[Vpro7]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
600? Is that it?

Damn. I was hoping we killed ALL the insurgents.

No matter. We'll be there for the next decade or two - in order to kill the rest of the insurgents.

Nice little provocative post. Don't worry, we've been there for thousands of years, and we will be for thousands more. We also have he luxury of not being wholly based on one nation. Let's see if your little Empire will even have the backbone to come knocking at our LARGE Islamic nation. See you in 30 years, bu bye.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
I'm in the UK now, but my family is in Iraq, I've been back numerous times though, and was there just recently. I got out during the sanction years to try and and provide for my family. The sanctions killed the country. As to the Iraqi police, the Iraqis feel like they are traitors, most do, but not all. It's like we are stuck between two evils, Saddam, and the US. Although it was horrendous under Saddam, it's worse under the Americans, and the sanction years. In no way do we feel that what has happened was deserved because of the WMD, there was no excuse, in our minds, to destroy the country on this basis.

As to Democracy, it's not so easy to point out that we had a dictator and conclude that life was bad, it wasn't for the most part. We had one of the highest standards of education in the world until the first War. That war we felt was a set-up by the US, to get a foot-hold into the Mid-East and our oil. Yeah, we want to be able to vote for our leaders, but in our own time, in our Islamic way, not some other way forced on us. In any case, we don't think we are getting real Democracy, but just some propped-up US chosen stooge, and if he falls out of line, we'll get invaded again. The sentiments of freedom go deeper than just saying we are better without Saddam, we're not stupid in realising why we were targeted. We want an end to the under-hand influences that are steering our country, but this goes way beyond Iraq, right across the Muslim world. That scares people, but i is our right to choose our destiny.
It's funny to read about how we Muslims want to convert and force Islam onto the West. Well, apart from a few nutjobs (which you'll find in any country), we just want to live our lives free of interference that we see on this scale today. We know that Saddam could have been removed without an invasion, in our own time.

What really gets me though, is the strange sincerity displayed by the leaders of Britain and the US before this latest invasion. They basically offered Saddam the chance to stay in power if he handed over his WMD. I mean, does that sound like they are thinking about our liberation? If liberation wasn't the reason for war, then it was purely for the other reasons, and we still find no justification for what has happened.

We are pretty much behind the insurgents, and although I despise the likes of Zarqawi, the more the US presses hard into our nation, the more they will drive the citizens to sympathise with him. We view the insurgents as different to Zarqawi's mob, and we don;t think that most bombings of our people are done by the majority of the insurgents.

Not sure if that answered much, but please don't think we are anti-American, even though we may shout out for you to go, and to lose. It's not the soldiers we resent, but the presence of them, and the forces behind them who put them there. But, they are the visible front of the governments involved in the occupation, so they do get the brunt of our frustrations.

Well said.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Speaking as an Iraqi, you can keep your freedom, and stuff it. We'll get our own freedom, in time, and not controlled by a puppet.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Nice little provocative post. Don't worry, we've been there for thousands of years, and we will be for thousands more. We also have he luxury of not being wholly based on one nation. Let's see if your little Empire will even have the backbone to come knocking at our LARGE Islamic nation. See you in 30 years, bu bye.

To be honest about it, considering the rate at which they kill and persecute each other, I don't think they'll last that long.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
For Mr. Cockburn to write something like this can be understood as he has not been exposed to the truths revealed on these pages over the past weeks. However, YOU have no such excuse, KarlG!

The information has been presented over and over again, in various ways and by many different posters. That you hold so stubbornly to such views suggests to me you are a 'glass half empty' kind of guy. And no amount of truth or facts will budge you from your dogmatic belief.

I understand you were a Viet Nam veteran? I bet you were a real source of inspiration and encouragement to the members of your unit.

Happy Veteran's Day.

I don't need any excuses to present points of view which concur with my opinion. Nor do I need approval from you, or others here, who, just because they state something over and over, in various ways, are not necessarily correct. Geroge Bush has been saying the same things over and over, and he isn't correct, and there are still many of us who are able think for ourselves, and who will continue to do so. Time will tell who had the more correct viewpoints.

I was a VietNam era vet; I was never in Nam, and I had excellent rapport with my fellow airmen.

[Spliffdaddy]

Did you commit war crimes like Kerry says you did?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Speaking as an Iraqi, you can keep your freedom, and stuff it. We'll get our own freedom, in time, and not controlled by a puppet.

