates my point. Civilian casualties caused by the US, for the majority, are like the stoke guy. (As all the examples you claim are deliberate hardly add up to 30000 - not that all 30000 are by the US of course, a distinction often lacking from certain commentators.) And those deaths caused by the insurgents are the pissed at the world guy.

Your answer please, again, which is worse?

I agree you've answered parts of what I and others have said - though I don't necessarily find your answers convincing - but you fail to engage my main points. Eg, you claim my premises are laughable and this is your explanation: "Had things gone according to plan, we would be subject to similar plans for forays into Syria and Iran." I didn't realise you could see the (alternative) future. BTW, this (again) is "goalpost moving". When did the discussion move on to Syria and Iran? Thankyou for yet another example.

As for your Hindi saying, quite sanctimonious of you, very shortly I'll be the former (as my wife just got up and was nil-impressed seeing me at the computer at this hour), but at the moment I'm attempting to be the bloke who is doing the waking (of you).

I'll answer one of your questions (see the need to go to bed bit) - cause that's what I do - though I believe I already had:

You said: As I have pointed out many times, civilian casualties are a certainty in any war. One cannot claim therefore that such casualties are unintended when they are assured beforehand. This war was 100% optional. The risk of civilian casualties was 100%. Explain to me how that distinguishes itself from murder? It was not a defensive war in any way, shape or form.

One, we are not discussing whether the war (initially) was justified (more goalpost moving). We are discussing whether the way the fighting occurs is morally equivalent (or as you seem to think - the US is worse). As such this comes down to moral equivalence (you have never explained why terrorism and war are morally equivalent - the original point of AL's post). Which side, and again, I deliberately use the words, on average, for the majority, goes out of its way to avoid killing civilians?

I love this comment(LOL): Did anyone care to consult the Iraqi’s if they wanted to spare 30,000 lives, along with the loss of sewage, fresh water, electrical, and health services in exchange for removing their dictator?…

How do you reckon we'd do that? An online poll perhaps?

And this: "What gives us the divine right to decide how the peoples of the rest of the world should act, and to tutor them in the ways of righteousness and democratic practice? People like you Theo, proudly hold the most unattractive smug self-satisfaction – encouraged by our leaders, our schools, and most of our media, of course – that our society is something close to the perfect social yard stick."
I'm glad that not only can you predict the future, you have such deep psychological insight and can explain my own motives to me. Or perhaps I just think Churchill got it right: "…It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Hey, I'm sure you'll be vindicated when the Iraqis, in agreeing with you, vote for a brutal dictatorship.

Yet more: "…we could waltz into Iraq, for example, spend a few moments straightening them out, and fix them up so they could be just like us."

You're dead right again. Those dang towel heads are incapable of self-governance. I hope you see that kind of statement for what it is - simple racism - and I assume (being generous in spirit - and going on the general trend of your comments) that you made it unthinkingly. They (Iraqis) seem to be doing a pretty good job at voting and stuff? They seem to be much less apathetic than most Australians (with their crying for joy and risking their lives at voting).

I believe all humans are capable of participation in democracy, and democracy is as good as it gets (certainly in terms of historical evidence). That's not to say there can’t be improvements to democracy, WRT the specifics, but as an overarching political philosophy, what works better?

Two final points. In general your comments are quite presumptuous. Eg, you apparently know where I get my news from and so on? Also, who wants the best for Iraq, me or you? If you turn out to be right, sure you can feel satisfied with yourself, but what does that mean for Iraq?

Now that Sir, unless you answer me by sticking to the (more than reasonable) parameters to my questions, is (to use AL's words) Game, Set and Match. (And I usually win at tennis too, as with "debating", I always select a weaker opponent.) :)

Sunday, December 18, 2005 5:20:00 am  
Blogger Human said...

Just for Marcian- from AP.
"SAN DIEGO - The Copley News Service announced it was suspending syndicated columnist Doug Bandow while investigating his acceptance of payments from Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write positive stories about Abramoff's clients.

"We are suspending Doug Bandow's column immediately," Glenda Winders, vice president and editor of CNS, said in a statement Friday. "We want to make sure we have all the facts before we take final action, but it has never been our policy to distribute work paid for by third parties whose role is not disclosed by the columnist."

On Thursday, Bandow resigned from the Cato Institute after confirming a report by BusinessWeek Online that said Abramoff paid him for writing between a dozen and 24 articles over nearly a decade. The Washington think-tank's Web site Friday referred to Bandow as a "former senior fellow."

BusinessWeek Online said Bandow admitted accepting payments from Abramoff, quoting him saying, "It was a lapse of judgment on my part, and I take full responsibility for it."

Bandow did not return a call or e-mail for comment early Saturday.

Abramoff, a top Republican fundraiser and lobbyist, was indicted in August by a federal grand jury in Florida on charges of fraud and conspiracy stemming from his role in the 2000 purchase of a fleet of gambling boats.

He is also being investigated on suspicion of defrauding Indian tribe clients of millions of dollars and using improper influence on members of Congress.

Bandow's case was only the latest involving members of the news media taking money for stories without disclosing it to readers.

Earlier this year, congressional auditors concluded that the Education Department engaged in illegal "covert propaganda" by hiring columnist Armstrong Williams to endorse the No Child Left Behind Act without requiring him to disclose he was paid.

Congress' Government Accountability Office is looking into the Heath and Human Services Department's contract with columnist Maggie Gallagher to help promote a marriage initiative.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon paid a consulting firm and Iraqi newspapers to plant favorable stories about the Iraq war and rebuilding effort."
Still beleive we have a Free Press?
Peace

Sunday, December 18, 2005 5:24:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

addamo_01 - my hero. What patience. What fast typing...(envy)

theo - my sympathies for your wife as she has to live with:

"As requested, here is my formal proof of my main argument in the form of a syllogism:

Premise 1: Troops are only required in Iraq to fight insurgents (otherwise no democracy etc.)
Premise 2: Insurgents stop fighting
Conclusion: No more fighting."

Oh yeah. You win. Brilliant logic. QED.

How about this one:
Premise 1: Dicks are only required in vaginas to create children.
Premise 2: There is enough children
Conclusion: No more fucking.
QED.

No, please no applause, I know it is an irrefutable arguement. I win, you lose. I also, am brilliant.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:33:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

“My first question was - which is worse: being killed as a pedestrian when the person behind the wheel of the car suffers a stroke (of which they had no way of knowing that they were at risk of having), or being deliberately run into by a nutter who is just pissed at the world?”

Well, does that not allude to the red herring that the occupiers in Iraq (the driver with the stroke) have no control over their action or are incompetent? You insist on sidelining the issue that the driver isn’t supposed to be driving if he is prone to such a condition.

The ideologues conducting these wars are by and large, chicken hawks who avoided going to war when it was their turn. They sidelined those who warned them of the consequences of their action (e.g. Bush ignored his daddy’s advice and fired General Shinseki among other casualties), because they insisted things would go according to how the scenario they had invented. Who could forget the claim Bush made to Pat Robertson, that there would be no US casualties?

So my point is that this war has been conducted by the most incompetent people one could have considered.
Are you suggesting that this absolves them of responsibility or makes them anything less then criminally negligent?

Though the analogy is not exact, it illustrates my point.”

Actually it illustrates MY point. Thanks for the help.

“Civilian casualties caused by the US, for the majority, are like the stoke guy. (As all the examples you claim are deliberate hardly add up to 30000. And those deaths caused by the insurgents are the pissed at the world guy.”

