In the meantime why not catch up with the latest goings on with our friends over at A Logical Voice.
In the meantime why not catch up with the latest goings on with our friends over at A Logical Voice.
From the NYT via Common Dreams:
Sweeping statistics on insurgent violence in Iraq that were declassified for a Senate hearing on Wednesday appear to portray a rebellion whose ability to mount attacks has steadily grown in the nearly three years since the invasion.
The curve traced out by the figures between June 2003 and December 2005 shows a number of fluctuations, including several large spikes in insurgent activity — one as recently as October of last year. But while American and Iraqi officials have often pointed to the downward edges of those fluctuations as evidence that the steam was going out of the insurgency, the numbers over all seem to tell a different story, Mr. [Joseph A.]Christoff [director of international affairs and trade at the Government Accountability Office] said. "It's not going down," he said. "There are peaks and valleys, but if you look at every peak, it's higher than the peak before."
Officials have recently noted that the numbers of attacks in the final two months of last year dropped after an October peak, which occurred around both Ramadan and a referendum on Iraq's constitution. But Mr. Christoff's chart shows that the number of attacks in December, nearly 2,500, was almost 250 percent of the number in March 2004.
But the trend line began even before March 2004, when the number of attacks was already nearly double what it had been in July or August 2003. Mr. Christoff's paper cites a senior United States military officer saying that "attack levels ebb and flow as the various insurgent groups — almost all of which are an intrinsic part of Iraq's population — re-arm and attack again."
Attacks against Iraqi security forces have grown faster than the overall count; by December 2005 they had grown more than 200 percent since March 2004. Of course, as more Iraqis are trained and put into the field, more of them are targets.
The paper, citing a contracting office in Iraq, said that as attacks had fluctuated downward in the final two months of last year, attacks on convoys related to rebuilding efforts had risen. Twenty convoys had been attacked, with 11 casualties, in October 2005, while 33 convoys had been attacked, with 34 casualties, in January 2006, the paper says.
If the ongoing war in Iraq's mission is currently set to defeating "insurgents", then I guess that means that the war is being lost.
"There are peaks and valleys, but if you look at every peak, it's higher than the peak before."
Bahahaha, ever heard of linear regression?
Maybe someone that knows something about statistics can take the guess-work out of this.... :rolleyes:
Not sure what you're on about, anon. Here is an applet that you can play with that shows you that - provided the valleys are not to deep, increasing peaks will give a function with a positive slope. If your point is that some point in the future the attacks will regress to zero, that's pretty lame. It completely ignores what is happing in the real world now.
On turning the corner:
"2005 was really a turning point, in the sense the progress we made...[W]e’ve now got a large number of Iraqis taking the lead various places around the country from a security and military standpoint."
-- Vice President Cheney, 2/7/06
"[Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter] Pace said only one Iraqi army battalion is capable of fighting without U.S. help. That is the same number as in September, when U.S. commanders disclosed that the number of such highly trained battalions had dropped from three to one."
-- Associated Press, 2/7/06
"a strong dictatorship would be preferable to the present "chaos" in Iraq"
What a horrible way to look at it.
Interesting article. I believe that occupation forces have been criticised in the past for allowing the complete disintegration of Iraq's power structure, without giving any real thought to the aftermath of an overthrow of Hussein's regime.
ooo Russia coming back ...how interesting
We may disagree with their opinions but we cannot tell them how to run their politics.
I suppose that this news tells us a lot about those who really support democracy, and those who don't.
Unfortunately, democracy often leads to unpallatble results for leaders of our so called "civilised societies", but if they really do respect democracy, as they claim, then they should respect the views of those who have taken part in any elections.
hamas seems like a good partner for arms sales
Oh, this is interesting. As long as their terorists are not our terorists it is OK to talk.
I wonder if Putin will now talk with Chechen 'freedom fighters' or 'terorists' or whatever you want to call them.
But what is a 'terrorist' jin ?
Both the United States and Russia comit acts that can be clearly called terrorism and they still talk to each other.
Were the french resistance in world war 2 'terrorists' ?
How about the American fight for Independance was that 'terrorism' ?
The problem with the word 'Terrorism' is that everybody applies their own definition to it and very few people use the dictionary definition.
I get so tired of politically correct rhetoric. Hamas is hell-bent on the destruction of Israel. They are genocidal maniacs. Putin won't call them terrorists so he can sell them some guns.