No, Vpro7, it doesn't work that way, as much as you'd like to believe it.

There is a struggle that the good Iraqi people are caught in the middle of.

Liberty (US) and Oppression (OBL)

Peace (US) and Turmoil (OBL)

Prosperity (US) and Deprivation (OBL)

Against Terrorism (US) and For Terrorism (OBL)

If you lose this fight, you WILL be controlled by OBL and the relious extremists. The things you enjoy doing wherever you live, kiss em goodbye.

It is natural to want to avoid pain and death and turmoil. But, for the survivors of the war there are worse things in life and I'd ask that you explore/consider what life would be like for you, your family and friends in Iraq, should the Islamic extremists win this fight.

Why do you think the extremists are fighting so doggedly?

Why do you think we are fighting as we are?

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
To be honest about it, considering the rate at which they kill and persecute each other, I don't think they'll last that long.

We will, we've been through worse and this is just our shedding of the old and into the new. Birth pangs, if you will.

We'll be no more gone, than the Christians will be.

Fastest growing religion today, from what I gather. The new will replace, and add to the old.

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
No, Vpro7, it doesn't work that way, as much as you'd like to believe it.

Uh huh, somehow your logic just fails me, call me crazy, but it does. I bet you se those who do not support the Patriot Act as being unpatriotic.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Did you commit war crimes like Kerry says you did?

Let me dumb it down for you, so you can comprehend (that means to understand): I was never in VietNam.

[tie]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
In no way do we feel that what has happened was deserved because of the WMD, there was no excuse, in our minds, to destroy the country on this basis.
...
That war we felt was a set-up by the US, to get a foot-hold into the Mid-East and our oil... We know that Saddam could have been removed without an invasion, in our own time.
...
We would have gotten rid of Saddam, eventually, but with far fewer lives lost, and a country intact.

From the US perspective, this is nonsense. The US didn't attack Kuwait, you did. The Middle East is breeding terrorists who are attacking our country. You may think WMD are no big deal, but it is pretty serious from our perspective. I think you would never have gotten rid of Saddam on your own -- Iraq would turn into another North Korea. And certainly you would never have gotten rid of Saddam with fewer lives lost. (How many lives were lost because of sanctions? The sanctions would have been lifted if Saddam had been tossed out by the Iraqi people. But it never happened.) The country is now being destroyed by both Iraqi and American bombs.

Of course, I don't support the way the US has mishandled the situation. First by lying to the world about Iraqi WMD. Then not planning ahead and not sending enough troops to secure the country. Iraq shouldn't be in chaos 20 months later, over a year after Bush declared "mission accomplished."

I do support helping free Iraqis, although not by force. I support the use of force in preemptive strikes to prevent rogue nations from obtaining WMD.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Speaking as an Iraqi, you can keep your freedom, and stuff it. We'll get our own freedom, in time, and not controlled by a puppet.

So I assume you live in or are in Iraq.
If true, then hopefully you don't think we shouldn't have gone to war.

They'd better be kicking ass in that hellhole. After what they did to those men in April, they deserve an ass kicking.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We are trying to give the Iraqis FREEDOM from the likes of Saddam and OBL...

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Uh huh, somehow your logic just fails me, call me crazy, but it does. I bet you se those who do not support the Patriot Act as being unpatriotic.

You aren't crazy. You have one set of views that have come about because of your upbringing, history, the prevalent points of view
of those you've been around and who you respect and etc.

However, I wonder if you've thought about the other side of the issue.

No, I recognize the dangers of infringements on our freedoms here. I don't like it either. But, I can live with it because I see BOTH sides of the issue and I'm prepared to withold judgment until I become convinced that one side or the other isn't right for me or the country.

Speaking of Iraq forging their own free nation without assistance, after you read this, you might find the posts on the linked thread to be pertinent to this discussion.


http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...26#post2280250

aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN

Posts: 1786
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Registered: Aug 2004
Status: Online
Posted on : 11-10-2004 11:01 AM __
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
How did your founding fathers manage? They were babies at this government stuff as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, we were lucky. Our country, our form of government has been called 'a great experiment.'

Just because it succeeded does not suggest it was automatic.
Indeed, look at some other examples of colonies becoming nations to see how perilous the process can be:

In 1947 the British Parliament granted independence to India. It created the separate Hindu and Muslim nations of India and Pakistan. The law gave people only one month to decide which country they wanted to live in and to move there. As millions of people began to move, violence erupted between Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs...many, many people were killed.