These numbers are highly disputed. What do know is that this level of violence was not taking place prior to 2003, and the number of car bombs going off in Iraq was less than one a year.

“Your answer please, again, which is worse?”

Death is death. The aim of war is to kill people. Any act of such aggression (the unprovoked attack) is sanctioned murder, only on a much larger scale. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it Stalin who said killing one man makes you a murderer, but kill thousands and you’re an emperor – or something to that effect?

“Eg, you claim my premises are laughable and this is your explanation: "Had things gone according to plan, we would be subject to similar plans for forays into Syria and Iran." I didn't realise you could see the (alternative) future. BTW, this (again) is "goalpost moving". When did the discussion move on to Syria and Iran? Thankyou for yet another example.”

No need to do this. Just go and read: Rebuilding America's Defenses. These guys are so arrogant as to boast about their plans.
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

“As for your Hindi saying, quite sanctimonious of you, very shortly I'll be the former (as my wife just got up and was nil-impressed seeing me at the computer at this hour), but at the moment I'm attempting to be the bloke who is doing the waking (of you).”

Thanks for correcting me. As or you nuptials, I sincerely wish you and your partner the very best.

“One, we are not discussing whether the war (initially) was justified (more goalpost moving).”

I beg to differ. This matter is inseparable from the rational of the invasion. An act of defense also leads to casualties, but the country defending itself has the choice to be destroyed or fight back. The defender does not dictate the necessity for the conflict. This was an act of blatant aggression. The aggressor has complete say in whether the violence takes place, and a subsequently, 100% choice in whether deaths will eventuate.

“We are discussing whether the way the fighting occurs is morally equivalent (or as you seem to think - the US is worse).”

Worse only because it has no right or need to be there. It is instigating the conflict by occupying a foreign country.

“As such this comes down to moral equivalence (you have never explained why terrorism and war are morally equivalent - the original point of AL's post). Which side, and again, I deliberately use the words, on average, for the majority, goes out of its way to avoid killing civilians?”

You seem unable to grasp a simple concept that war of aggression is state terrorism. That’s why in 1986, the United States was found guilty by the World Court of “unlawful use of violence” (international terrorism) for its actions in Nicaragua. It attacked another country without any provocation. It has done precisely the same thing in Iraq.
I don’t know how I can make it any more simple for you.

“I love this comment(LOL): Did anyone care to consult the Iraqi’s if they wanted to spare 30,000 lives, along with the loss of sewage, fresh water, electrical, and health services in exchange for removing their dictator?…

How do you reckon we'd do that? An online poll perhaps?”

The American’s claim they are liberating a country that was not in need of liberating. There are other countries in more dire need of salvation (Sudan), but we can safely say that the oil free countries should not expect any kind of liberation in the near future. Claiming that this whole exercise is being done for the benefit if Iraqi’s is a monumental lie.

“I'm glad that not only can you predict the future, you have such deep psychological insight and can explain my own motives to me.”

This is not about future event but present day events.

“Hey, I'm sure you'll be vindicated when the Iraqis, in agreeing with you, vote for a brutal dictatorship.”

It’s not like no body predicted this would happen, though it sounds like you subscribe to the notion that if this does eventuate, it will ultimately be the fault of the war critics. Democracy is a two edged sword after all. As we may find out, it sometimes means tolerating governments you don’t like.

“You're dead right again. Those dang towel heads are incapable of self-governance. I hope you see that kind of statement for what it is - simple racism - and I assume (being generous in spirit - and going on the general trend of your comments) that you made it unthinkingly.”

Not at all. This is about applying our bromide to a region that is more complexed than we acknowledge. A region where borders were drawn up arbitrarily by the British for the sake of controlling the oil reserves, as opposed to respecting tribal and religious sensibilities.

What we may intimately discover is that Iraq may need to be fractured in order to accommodate the new form of governance and political norms

“They (Iraqis) seem to be doing a pretty good job at voting and stuff? They seem to be much less apathetic than most Australians (with their crying for joy and risking their lives at voting).”

Indeed, but perhaps soon enough they will come to recognize the futility of such processes. The predominant Shia vote in January was fuelled by a desire to hasten the withdrawal of US troops, and that has certainly gone unanswered.

“I believe all humans are capable of participation in democracy, and democracy is as good as it gets (certainly in terms of historical evidence).”

It remains to be seen how a theocracy co-exist with a functioning democracy.

“Also, who wants the best for Iraq, me or you? If you turn out to be right, sure you can feel satisfied with yourself, but what does that mean for Iraq?”

That can be answered with the question, who was against this war in the first place? Me or you? Or is that too presumptuous

“Now that Sir, unless you answer me by sticking to the (more than reasonable) parameters to my questions, is (to use AL's words) Game, Set and Match. (And I usually win at tennis too, as with "debating", I always select a weaker opponent.) :)”

Then may I suggest you go look for a weaker opponent, and contemplate taking up lawn bowls instead.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:40:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Your #2 premise is merely an opinion generated by what has been accomplished by your immediate family.

I agree. You should stop procreating as it has been an ungodly mess that we will be forced to clean up.

(I agree theo, this is like shooting fish in a barrel)

Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:44:00 am  
Blogger Human said...

Addamo-“Also, who wants the best for Iraq, me or you? If you turn out to be right, sure you can feel satisfied with yourself, but what does that mean for Iraq?”
Your - "That can be answered with the question, who was against this war in the first place? Me or you?" was priceless. Yep. We were right and the out of touch can't handle it.
Ever in your corner, your fellow Human
Peace

Sunday, December 18, 2005 7:53:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Thanks guys.

A round of drinks for Human, Orang, Stev, Al and Edddie on my tab.

Ah what the hell, all to that a beer for Theo, David, Anthony, a shnapps staight up for Marcian....and don't foget a pint of blood with extra tabasco for Ibraham.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:00:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

...alsmost forget, a fine chardonay for my mate human. ;-)

Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:01:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

Cheers.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:10:00 am  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

I would emphasise that in Theo's example - two drivers - the result is the same for the pedestrian. Do they - or their family - really care about the intentions of the driver who claims "diminished responsibility"?

Also, your summary of the subject of this post - "war and terrorism are the same thing" - is deliberately obtuse and thoroughly incorrect. I suggest you take the time to read Sydney Harris.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:34:00 am  
Blogger Human said...

Thaks Addamo-Never had a Chardonay fine or otherwise, but I'll try just about anything once. Now I have 2 drinks to collect if I ever make to Down Under:)
BTW- the word verification for this comment is "hotma". Which reminds me, my wife is due home anytime. Slater folks.
Peace

Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:35:00 am  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

Ed,

before you proceed to bite your hand off and have another irrational fit (as your pic strongly suggests) take into consideration that the VAST majority of Iraqi casualties were those INTENTIONALLY killed by the "insurgents." you know the same people that you, Lowy, Addamo et-al call "freedom fighters who are using their right to resist occupaiton."

Massacering their own people on a daily basis is certainly a funny way of "legitmatley resisting occupation," let alone fighting on behalf of the freedom and interests of the Iraqi people.

failure to at least acknowledge and condemn this, only serves to highlight your complete and utter moral bankruptcy and the simple fact that all your arguments (Lowy's, Addamo's etc included ) are flawed. You people have zero credibility.