War broke out over the state of Kashmir, that conflict continues today. A succession of Indian leaders were assassinated. Separatist movements continue to disrupt Indian society.

Power struggles and wars have broken out over Pakistan and Sri Lanka as well, which continue.

Around 1957, Kwame Nkrumah pushed Britain to accelerate it's plans to grant independence to it's Gold Coast colony, now known as Ghana.

Despite ambitious plans to build the economy and form an effective Organization of African Unity, opposition grew to Nkrumah's leadership. In 1966, the army seized power and Ghana has been ruled by a military dictatorship since 1981.

Belgium granted independence to the Congo in 1960, but did little to prepare the people for self rule and the nation was soon plunged into war. In 1965, Mobutu Sese Seko took over, renamed the country Zaire and ruled harshly and corruptly until 1997 leaving Zaire a financially poorer country, despite it's rich mineral resources.

In 1945, the French refused to give up property or control of Algeria and violence broke out, lasting years. In 1962, the French finally granted independence to Algeria. From 1965 until 1988, Algerians tried to modernize their country and give it an industrial economy. The efforts failed and an Islamic party won elections in 1991. However, the government rejected the vote when, after being voted into power, the Islamics sought to abolish the free electoral process. Today, a deadly civil war between Islamic militants and the government rages on.

But, getting back to your comment; the world was a far simpler place in 1776...it was a far simpler time. If we had failed there the ramifications would have been far less reaching, far less important to the stability of the world than if a free Iraqi were to fail.

A free Iraq is very important to everyone except those who want Iraq to become an Islamic state. And make no mistake, the forces behind the Iraqi insurgency are a small minority who are doing EVERYTHING in their power to prevent a free Iraq.

The Iraqi's need peace, prosperity and Freedom lest they become another example of an Islamic state which is less able to care for it's people, more likely to be embroiled in wars and conflicts and a haven for terrorism.

To deny them the assistance they need to avoid this plight would be the most uncaring and insensitive thing the US could do. The Bush administration understands this. Many in the world do not.

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by tie:
From the US perspective, this is nonsense. The US didn't attack Kuwait, you did.

Wow, you completely failed to see where I wrote, 'We felt that Iraq had been set-up by the US'. Big difference to what you are implying.

Also, the topic of the Kuwait invasion is far from as simple as, you invaded Kuwait, so we invade you'. Iraq had reasons for invasion, combined with a little hocus-pocus from the then US James Baker, and we have the makings for one giant set-up, in the eyes of Iraqis, which is what i was saying.

What counts is fairness. If the US can invade nations that they say they are doing to protect their interests; them why couldn't Iraq do the same in regards to Kuwait? Hmm.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
No, Vpro7, it doesn't work that way, as much as you'd like to believe it.

There is a struggle that the good Iraqi people are caught in the middle of.

Liberty (US) and Oppression (OBL)

Peace (US) and Turmoil (OBL)

Prosperity (US) and Deprivation (OBL)

Against Terrorism (US) and For Terrorism (OBL)

If you lose this fight, you WILL be controlled by OBL and the relious extremists. The things you enjoy doing wherever you live, kiss em goodbye.

It is natural to want to avoid pain and death and turmoil. But, for the survivors of the war there are worse things in life and I'd ask that you explore/consider what life would be like for you, your family and friends in Iraq, should the Islamic extremists win this fight.

Why do you think the extremists are fighting so doggedly?

Why do you think we are fighting as we are?

Wow.

You believe all that crap too?

Wow.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
So I assume you live in or are in Iraq.

See the second post from the top of page 4 or 11 posts up from yours.

[OldManMac]

LBK, I don't know if we should laugh, or cry.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Wow.

You believe all that crap too?

Wow.

Yes, and I can document it as well. Can you cite DATA to refute the assertions?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by KarlG:
LBK, I don't know if we should laugh, or cry.

Well, based on her posts here, I'd say she is MOLE HOLING.

(To escape being trapped by an oppoent's logic, a Mole Holer simply leaves and begins the argument in another thread as though the previous points have never been made. This leaves the opponent feeling as though he's in an amusement park WHACK A MOLE game. You whack em good, but they pop up again in another hole. Then you whack em again but they pop up again...)

She should disappear in her Mole Hole.

You?

"Off, you (should) go, into the wild blue yonder..."

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by KarlG:
LBK, I don't know if we should laugh, or cry.

Laugh first then step back, think about it, then cry.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Yes, and I can document it as well.

Go ahead - I could use a laugh.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Well, based on her posts here, I'd say she is MOLE HOLING.

(To escape being trapped by an oppoent's logic, a Mole Holer simply leaves and begins the argument in another thread as though the previous points have never been made. This leaves the opponent feeling as though he's in an amusement park WHACK A MOLE game. You whack em good, but they pop up again in another hole. Then you whack em again but they pop up again...)

She should disappear in her Mole Hole.

You?

"Off, you (should) go, into the wild blue yonder..."

How did you get to be so clever and original?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by tie:
Of course, I don't support the way the US has mishandled the situation. First by lying to the world about Iraqi WMD. Then not planning ahead and not sending enough troops to secure the country. [/B]

We know Saddam was intentionally promoting the false belief that he had WMD's. After 9/11 who could blame W for taking that POSSIBLE threat seriously? Who would have borne the brunt of a WMD terrorist attack? Who would have been blamed for NOT protecting the people of the US?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The mission commanders and the administration wanted to prevent the perception by the Iraqi people that we were there as occupiers. So the number of troops sent was smaller than might have been necessary to do the job faster. 20/20 Hindsight.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by KarlG:
How did you get to be so clever and original?

Great Lakes, Naval Training Center, IL
Ft. Jackson, SC
Ft. Monmouth, NJ
Ft. Carson, CO
Lowry AFB, CO
MCRD, San Diego, CA

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Go ahead - I could use a laugh.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette.../05-terror.html

Freedom squelches terrorist violence

KSG associate professor researches freedom-terrorism link

By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette.../05-terror.html

Freedom squelches terrorist violence

KSG associate professor researches freedom-terrorism link

By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3999801.stm

US officials say they are confident, but not certain, missing Californian Adam Gadahn is the man who threatened al-Qaeda attacks in a recent video.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Go ahead - I could use a laugh.

TELESCOPING THE TIMES by McDougall Littell Inc.

Ch. 18 The Colonies Become New Nations, 1945 - Present


In 1945, the French refused to give up property or control of Algeria and violence broke out, lasting years. In 1962, the French finally granted independence to Algeria. From 1965 until 1988, Algerians tried to modernize their country and give it an industrial economy. The efforts failed and an Islamic party won elections in 1991. However, the government rejected the vote when, after being voted into power, the Islamics sought to abolish the free electoral process. Today, a deadly civil war between Islamic militants and the government rages on.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Go ahead - I could use a laugh.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/socio/social.htm

In a country ruled by Muslim authorities, a non-Muslim is guaranteed his freedom of faith.... Muslims are forbidden from obliging a non-Muslim to embrace Islam, but he should pay the tribute to Muslims readily and submissively, surrender to Islamic laws, and should not practice his polytheistic rituals openly. [4]

1. The value of human life

In the West, at least in constitution terms, however inadequately outworked in practice in some places, the equality of human beings is a fundamental assumption � 'all men are equal before the law'. For this reason, Justice is often depicted in statues as blindfolded; the class, religion or race of anyone is irrelevant � the law, at least in terms of its goal, applies equally to everyone, and safeguards everyone equally.

In Islamic law, however, this is simply not the case. The life of a Muslim is considered superior to that of a non-Muslim, so much so that whilst a non-Muslim killing a Muslim would be executed, the reverse would not occur. [5] This is despite the fact that murder is normally considered a capital offence in Islam, with regular executions in most Muslim states. This inequity is also demonstrable in the blood rate paid to non-Muslims where murder or injury has occurred, which is half that of a Muslim. [6] Effectively, this ruling means that a Muslim need not fear the usual retribution for murder if he kills a non-Muslim. The law deliberately and consciously does not protect non-Muslims as it does Muslims. The position of Islamic law is not that human life is sacred, but that Muslim life is so.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette.../05-terror.html

Freedom squelches terrorist violence

KSG associate professor researches freedom-terrorism link

By Alvin Powell
Harvard News Office

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks.

Terrorist violence is related to the level of political freedom?

OK.