And how much more so when you are all so quick to pull the trigger and condemn those bastard zionazi joos and their "ethnic cleansing," "massacering" and "persecuton" of Arab/muslims. If we look at Iraq alone (and exclude countries like Syria, Jordan etc) and the past TWO and abit years, we would find that a good (minimum) 10 times more Arab muslims have been killed by your freedom fighting insurgents, than those killed in a 100 year conflict with the zionazis.

And the strange irony of it all is that you claim to speak up on behalf of oppressed muslim Arabs and their human rights.

WHOOPS, WHOOPS, WHOOPS...ya certainly got one thing right.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:18:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Comical,

The condemnation of the killing of Arabs by Arabs is tied directly to the killing of Arabs by the occupation. Both are to be condemned. The attack by insurgents on US troops is unfrotunate, but predicatble. That's the whole point of what we are saying, but I'm not surprised if that concept is a little to high brow for you.

You've managed again to somehow tie this into an issue about Israel.

I supposed that is some bizarre and perverted way, you regard the killing of Arabs by Arabs in Iraq as a green light for Israel to keep doing the same, so long as the number remains within the tenth percentile of the Iraq dead toll.

Perhaps you might want to take this argument a step further, and suggest we further excuse the murder of Jews murdered by Arab terrorists in Israel as even more acceptable, seeing as the percentage is an order of magnitude lower again?

Your moral clarity is a truly mind boggling.

Oooops.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:33:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

addamo you are the dumbest person with an internet connection. You are a broken record of lefti one liners, misinformation, guess work, assumptions and down right doshonesty.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:56:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

It must therefore be utterly humiliating for you that "dumbest person with an internet connection" has rebutted every one of your arguments.

Give up the right wing hackery and follow your calling. Perhaps the White House has an opening for a stenographer.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:02:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Incidently David, this started with you calling me a liar, one of many arguments you have failed to support.

In order to prove this claim, you would have to:

1. Dispel my assertions with proof of your own
2. Prove that I believe what you do, but chose to advicate the opposing argument
3. Provide a motive for doing do

You have failed to achieve any of these. You should be thanking me for being your straw man.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:07:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

I smell shit.....Oh no, he's awake.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:13:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

addamo I cant win an argument with dog poo because dog poo is incapable of receiving information: Just like you.

I wish you luck with your delusions. I hope you enter politics. You should keep the leftists out of power for a long time.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:38:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

And thats why I love democracy so much. Morons like you who think they have something to contribute realise they are unwanted. You then go bush and write a Manifesto, send a few bombs in the post and get jailed. Ah that would be sweet.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:42:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

Addamo you are the internet version of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Sheer denial of reality.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:49:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

That's what you call the mother of all dummy spits if I've ever seen one. You'll find that you wont win too many arguments when you cling so desperately to the myth that we are always in the right.

You're taking this stuff and yourself far too seriously David. I suspect that you are young and I put your need to cling to the satus quo down to youthful immaturity.

I used to hold your beliefs when I was young and naive. I supported the first Gulf War and saw things in black and white, until I investigated further. I grew up and learned to question myself, and challenge what I accepted to be fact.

Enjoy the journey.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:49:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

Speaking about democracy in the ME, interesting that while Hamas is getting the majority of the votes Sharon's mob say they won't accept Hamas winning. So what does that mean - democracy is great as long as you vote for who we want?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:55:00 am  
Blogger uphillsprinter said...

WOW!

One leaves the computer for a day and a half only to find the mother of all forums occuring, pseudolefty/neonazi being banned and adammo taking on the whole right wing cabal.

A very good day indeed!

i wonder if this would be considered longest series of comments ever posted?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:23:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Your enthusiam is infectuous Uphillsprinter.

Feel free to join in any time. ;-)

Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:29:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Dirt,

I'd be very interested to read Sydney Harris. Though tell me, what's his take on wars of aggression? I do accept that a country who defends itself from an aggressor may kill civilians inadvertently, but the same cannot be said for the aggressor.

What would be Harris' take on the findings by the World Court in 1986, that cumcluded the United States was guilty of “unlawful use of violence” (international terrorism) for its actions in Nicaragua? What would Harris' have to say about the United States vetoing a Security Council resolution calling on all states to adhere to international law?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:41:00 am  
Blogger uphillsprinter said...

Theo said: "We decide whether a person is moral or not when we assign them praise or blame."

I am a bit at odds with 'We', who are you referring to, the distracted masses, the government with an agenda, the evil 'enemy'? I am sure there are some simple morals that are consistent from one group to another however moral conventions differ from one society to the next. Basically there is no absolute moral code; well that is if you leave out the religious doctrine set in stone factor.

Interested in you thoughts addamo, theo and anyone else.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:52:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

I don't know whether assiting genocide, directly or otherwise, constitutes terrorism, but for anyone who insists that the hands of the US are not covered in blood, here are a few articles to consider:

US approved 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/kiss-d19.shtml

For those who know little or nothing about El Mozote, read Mark Danner's report on it and weep knowing that US tax dollars financed what is considered the largest mass murder in Latin American history.

http://www.markdanner.com/newyorker/120693_The_Massacre.htm

Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:59:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

I think there is an absolute moral code that operates despite wars, governments with agendas, etc. These codes are adhered to or broken on a personal level depending on the circumstances.
For instance, a soldier under "normal" conditions is not a killer, yet at war he may turn into a cold blooded killer because he's afraid/angry/(killing or ill treatment of prisoners for instance).... While abhorrent this is understandable as "in the heat of the moment". What is truly immoral is the government, for illegitimate reasons, placed these individuals in positions where they may carry out immoral acts. On top of this, and what is truly astounding is that immoral abuse in Iraq is in fact the US government's POLICY. The vision of the benevolent liberator (Europe, cica 1944-45), GI Joe is no longer true.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 12:38:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

Addamo- your comment on my comment: “Also, who wants the best for Iraq, me or you? If you turn out to be right, sure you can feel satisfied with yourself, but what does that mean for Iraq?” "That can be answered with the question, who was against this war in the first place? Me or you?" was priceless.

One, you haven't actually answered the question (yet again), and two (to answer your question) you, again, make presumptions (as you do with your dire predictions for the future of Iraq, I guess I'm just an optimist). Did I ever state that I was for the war in the first place? No. But my indignation to AL's initial post stems from the equal status he (and you) assign to deliberate acts of terror as opposed to unintentional civilian deaths.

The question I ask specifically says, given your lack of condemnation for terrorist actions (you seem to actual imply a tacit support for them in many of your comments), if we followed your opposition to US forces in Iraq, the country would now implode.

Orang, your responses are so juvenile they are not worth bothering with. This will be the last time I refer to you (ibrahamav - LOL).

dirtbikeoption - yes, I imagine I'd be more upset about the deliberate murder of one of my loved ones than an accidental killing, you wouldn't? Note: I suggest you do some reading of the most basic ethics and you'll see most, if not all (besides the most strict utilitarians), moral philosophers take intentions into account when judging someone's actions. As does our entire legal system (again no one has given me the slightest echo, of a whiff, of a reason to find accidental killing worthy of the same moral status as deliberate killing).

You say: "Also, your summary of the subject of this post - "war and terrorism are the same thing" - is deliberately obtuse and thoroughly incorrect. I suggest you take the time to read Sydney Harris.

The subject of the post is: "'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it."

Given this statement implies that we should consider no difference between war and terrorism, I am incorrect how? (BTW - in the context you use it, obtuse means difficult to understand or discern. So I'll dumb it down a bit for you to make it clearer. A. L's post says war = terrorism. If there is more to the Sydney Harris quote, to put it in a proper context, then let's have it?)

I honestly fail to see you can hold the "West" in contempt (in general, rational, secular and whose stated aims are to allow all people the choice to choose their own destiny through representation - and I know it's not perfect, I know you'll probably come back with examples of western hypocrisy) yet not hold a worse opinion of (for example) the al-Qaeda in Iraq group, who denounced the election as the work of Satan and threatened attacks. Yep- these people are as bad as we are, so rational.

Ps. Which side actually at-least attempts to do something about their fighters when they do wrong? Which side has rules of engagement?

By "we" uphillsprinter, I mean that's how everyone decides on whether someone is moral or not. I didn't get into how we decide whether an action, or omission to act is worth of praise or blame. This is different for all people and in all societies. However, that is not to say all people's values are equally valid. I think that very convincing arguments for the abolition of the death penalty can be mounted and as such, I would argue it is immoral (for example). Assuming someone is bound to reason, they could be persuaded of that. If they are irrational (eg: al-Qaeda in Iraq - I assume all would agree proclaiming democracy is the "work of the devil" is irrational - then they can only be met with force.)

(Further to this, I am a Consquentialist and argue that the consequences of one's actions are the "morality meter", and whether or not one was in "the position to know" the consequences of one's actions - this takes into account intentions.)

Sunday, December 18, 2005 1:32:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

Okay, I'm out - the Cricket's on.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 1:36:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Comical_Ali said...
before you proceed to bite your hand off and have another irrational fit (as your pic strongly suggests)

Hmm. Does look a bit like that. Shall change it.

take into consideration that the VAST majority of Iraqi casualties were those INTENTIONALLY killed by the "insurgents."

Really. Why does no credible agency say that? Is it a conspiracy?

you know the same people that you, Lowy, Addamo et-al call "freedom fighters who are using their right to resist occupaiton."

I've never said that.

Massacering their own people on a daily basis is certainly a funny way of "legitmatley resisting occupation," let alone fighting on behalf of the freedom and interests of the Iraqi people.

Yes, civil wars created by and in the middle of foreign invasions make for a very messy business.

failure to at least acknowledge and condemn this,

I condemn killers. Thus, I condemn insurgents; I condemn the US government; I condemn Australian government; I condemn the British government. I condemn their spineless supporters who are willing to sacrifice gallons of everyone else's blood to satisfy their own sickening supoport for whatever tin-pot right-wing moron happens to bay for blood-soaked sand.

only serves to highlight your complete and utter moral bankruptcy and the simple fact that all your arguments (Lowy's, Addamo's etc included ) are flawed.

See that's the problem you have. I can condemn murder and killing consistently and without moral qualms, whereas you're stuck in a position of trying to condemn the killing of innocents by invading soldiers.

You people have zero credibility.

Pot, this is kettle. Come in pot.

And how much more so when you are all so quick to pull the trigger and condemn those bastard zionazi joos and their "ethnic cleansing," "massacering" and "persecuton" of Arab/muslims.

Whatever the evil, I'll condemn it. (Good to see you're at least implicitly recognising the evils of the current Israeli state's foreign policy though. Very good.)

If we look at Iraq alone (and exclude countries like Syria, Jordan etc) and the past TWO and abit years, we would find that a good (minimum) 10 times more Arab muslims have been killed by your freedom fighting insurgents, than those killed in a 100 year conflict with the zionazis.

Good to see you're thinking in terms of the numbers. Now count up the number of deaths due to US invasions, etc., over the 20th century.

And the strange irony of it all is that you claim to speak up on behalf of oppressed muslim Arabs and their human rights.

Not really "on behalf" of anyone. They speak for themselves mostly. You probably haven't heard them because they probably don't get reported on the kinds of websites you visit.

...and I think you'll find we refer to oppressed PEOPLE and their human rights. It is the Right that is (and always has been) utterly obsessed with race, as you just inadvertantly pointed out.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 1:45:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

“One, you haven't actually answered the question (yet again), and two (to answer your question) you, again, make presumptions (as you do with your dire predictions for the future of Iraq, I guess I'm just an optimist).”

I was and am vehemently opposed to this war and all that follows as a consequence from it. It was an act of unprovoked and unnecessary aggression, so any moral high ground has been well and truly squandered by the coalition forces.

Stop mindlessly defending and reacting and start thinking! Are the people of Iraq better off now than they were in 2002? There really is only one honest answer... and if the country wasn't a threat (which it wasn't regardless how far you shove your head up your arse to hear constant reassurance) then that is the only paltry defense for our invasion... (even if you did miraculously find some defensible reason to state the Iraqis are better off now than in 2002, you'll have to justify our forces "freeing" them while ignoring the genocide of over 1.5 million people in Darfur, Sudan... which would have taken less military power to stop...)

“Did I ever state that I was for the war in the first place? No. But my indignation to AL's initial post stems from the equal status he (and you) assign to deliberate acts of terror as opposed to unintentional civilian deaths.”

So were you or were you not for this war?

If you were to give me two choices as to whether I would rather be killed by an occupying force or a terrorist group, I would tell you that it would make no difference to me. Nor does it make difference to the victims or their families.

I think I understand where your problem stems from. In your mind, the US occupation is not the exception, but the status quo. No matter the lies, or the crimes that were perpetrated to get the US forces into Iraq, they are there now and the slate has been wiped clean. Any resistance to the occupation is suddenly out of bounds.

Let me use an analogy. I recall a legal case a few years back, where two guys broke into a man’s flat. Unbeknown to them, the owner expected them and had set up a camera to record their activity. He later broadcast this footage over the net to humiliate the perpetrators. The thieves however, took this man to court and successfully sued him for breaching their privacy. The fact that the thieves had violated this man’s privacy was legally irrelevant.

That’s precisely what is taking place in Iraq. And you Theo, are telling us that we are wrong hold the thieves to at least the same standards as the owner.

“The question I ask specifically says, given your lack of condemnation for terrorist actions (you seem to actual imply a tacit support for them in many of your comments), if we followed your opposition to US forces in Iraq, the country would now implode.”
By implode, I take it you mean that the country would head towards civil war, that violence would break out throughout the country, that the place would descent into chaos, that essential services would grind to a halt? Wow, I certainly wouldn’t want that to happen!!

“I suggest you do some reading of the most basic ethics and you'll see most, if not all (besides the most strict utilitarians), moral philosophers take intentions into account when judging someone's actions.”

Precisely. According to you, what exactly where the intentions of Bush and Blair when they launched this war? What were they trying to achieve? How many of their pre-war rationales have been supported by evidence? How much if it has been vindicated?

Like I stated earlier, there is a world of difference between a state that attacks another and one that defends itself, and this chasm has been recognized by international law. Such aggression is recognized as the greatest of all war crimes.

“As does our entire legal system (again no one has given me the slightest echo, of a whiff, of a reason to find accidental killing worthy of the same moral status as deliberate killing).”

To use a tennis analogy, I would call this a double fault.

In our society, if someone is killed by a gas explosion, or similar accident, someone, the company for example, is held responsible to some degree. Before the gas company erects the structure, it assumes the responsibility ensuring that all contingencies are taken into account. If the accident was a result of negligence, it may be termed criminal negligence. Either way, the company is held to account.

“The subject of the post is: "'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it."”

This statement carries a great deal of truth. Like I pointed out earlier, if the terrorists were to be commanding high tech military machinery, I wonder if we would indeed be calling them terrorists or something more legitimate.