So Iraq had more political freedom under Saddam because there was less terrorism - gotcha.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Go ahead - I could use a laugh.

ibid

C1: Social Laws

As Christians living in a Western country, we have to accept and admit that the perception by many here is that Islam meets the social needs of people better than does Christianity. The fact that this category was chosen by converts as, "the primary reason to convert today," speaks to the success evidenced by Western Islam, particularly within the African-American community in the U.S., as well as the Afro-Caribbean community in England, who have benefited by some of Islam's social programs.

The picture in the greater Muslim world is quite different, however. Consider some of the most current statistics compiled by Michael Kidron and Ronald Segal in The New State Of the World Atlas, printed in 1991:

According to their research; worldwide, there are 19 countries which will never be able to provide adequate food for their populations. 15 out of the 19 are Muslim countries, and include Afghanistan, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Western Sahara, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Niger, Mauritania, and Bangla Desh (Kidron 1991:28-29). Of the 12 countries with the lowest record of life-expectancy (under 45 years), 7 are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:40-41).

Probably more revealing is the "Quality of Life Index" compiled by Frank Kaleb Jansen, of Target Earth in 1989. This index measures mortality rate, male life expectancy and female illiteracy. When one tabulates the countries of the world within this index, one finds that 12 of the lowest 20 countries rated in the world are Muslim, while 32 of the top 40 rated countries world- wide are those which are traditionally considered as Christian countries (Jansen 1989:90-91).

Yet that is only half the picture. When one adds further criteria to this index, such as: education standards, health status, women's status, defense allotments, economic and demographic factors, as well as political stability and participation, it is interesting to find that out of the top 40 countries listed, 39 are Christian in background, while all of the 23 Muslim countries included fall well below this level, with 5 of the worst 10 countries on the list Muslim countries (Jansen 1989:92-93).

Kidron concurs with these findings in his analysis on the quality of life, finding that whereas all of the Northern countries (made up of all European countries except Portugal and Romania, and including North American, Israel, Japan and Australia) fall into the highest category for the Quality of Life Index (9 and above), not one of the 32 Muslim countries made it into this category. In fact, the majority of them placed within the medium to very low categories. The lowest rated in the world were mostly Muslim countries (i.e. Niger, Mali) (Kidron 1991:50-51).

Other areas were equally dismal. Take for instance Literacy: while all of the Northern countries had 90% and above literacy rates (except Romania, Portugal, and Bulgaria), not one of the 32 Muslim countries even made it into this category. The best had approximately 70% literacy rate, and the rest fell to 10% and under (Kidron 1991:52-53).

Another example is that of Schooling: whereas all of the northern countries had 90% of their children in Secondary school, the best Muslim state had only 50%, with the majority of the Muslim countries falling between 30% and 10%.

Child-mortality showed another dismal failure: All the Northern states (except Yugoslavia, Romania and the USSR) were in the top category for Child Mortality (25 children or under, out of 1,000 children, who died before 5 yrs. of age). In contrast, all of the 32 Muslim states fell into the lower categories (50 children to 200 children out of 1,000 who died before their 5th birthday) (Kidron 1991:54).

Statistics like these point out that Islam in practice has little to show when it comes to its social agenda.

Many Muslims believe that these statistics are not a result of Islamic principles, but are the result of policies instituted by the colonizing powers before they left. Furthermore, they feel that the western banks exacerbate the problem by demanding debt repayment for the loans given out since independence.

While one would agree that some of the blame can be apportioned on the West, one must bear in mind that many Asian countries also came out of similar colonizing environments. Yet they have managed to control their economies and social environment adequately, and in some cases have even surpassed those countries who had colonized them.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Terrorist violence is related to the level of political freedom?

OK.

So Iraq had more political freedom under Saddam because there was less terrorism - gotcha.

FUZZY ALERT!!!

Fuzzy logic
Twisting opponent's argument

You (intentionally? ) have it exactly bass ackwards.

The greater the political freedoms, the less terrorism there is.

Your attempt to imply an earnest misunderstanding is transparent.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3999801.stm

FUZZY ALERT!!!

Twisting Opponent's Argument

Using that implied reasoning, ALL Californians should be rounded up and sent to Gitmo.

Wrong.

[gatekeeper]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette.../05-terror.html

Correct link.

"In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin," Abadie said.

Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.

Like those with much political freedom, nations at the other extreme - with tightly controlled autocratic governments - also experienced low levels of terrorism.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by gatekeeper:
Correct link.

Thanks for the correction.

[Vpro7]

Ah, freedom of speech in the new Iraq. I gues the they now want to cover up the mass civilian deaths as being merely "terrorists". So if you don't report this to the world, you'll be kicked out of Iraq. Nice going.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...610349,00.html

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Ah, freedom of speech in the new Iraq. I gues the they now want to cover up the mass civilian deaths as being merely "terrorists". So if you don't report this to the world, you'll be kicked out of Iraq. Nice going.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...610349,00.html

Vpro7, assume you are the new President of Iraq. You are trying to settle things down so ALL the people in your country can start the long, slow process of getting their lives back on track.

There are bands of news people in your country from different countries reporting the efforts. Some of them are from Sunni TV stations (I don't say this is an accurate analogy) who say your administration is persecuting Sunnis. But this is not true.

They use videotape footage of Iraqi police arresting a looter who is a Sunni and they show dead and wounded Sunnis from the war and use that footage to imply you are anti-Sunni.

How would you respond?

There is no way to prevent ANYONE with an agenda from producing reports that promote that agenda and sending it all over the world.

You are being victimized by those who want your good efforts and your administration to fail.

What would you do?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Ah, freedom of speech in the new Iraq. I gues the they now want to cover up the mass civilian deaths as being merely "terrorists". So if you don't report this to the world, you'll be kicked out of Iraq. Nice going.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...610349,00.html

Ah, Saddam's Baathist utopia. Why did the US ever have to end it?! Fascists!

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Ah, Saddam's Baathist utopia. Why did the US ever have to end it?! Fascists!

Same ****, different faces.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Same ****, different faces.

Exactly.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Vpro7:
Same ****, different faces.

Were you going to think about the media question some more before answering, Mr. President?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Exactly.

You and your friends just disappeared yesterday. Care to comment on the information I posted?

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You and your friends just disappeared yesterday.

Yeah, I find it hard to stay awake 24/7 these days, still, it's quite easy when bombs are falling all around you.

Care to comment on the information I posted?

Not really, because it's morning here and don't have that much time to go over other people's articles you have posted. Far too much data for me to answer in one quick post.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
You and your friends just disappeared yesterday. Care to comment on the materials I posted?

Some of us do sleep.

Besides, they're not really worth replying to. Your argument is essentially that an Islamic state would not allow for freedom. I've already told you that's false and directed you to a site that actually explains Islamic laws and rights. It's up to you if you want to educate yourself or not.

You also said "The greater the political freedoms, the less terrorism there is."

As eklipse already pointed out, by that logic, Iraqis under Saddam enjoyed adequate political freedoms since there was no terrorism there. I posted the story about a Californian born Al-Qaeda terrorist. Does that mean Americans don't enjoy political freedoms? I don't think you'd agree with that.

You provided your usual childish response when you can't refute a post.

[Vpro7]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Some of us do sleep.

Besides, they're not really worth replying to. Your argument is essentially that an Islamic state would not allow for freedom. I've already told you that's false and directed you to a site that actually explains Islamic laws and rights. It's up to you if you want to educate yourself or not.

You also said "The greater the political freedoms, the less terrorism there is."

As eklipse already pointed out, by that logic, Iraqis under Saddam enjoyed adequate political freedoms since there was no terrorism there. I posted the story about a Californian born Al-Qaeda terrorist. Does that mean Americans don't enjoy political freedoms? I don't think you'd agree with that.

You provided your usual childish response when you can't refute a post.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this too, well put.

[Vpro7]

Now we here from the US that this latest assault on Fallujah won't really 'solve' the insurgency 'problem'. That Zarqawi has left. So what was the reason for this again? Ah, to quell, not so-called terrorists, but to bring a city that has decided to rebel;, to its knees in the most cruel and wicked way.

Here's what the BBC's Iraqi correspondent in Fallujah has to say today:

Eyewitness: Smoke and corpses



US troops, backed by Iraqi forces, are locked in a fierce fight to wrest the city of Falluja from rebel control. The BBC News website spoke by phone to Fadhil Badrani, an Iraqi journalist and resident of Falluja who reports regularly for Reuters and the BBC World Service in Arabic.

We are publishing his and other eyewitness accounts from the city in order to provide the fullest possible range of perspectives from those who are there:

US bomber aircraft have been supporting ground forces in Falluja
A row of palm trees used to run along the street outside my house - now only the trunks are left.

The upper half of each tree has vanished, blown away by mortar fire.

From my window, I can also make out that the minarets of several mosques have been toppled.

There are more and more dead bodies on the streets and the stench is unbearable.