“I honestly fail to see you can hold the "West" in contempt (in general, rational, secular and whose stated aims are to allow all people the choice to choose their own destiny through representation - and I know it's not perfect, I know you'll probably come back with examples of western hypocrisy)"

Hypocrisy, duplicity and double standards have that effect on people. When the US went into Iraq, it did not have any intention of allowing free and open elections. These were demanded by Al Sistani and Bush yielded, because he could no afford to alienate the Shiites in Iraq. The fact that Bush is taking credit for it is irrelevant, though his spin machine seems to have worked like a charm on you.

You’re an insurance salesman's wet dream Theo.

"yet not hold a worse opinion of (for example) the al-Qaeda in Iraq group, who denounced the election as the work of Satan and threatened attacks. Yep- these people are as bad as we are, so rational.”

By what measure do you assert that Al Qaeda in Iraq is worse than the “West”? The body count in Iraq? Al Qaeda does not rate a mention, because their existence is almost entirely dependent upon their ability to recruit followers. And guess who is helping their campaign no end?

“Ps. Which side actually at-least attempts to do something about their fighters when they do wrong? Which side has rules of engagement?”

Would that be the same side that does their best to hide such events until some lucky camera man or reporter manages to avoid getting snuffed out published his finding? Again, only a child would believe that such reprimands are undertaken for any other reason than to perpetuate the façade of justice to a public that demands it.

“Assuming someone is bound to reason, they could be persuaded of that. If they are irrational (eg: al-Qaeda in Iraq - I assume all would agree proclaiming democracy is the "work of the devil" is irrational - then they can only be met with force.)”

Again, your yardstick smacks of bias and conditioning. You perpetuate this notion that Al Qaeda is some mindless movement with no goals but to wreak destruction on the world. This is in spite of Bin Landen having stated his aims repeatedly for years.

1. The end to US military presence on the region (military bases)
2. The end of US support for dictatorial regimes in the region
3. The end of unconditional support for Israel’s struggle against the Palestinians.

News flash number 2. The US is till in the region, the US continues to support oppressive regimes and continues to offer unconditional support to Israel. On the whole that sounds pretty consistent and logical don’t you think?

You are quick to point out the inflammatory language of a bunch of radicals, yet you make no acknowledgement of taunts from Washington, like threats of pre-emptive strikes. What impact does labeling a country as part of the axis of evil? You seem oblivious to the gravity that accompanies Bush refusing to rule out force against countries like Iran. These taunts are far more serious, if perhaps more subtle, because they are made by people who have the means, and the insanity, to carry through with such threats.

“Further to this, I am a Consquentialist and argue that the consequences of one's actions are the "morality meter", and whether or not one was in "the position to know" the consequences of one's actions - this takes into account intentions.”

Knowing the consequences of ones actions is bound directly to understanding the risks involved. Those who launched this war didn’t want to know about the consequences, or certainly showed little regard. If you drop a 2000 pound bomb on a building, the consequences are obvious – anyone inside that building, and adjacent to it, are going to be killed or injured.

Someone decided that the costs involved were/are worth this insane adventure. You've got to show me something big to make me say, "oh yes, that's worth the hundreds of thousands dead and millions sick and wounded that are a result of our actions... Note I said result of, not "direct result of"... there is a point of maturity that recognizes that if you kill the power then the people who die from the resulting power outage (say people on life-support) have blood on your hands... there is a greater point of maturity that lets you understand that by removing police, crime victims and victims of gang violence are an indirect result of your actions.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:08:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

theo while you may ignore my juvenile responses I am trying my very best to understand your logic. In your post you chastise dirtbikeoption

" - yes, I imagine I'd be more upset about the deliberate murder of one of my loved ones than an accidental killing, you wouldn't? Note: I suggest you do some reading of the most basic ethics and you'll see most, if not all (besides the most strict utilitarians), moral philosophers take intentions into account when judging someone's actions. As does our entire legal system (again no one has given me the slightest echo, of a whiff, of a reason to find accidental killing worthy of the same moral status as deliberate killing)."

and then;

"(Further to this, I am a Consquentialist and argue that the consequences of one's actions are the "morality meter", and whether or not one was in "the position to know" the consequences of one's actions - this takes into account intentions.)"


So which is it? Are intentions the judge of morality, or consequences?

Seems to me a Consequentialist does OK until the day he becomes the consequencee.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:27:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

addammo said:

"The condemnation of the killing of Arabs by Arabs is tied directly to the killing of Arabs by the occupation."

Oh I see, they are that desperate and that oppressed under occupation, that they have no choice but to target their own innocents in cold blood. The Americans "made them do it." They really had/have no choice. Yep "terrorism" (or whatever you call it) is really the weapon the of weak.

"Both are to be condemned."

Thats right "both" are to be condemned when prompted.

"The attack by insurgents on US troops is unfrotunate, but predicatble. That's the whole point of what we are saying, but I'm not surprised if that concept is a little to high brow for you."

No this is what you are saying - the insurgents are fighting an illegal occupation and anyone who comes in their way is a legitmate target. How and why are you begging to differ, when you (Lowy et-al) previously stated your position loud and clear?

I never once heard ANY of you sanctimonious morally bankrupt morons condemn the insurgency at all. Antony, who is ever so concerened about the human rights of Iraqi civilians, has not once devoted a single thread of condemnation on his blog of the murder of Iraqi civilians by the
"insurgents." On the contrary,he expressed hope that these murderous thugs - who are apparently legitmatley fighting an occupaiton - will win.


"You've managed again to somehow tie this into an issue about Israel."

Its only convienant to tie in Israel with Iraq when we are talking about the Pro-Israel lobby and its "neo-conservative cabal" in the white house.

"I supposed that is some bizarre and perverted way, you regard the killing of Arabs by Arabs in Iraq as a green light for Israel to keep doing the same, so long as the number remains within the tenth percentile of the Iraq dead toll. "

No its more along the lines of highlighting your credibility or lack of it, when you single out Israel for boycotts and accuse it of ethnic cleansing, whilst completley ignoring other countries. Somehow the massacer of hundreds of innocent Arab muslims at the hands of their own illicts no response, but the death of 3 or four Arabs (in combat no less) at the hands of Israelis should be enough to call an emergency session at the UN security council and calls for immediate sanctions.

And the simple fact that there is no comparison between how Israel allegdly disregards the human rights of and "persecutes" and
"massacers" Arab muslims to how Arab muslims actually treat their own (!!!!), and your overlooking of this simple fact, whilst unconditionally condemning and singling out Israel as an apartheid Nazi state, pretty much speaks for itself.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:52:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

"Arab muslims at the hands of their own illicts no response, but the death of 3 or four Arabs (in combat no less) at the hands of Israelis should be enough to call an emergency session at the UN security council and calls for immediate sanctions."


Or to use an even better example - how you all reserve your unconditional outrage to condemn the Israeli sonic booms which occur over Gaza at 3am in the morning and inconvienantly wake up the palestinians inhabitants (oh the Israelis are such barbaric animals - lets single them out for human rights abuse and boycott them). The same sonic booms which even apparently cause misscarriages (well you learn knew things everyday!!)

Sunday, December 18, 2005 5:17:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

comical_ali what is the purpose of the Israeli sonic booms? Is it like a prank? Have you ever experienced them so that you may have a better understanding of what they are?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 5:26:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

“Oh I see, they are that desperate and that oppressed under occupation, that they have no choice but to target their own innocents in cold blood.”
As Edward requested, point to a legitimate source that proves this assertion.