Smoke is everywhere.

Sleeping through bombardment

A house some doors from mine was hit during the bombardment on Wednesday night. A 13-year-old boy was killed. His name was Ghazi.

I tried to flee the city last night but I could not get very far. It was too dangerous.

I am getting used to the bombardment. I have learnt to sleep through the noise - the smaller bombs no longer bother me.

Without water and electricity, we feel completely cut off from everyone else.

I only found out Yasser Arafat had died because the BBC rang me.

It is hard to know how much people outside Falluja are aware of what is going on here.

I want them to know about conditions inside this city - there are dead women and children lying on the streets.

People are getting weaker from hunger. Many are dying from their injuries because there is no medical help left in the city whatsoever.

Some families have started burying their dead in their gardens.


There has been a lot of resistance in Jolan.

The Americans have taken over several high-rise buildings overlooking the district.

But the height has not helped them control the area because the streets of Jolan are very narrow and you cannot fire into them directly.

The US military moves along the main roads and avoids the side-streets. The soldiers do not leave their armoured vehicles and tanks.

If they get fired on, they fire back from their tanks or call in air-strikes.

I saw some Iraqi government soldiers on the ground earlier.

I don't know which part of the country these soldiers are from. They are definitely not from any of the western provinces such as al-Anbar.

I have heard people say they are from Kurdistan.

They are well co-ordinated. When the US forces pull back from an area, the Iraqi soldiers will take over there. "

[Troll]

You know, I read posts by Aberdeen and Creeping Death and it just amazes me the level to which Americans have suspended reality.

You guys know that there are 60,000 civilians in Falluja. You know that the town has been under siege for over a week with nothing going in or out. You know that electricity and water have been cut off for 4 days. WTF do you think is happening to 60,000 civilians without food, water or electricity or medical care? During peacetime it's hard to imagine how these people would survive but to add insult to injury, their town has been turned into a war zone with US tanks and aircraft firing and bombing anything that moves.

Aside from the death and injury, people's homes and all their worldly possessions are being destroyed. It amazes me that people can justify putting 300,000 lives at risk for the sake of 3,000 insurgents. How f*cked up is this world that some people, including the leader of the United States of America, think it's okay to wage all out war, virtually carpet-bombing a city into the stone age, to take out 1% of the population that they define as terrorists? People that only became terrorists because the United States thought it was in their strategic interests to invade Iraq? I found ways to justify the killing of 10,000 innocent civilians during the invasion itself, but try as I might, I can't see any way of justifying this.

[gatekeeper]

Photo Blog: Taking Falluja

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://debate.org.uk/topics/socio/social.htm

In a country ruled by Muslim authorities, a non-Muslim is guaranteed his freedom of faith.... Muslims are forbidden from obliging a non-Muslim to embrace Islam, but he should pay the tribute to Muslims readily and submissively, surrender to Islamic laws, and should not practice his polytheistic rituals openly. [4]

1. The value of human life

In the West, at least in constitution terms, however inadequately outworked in practice in some places, the equality of human beings is a fundamental assumption � 'all men are equal before the law'. For this reason, Justice is often depicted in statues as blindfolded; the class, religion or race of anyone is irrelevant � the law, at least in terms of its goal, applies equally to everyone, and safeguards everyone equally.

In Islamic law, however, this is simply not the case. The life of a Muslim is considered superior to that of a non-Muslim, so much so that whilst a non-Muslim killing a Muslim would be executed, the reverse would not occur. [5] This is despite the fact that murder is normally considered a capital offence in Islam, with regular executions in most Muslim states. This inequity is also demonstrable in the blood rate paid to non-Muslims where murder or injury has occurred, which is half that of a Muslim. [6] Effectively, this ruling means that a Muslim need not fear the usual retribution for murder if he kills a non-Muslim. The law deliberately and consciously does not protect non-Muslims as it does Muslims. The position of Islamic law is not that human life is sacred, but that Muslim life is so.

Interesting,aberdeenwriter, you post the same things you posted in the now closed other Falluja-thread, and I already replied and debunked it, don't you read threads you participated in?

But I'm so nice and link to my replies in the closed thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=5#post2279670

and

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=5#post2279701

and

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=5#post2279715

Taliesin

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Interesting,aberdeenwriter, you post the same things you posted in the now closed other Falluja-thread, and I already replied and debunked it, don't you read threads you participated in?

You read his posts!?