“Thats right "both" are to be condemned when prompted.”
Point taken. Yes, I do spend more time condemning the actions of the US occupation than I do the actions of insurgents in perpetrating violence against their own. It is pretty had to ignore the obvious cause and effect outcome, that the violence commenced after the occupation, not before, and thus the occupation bears a great deal of responsibility for setting the wheels in motion.
Like I already stated in my earlier post, if you remove police, crime victims and victims of gang violence are an indirect result of your actions. It was widely know that Saddam, Removing Saddam, the sadistic bastard that he was, would probably result in this breakdown. Bush’s father wrote about this scenario in his own book, which is why he stopped short of continuing the Gulf War 1 assault into Baghdad.

“No this is what you are saying - the insurgents are fighting an illegal occupation and anyone who comes in their way is a legitimate target. How and why are you begging to differ, when you (Lowy et-al) previously stated your position loud and clear?”
Loud and clear? Did I advocate the violence perpetrated against Iraqi’s by Iraqi’s?

“I never once heard ANY of you sanctimonious morally bankrupt morons condemn the insurgency at all.”
Morally bankrupt? I never hear you complain about any violence unless Israeli’s are on the receiving end.
“On the contrary, he expressed hope that these murderous thugs - who are apparently legitmatley fighting an occupaiton - will win.”
So in your world there is no nuance? All insurgents must be blood thirsty terrorists with no reason for doing what they do, other than to satisfy their need to kill others?

“Its only convienant to tie in Israel with Iraq when we are talking about the Pro-Israel lobby and its "neo-conservative cabal" in the white house.”
Who said the neo-conservative cabal in the White House belonged to Israel?

“No its more along the lines of highlighting your credibility or lack of it, when you single out Israel for boycotts and accuse it of ethnic cleansing, whilst completely ignoring other countries.”
Ignoring other countries you say? Apologists for the war insist that civilian casualties are the result of unintended outcomes. This is bogus.
The US would have seriously improved it’s image and credibility worldwide had it gone and done a real humanitarian mission (stopping genocide in Darfur) before rushing into the oil fields... They would have got a lot more cooperation, and Al Queda would have a lot fewer recruits. It wouldn't be a parade of roses, but it would be a lot better than it is...

“Somehow the massacer of hundreds of innocent Arab muslims at the hands of their own illicts no response, but the death of 3 or four Arabs (in combat no less) at the hands of Israelis should be enough to call an emergency session at the UN security council and calls for immediate sanctions.”
The violence we witnessed recently from Cronulla resulted in no deaths. By your rational, that event was not newsworthy nor warranted any form of condemnation.
The violence in the occupied territories and that in Iraq is obviously on a completely different scale. We have become anaesthetized to the violence as it applies to Iraq, versus the occupied territories. Similarly, we are more likely to be outraged by a few Israeli’s dying at the hands of terrorists in Israel, than we are to 10 marines in being killed in Iraq on any one day.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 5:26:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

This is in spite of Bin Landen having stated his aims repeatedly for years.

1. The end to US military presence on the region (military bases)
2. The end of US support for dictatorial regimes in the region
3. The end of unconditional support for Israel’s struggle against the Palestinians.

4. Acquisition of WMD.
5. Kill Jews
6. Worldwide caliphate.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:03:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Addamo said "I do spend more time condemning the actions of the US occupation than I do the actions of insurgents in perpetrating violence against their own. It is pretty had to ignore the obvious cause and effect outcome"

There is no cause and effect. The murder of Berg and the like is abhorrent to all but a few like Addamo. Shame on you Addamo.


Addamo said:

"The US would have seriously improved it’s image .. had it gone and done a real humanitarian mission (stopping genocide in Darfur)"

Without a UN resolution? Isnt that illegal? OMG wouldnt that make it a warcrime? We wouldnt want that would we?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:29:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

Orang, to be honest I would rather be massacered amongst hundreds of people than to be traumitised by one these evil zionist sonic booms. You cant get more inhumane than that. And yes, it certainly does cause misscarraiges!!

And taking into account, that Arabs under Israeli rule have the longest life expectency rate and the fastest birth rate in the entire Arab world -- all the more reason to single out Israel for the "mistreatment", "persecution" and "ethnic cleansing" of Arab muslims and calls for a subsequent boycott. All whilst completley ignoring what goes on to Arab muslims under Arab muslim regimes and terror groups and even call to boycott Israel with the help of these countries and groups. Makes sense?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 8:36:00 pm  
Blogger Comical_Ali said...

"As Edward requested, point to a legitimate source that proves this assertion."

I think I severly under esitmated your intelligence. Either that, or you just dont follow the news. Here are some examples of what a day is like in Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59240-2005Feb28.html

"115 Killed By Bomb Outside Iraqi Clinic"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4448798.stm

"In the worst attacks, suicide bombers struck two Shia mosques in the town of Khanaqin near the Iranian border, killing at least 74 people."

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2005/06/04/world/suicidebomberkills10atsufimuslimgathering.html

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide bomber blew himself up at a gathering of Sufi Muslims north of Baghdad, killing 10 people in the latest attack by Iraqi insurgents on religious sects they disapprove of, officials said on Friday."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1607450,00.html

"Suicide bombers turned the eve of a Shia holy day into a bloodbath yesterday when they infiltrated worshippers in Baghdad and detonated explosives, killing and maiming dozens of people."

Is that enough for you? Or do you require more evidence?

"Loud and clear? Did I advocate the violence perpetrated against Iraqi’s by Iraqi’s?"

No, you just fall deafeningly silent and completley ignore what goes on, whilst giving the insurgents overall support in their so called fight against the occupation. And when I say "you" I'm refering to Lowy + anyone else who subsribes to his view - believing that the insurgents are legitmate freedom fighters who are fighting on behalf of the Iraqi people and subsequently hoping that they would win. Or better still, in your own personal case, you even deny it all together - asking me "to point to a legtimate source which proves your assertion." go figure.

"So in your world there is no nuance? All insurgents must be blood thirsty terrorists with no reason for doing what they do, other than to satisfy their need to kill others?"

Oh so please clarify and differentiate between the "good" insurgents and the "bad" ones. You know the one's that dont blow up mosques and hospitals and dont behade aid workers (forget about the contractors since you see them as targets, but I'm sure aid workers are exempt in your book...or arent they?).

"Who said the neo-conservative cabal in the White House belonged to Israel?"

You've got to be joking.

"Ignoring other countries you say? Apologists for the war insist that civilian casualties are the result of unintended outcomes. This is bogus."

Ok, so where is the evidence which pionts to the US targetting civilians inentionally? Instead of providing evidence you continue with " The US would have seriously improved it’s image and credibility worldwide had it gone and done a real humanitarian mission (stopping genocide in Darfur) before rushing into the oil fields... They would have got a lot more cooperation, and Al Queda would have a lot fewer recruits. It wouldn't be a parade of roses, but it would be a lot better than it is..."

Is that your evidence that the US intentionally targets civilians .

And its funny, that you mention Darfur. Whenever a non-muslim country invades muslim territory or intervenes in muslim affairs -- it would serve as an al-aqaeda recruiting ground regardless. The Bali suicide bombings for example, were motivated by Australia's humaneterian intervention in East Timor. So it really makes no difference.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 9:13:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

comical_ali said

"Ok, so where is the evidence which pionts to the US targetting civilians inentionally? "

This is a sample - some incredibly of cameramen/journalists being killed. You'd think that with media people they'd be a tad more discreet.

Of course you could counter with a Clintonesque defence of "depends what you mean by "intentional""

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/20/1410259
A Spanish court has issued international arrest warrants for three U.S. soldiers connected to the killing of Spanish tv cameraman Jose Couso in Iraq.

On April 8 2003, the U.S. military opened fire on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, killing two journalists: Taras Protsyuk, a Reuters cameraman from Ukraine, and Couso who worked for the Spanish TV network, Telecinco.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/09/1049567693512.html
Footage filmed by France 3 television of a strike on a hotel which killed two journalists in Baghdad today shows a US tank targeting the journalists' hotel and waiting at least two minutes before firing.

Herve de Ploeg, the journalist and film editor who filmed the attack, said: "I did not hear any shots in the direction of the tank, which was stationed at the west entrance of the Al-Jumhuriya (Republic) bridge, 600 metres north-west of the hotel.

The tank's turret is seen moving toward the Palestine Hotel, where foreign reporters have set up shop, and the gun carriage lifting and waiting at least two minutes before opening up.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0325-03.htm
Published on Tuesday, March 25, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
Civilian Deaths From Airstrikes on Baghdad Fuel Rising Anger
by John Daniszewski
BAGHDAD -- Saman Atef was finishing a late breakfast Monday when he heard a long, whining whoosh. Before he had time to ponder the noise, three of his neighbors' houses exploded in a rain of bricks, glass and dust.

http://www.lightparty.com/Health/DepletedUraniumIraq.html
In most areas where DU has been used local populations as well as allied troops in target areas have suffered from similar symptoms and illnesses: unexplained cancers and leukemias, neurological disorders, respiratory problems, immune deficiency syndromes, rare kidney and bowel diseases. Children are born with genetic defects, moderate to severe deformities, rare illnesses and develop cancers very young.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:18:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

The one good thing to come out of the cancer of these backward lebanese muslims and the venal Labor Party that foist them upon us is that a new Pauline Hanson figure will emerge. Let us hope this time it is somebody suave and educated like Pim Fortuyn.

But given how violent, cold, ruthless these people are who would risk being assassinated?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:24:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

We should all support the right of Israelis to live securely in peace. The "Palestinian" people have just declared that they are a terrorist nation.

I would heartily support Israel doing whatever was necessary to cleanse the west Bank of these mass-murdering child molesters. Nuking them till they glow would be best and quickest, but too much of an after effect.

We should open a multi-faith dialogue of what is the best way to rid Israel of the Towelhead menace!

Suggestions?

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:34:00 pm  
Blogger Theo said...

Orang, as you are now not resorting to vitriol, time for Ethics 101:

This is the shortest and most simplistic view I can give of what can be a fairly complex moral system. To judge an action as moral or not, one must look at the consequences of one's actions. Good consequences = moral. Poor consequences = immoral. However, one is not always in the "position to know" the consequences of one's actions. Therefore, if a consequence of your action is negative (eg, someone dies), but you had no way of knowing (not in the position to know), you would not be considered at fault, i.e, you wouldn't be blamed.

For example, Einstein discovered the relationship between mass and energy (E = mc^2) in 1905 with his paper on Special Relativity, which led directly to the invention of Nuclear power and weapons. But there is no conceivable way he could have known E = mc^2 would or could lead to this (the idea of realistically producing nukes only came about in the late 1930s). Given this, he is not to be held morally responsible for the resultant "consequence" of nuclear power and weapons, good and bad.

Again, this is quite simplistic as I have not discussed who we should consider worthy of moral consideration. My belief is that all sentient beings are worthy of moral consideration and would be placed in a sphere of morality. (Though humans would be given a higher status than dogs (say) as we have greater awareness and as such a greater capacity for suffering etc.) However, al Quada in Iraq, for example, probably only consider themselves and other extremist Muslims to be in their moral sphere, and would place women in a lesser sphere and so on. They have a different moral code.

I submit that my moral code is more reasonable than theirs given I place no special importance upon myself. Moral decisions (and this is a position taken by all ethicists) should be looked at from a "universal standpoint", that is, the view of an unbiased observer - ethics takes a universal point of view. In accepting this view of ethics we must become an unbiased arbitrator when we make an ethical decision and recognise that our own interests are not of inherently greater importance than anything else's. Ie., one needs to put oneself (as much as it is possible) in the position of an unbiased observer who places no more importance on any individual (in the moral sphere) than any other individual. Unless one is an out and out egoist, I can't see how this position WRT morality is deniable.

Another point to add is how is one to decide if consequences are positive or negative. Peter Singer (an Australian philosopher - currently at Princeton in the US) says that we should look at all the "interests" of those affected by the consequences. (Interests are, after consideration of all the facts and circumstances, what a person would prefer.) That is, if the consequences of actions further the interests of someone, the actions are moral. If they hinder interests, the action is immoral.

Obviously much of the time people's interests can conflict, so a simple algorithm can be used to decide which is the appropriate course of action. Starting with a closed system of things worthy of moral consideration:

Where a system consists of things effected by actions –
(i) is the total amount of interest in that system.
The correct moral outcome occurs when (i) is as large as possible.
Therefore we should always attempt to maximise (i)


Generally this means our actions should serve to further the interests of the majority, even at the expense of the minority. Note, this is not black and white, not always easily accomplished and often people make the wrong choice even though they intended otherwise (hence the "position to know" caveat).

In general, which political system does this? Democracy. Treating Iraq as a closed system - overall - do I believe that the invasion of Iraq, on balance, serves the interests of the majority? Absolutely. If the insurgents packed up and went home, would that "maximise (i)"? Absolutely. If the US now packed up and went home would that "maximise (i)"? Absolutely not. Treating the Middle East as a closed system - overall - do I believe that the invasion of Iraq, on balance, serves the interests of the majority? Most likely (given democracy has the potential to flourish - and please remember we are speaking of long-term interest). And the same again if we treat the world as a closed system. Could the US do more to "maximise (i)" for the entire world with everything they do? Absolutely. Which would "maximise (i)" for the world to the greatest extent - the destruction of Islamic fundamentalism or the destruction of the US? I'll leave that one for you to answer. (If your answer is incorrect, then I'll know you are irrational and not to be bothered with. Eg, when Addamo states, "By what measure do you assert that Al Qaeda in Iraq is worse than the “West”?" After I'd pointed out they said the election was the work of the devil, I realised he sympathises with such irrational people and is not to be bothered with.)

The great British philosopher Bertrand Russell argues that to be correct a philosophy has to be credible and self-consistent. This is yet to be achieved. However, this version of Consequentialism is as close as it gets (for a moral philosophy). To be credible, all conclusions reached following it should be fruitful and make the world a better place. Further to this, if it is not self-consistent it cannot be wholly true. Following the "maximize (i)" algorithm I have no doubt one can ensure it is self-consistent. But in saying this, I'm sure there will be occasions where self-consistency would need to be sacrificed for credibility. But overall, like democracy, it works

Now, I can on occasion, get a little frustrated with responses to my comments. I have laid down a very clear moral code and from that reasoned out a clear and precise position. I have a 1st Class Honours in Philosophy of Science (to blow my own trumpet). If you decide to have a go at my moral code and ethical reasoning, please think about it, read it a few times, for a day or two - to be sure you understand - before you respond. I've spent years reading, writing and teaching philosophy and critical thinking (at Uni and as a secondary high school teacher), so I won't bother with a trivial response.

Okay, I've got a book review to complete. This is the last one from me unless I am given something worthy to respond to.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:40:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Theo said...
Peter Singer (an Australian philosopher - currently at Princeton in the US) says that we should look at all the "interests" of those affected by the consequences. (Interests are, after consideration of all the facts and circumstances, what a person would prefer.) That is, if the consequences of actions further the interests of someone, the actions are moral. If they hinder interests, the action is immoral.

Yes, so let's ask the 30,000 dead innocent civilians (or maybe those familially related to them) whether they think the unilateral invasion of their country is in their interests. Oh, wait - they died in unimaginably excruciating pain. Bugger. Ah well, no need to worry about what's in their interests then, ey Theo? That was already decided anyway by the interests of The Majority. What Majority? Why, the majority in the US of course! Ahhh, such beautiful ethics. And so consistent too.

Incidentally, perhaps you should read what the Big Banana of Utilitarianism has to say on such matters. You seem fond of him, so it's probably a good idea.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:37:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:40:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

And Theo, please don't say things like this:

"I have a 1st Class Honours in Philosophy of Science (to blow my own trumpet)."

It's embarrassing to read. Blowing one's own trumpet is unseemly.

Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:42:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Yes, so let's ask the 30,000 dead innocent civilians

This number includes insurgents and civillians killed by insurgents. Stop trying to decieve people eddy.

Monday, December 19, 2005 12:31:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Theo,

“Eg, when Addamo states, "By what measure do you assert that Al Qaeda in Iraq is worse than the “West”?" After I'd pointed out they said the election was the work of the devil, I realised he sympathises with such irrational people and is not to be bothered with.)”

Well thank you for mind reading experiment professor. But, yet again , you are 100% wrong. I’d say my arguments proved to difficult for you to counter, so it’s much easier to parented to be on an intellectually and morally higher plane, that denies one the ability to rech out to others.

I gave you ample examples of where Al Qaedqa’s leaders have not spoken irrationally. That is not to say I agree wit the those demands. Similarly, I provided examples of inflammatory and irrational rhetoric from US leaders, which again, you refuse to address.

Culturally, no one would expect a US president to speck in the colorful dialogue that Zarqawi does. Nonetheless, Bush’s rhetoric has been highly inflammatory and irrational by western standards. His inauguration speech in January was nothing short of a call for wolrdwide revolution and alarmed a great many. Compunded with Bush's celarly established battels with reality and his delusional outlook on the world, it created serisou casue for concern.

“If you decide to have a go at my moral code and ethical reasoning, please think about it, read it a few times, for a day or two - to be sure you understand - before you respond. I've spent years reading, writing and teaching philosophy and critical thinking (at Uni and as a secondary high school teacher), so I won't bother with a trivial response.”

No one is questioning your moral code or ethical reasoning, however, you seem to have a blind spot as to how it should be universally applied. Even worse, you seem oblivious to the notion that crimes against humanity usually occur when no one is looking.

“Okay, I've got a book review to complete. This is the last one from me unless I am given something worthy to respond to.”

Obviously we are not worthy. Someone should have told you that you don’t win tennis matches by repeatedly double faulting.

Best to to look into the mirror and pretend one is above all that I suppose.

Monday, December 19, 2005 2:47:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Comical,

“Is that enough for you? Or do you require more evidence?”
No more significant than the evidence Oran has provided is it?

“No, you just fall deafeningly silent and completley ignore what goes on, whilst giving the insurgents overall support in their so called fight against the occupation.”
On one basis alone. The right to be in Iraq. Nothing else. Like Edward , I condem all killing by anyone of anyone,
“And when I say "you" I'm refering to Lowy + anyone else who subsribes to his view - believing that the insurgents are legitmate freedom fighters who are fighting on behalf of the Iraqi people and subsequently hoping that they would win. Or better still, in your own personal case, you even deny it all together - asking me "to point to a legtimate source which proves your assertion." go figure.

“Oh so please clarify and differentiate between the "good" insurgents and the "bad" ones. You know the one's that dont blow up mosques and hospitals and dont behade aid workers (forget about the contractors since you see them as targets, but I'm sure aid workers are exempt in your book...or arent they?)”
Oh I see. So

“You've got to be joking.”
Not at all. Apologists for the war have tried to frame this as some anti-semitic thing because some of the neo-cons are Jews. Big effing deal. Some of them aren’t. This is about attacking the ideology of these nutcases, not their religion.

“Ok, so where is the evidence which pionts to the US targetting civilians inentionally? Instead of providing evidence you continue with "”
Shut up for a minute and try listening.
November 2004. The US assaulted Fallujah. The fact that the US were going to do this, pending the election outcome, was the worst kept secret in the world Everyone knew the US was waiting for the go ahead from Washington.
The US close the hospital. They ordered all reporters to leave the area and stay away, threatening that they would be killed if they were in the area.
This gave he insurgents/terrorists, including Zarqawi, ample time to bail, which they did. Reports at the time stated that the US experienced virtually no resistance. What’s more, this is supported by the fact that the same time this was happening, Mosul, which had until then been stabilized, fell back to the insurgents. What does that tell you Comical? It tells you that there were virtually no insurgents or terrorists in Fallujah at the time. The residents fo Flalujah knew it and the US forces knew it. Nonetheless they proceeded to flatten the city anyway, for no other reason than to :
1. dish out collective punishment to the city
2. give Bush a victory in the town after the US had been embarrassed the first time
3. send a clear signal to the people of Iraq to be more frightened of the US Occupation than the insurgent
And that my friend is proof.

Monday, December 19, 2005 2:59:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

"This number includes insurgents and civillians killed by insurgents. Stop trying to decieve people eddy."

The number does not include the number who die from malnutrition, DU exposure, inadequate access to fresh water or sewage services, poor electricity, inadequate medical aid.

If anything the 30,000 number is itself deceptive, becasue people are led to believe this is a tally of all the deaths that have occurred.

Monday, December 19, 2005 3:02:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Edie said....
"It's embarrassing to read. Blowing one's own trumpet is unseemly."

He's been doing it here has he not?

Monday, December 19, 2005 3:03:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Incomplete replies to Comical:

“And when I say "you" I'm refering to Lowy + anyone else who subsribes to his view - believing that the insurgents are legitmate freedom fighters who are fighting on behalf of the Iraqi people and subsequently hoping that they would win. Or better still, in your own personal case, you even deny it all together - asking me "to point to a legtimate source which proves your assertion." go figure.”

You really aren’t making any sense Comical, the way you are trying to string two or three issues together.

Let me help you. Do Iraqi’s have right to resist the occupation? Do they have a right to want to want a country free from occupation? If they cannot achieve the end to the occupation through diplomatic means, are they wrong for considering other options?

If any of your answers to these question is no, then you are am Imperialist and god help you.

Is an Iraqi who is against US occupation a terrorist or radical islamofascist?

“Oh so please clarify and differentiate between the "good" insurgents and the "bad" ones. You know the one's that dont blow up mosques and hospitals and dont behade aid workers (forget about the contractors since you see them as targets, but I'm sure aid workers are exempt in your book...or arent they?)”

I have just done so for you at great length. BTW. Who blew up mosques or hospitals in Fallujah? Certanly not the insurgents, because most of them had skipped town and were painting the town red in Mosul.

Monday, December 19, 2005 3:24:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home