To those who are rooting for Hamas and boo hooing the USA:
A Danish paper publishes cartoons poking fun at Mohammed and the next thing you know, enraged fanatics burn down the Danish embassy. That's a taste of life under fundamentalist Islam. If you're not a fanatical male Muslim, you can basically kiss your civil rights goodbye.
Funny thing, bunny, is that Hamas couldn't get much support in the past: getting 15% Palestinian support in 1995, 12% in 1997, 20% in 2001, 20% in 2002 and 23% in 2003 according to the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre polls [See Pape, Robert A., Dying to Win: the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Random House, New York. p.49] However, before the election Hamas "dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its manifesto..." It seems very likely that, given the poor record of support for Hamas among Palestinians, this was what won Hamas the election.
And as for the Danish newspaper, well, its hypocrisy is now a matter of public record. This, obviously, does not excuse the reaction to the cartoons, but this reaction did not occur in a political vacuum. Surely you have not missed all the events of the past 4 and a half years (or perhaps I should say 53 years).
But what is a 'terrorist' jin ?
I am aware of the definition problem, that's why I wrote that you can call them whatever you like :)
Anyway, your dictionary is probably different as my dictionary (since it is a different language; Slovenian, that is) so I could claim something and you something else :)
That is not important. What I was triing to say was, that Putin describes Chechens as terorists and would never talk to them, but then goes and talks to Hamas, which in esence uses the same brutality as some of the Chechen rebels and has an islamic fundamentalist base. How does he diferentiate between the two? One fight me, others don't. It is the same with western positiona as regarding the Chechen conflict. Many governments are very 'involved' in this 'war on teror', but nevertheles are willing to talk with Chechens. I think one guy, wanted for terorism charges by Russia, lived freely in UK some time ago and he wasn't arested and sent to Russia.
There is much hypochrisy in this 'war on teror.'
Russia has to deal with muslims countries more then the most West
Regarding the single Guantanamo detanee who claimed Farouq was involved with al Qaeda:
... [I]f proximity implies culpability, how do you justify the detention of so many others in Cuba who were arrested far from any Afghanistan front? How about the aid worker sleeping at home in Karachi, Pakistan? How about the men arrested in Sarajevo and sent by the Americans to Guantanamo even though they were clutching their exoneration-from-terrorism papers issued by the judge who had reviewed their cases? How about miscellaneous Arabs -- some fighters, some not -- who together with other refugees passed through Afghanistan's borders as war arrived? How about two British Muslims arrested as they stepped off a plane in Gambia?... The law of war has come far in a century of genocides and massacres and nuclear bombs. But has it come so far that when Al Qaeda made the entire world a battlefield, all of the world's population fell under the law of war?
As the U.S. government started putting its cards on the table, explaining why the men described above, and others like them, were still behind bars, the habeas lawyers started to ponder more deeply what happens to justice -- even in a wartime setting -- when you strip away due process and the presumption of innocence.
The government told the lawyers that their clients were all well-trained liars. But as the lawyers read the files, they started to wonder whether they were facing an impossible paradox: After all, if a well-trained liar looks like an innocent man, what does an innocent man look like, if not a well-trained liar?
Back before everything happened, before the world came unhinged, Detainee 032 was a boy of 16 living in Yemen with his mother, his father, his four sisters, and his five brothers. His name was Farouq Ali Ahmed, and he studied Islamic law in high school.
One day, the boy made a solemn vow before God: If it was God's will that Farouq commit the Koran to memory, more than 6,000 verses in all, he would spend a year, before he went off to college, teaching the holy texts, in Afghanistan. A man who did this thing, he'd been told, would be rewarded by God.
Such was Allah's will that in the spring of 2001, Farouq, then 17, set off for Afghanistan. He took a little room in a big house in Kabul and began teaching 7- and 8-year-olds, gathering four or five of them together and reciting Allah's words until the children had them memorized. It wasn't easy work. The Koran is always taught in Farouq's native language, Arabic, which the Afghan children didn't understand, and Farouq didn't speak their language. But he had made an oath to Allah. After a few months, he moved to the city of Khost, where he continued to teach out of a mosque until the Taliban fell and the cities were no longer safe for Arabs. One day, his host told him that if he stayed any longer, his life would be in danger. He had left his passport in Kabul for safekeeping, but he was told there was no time to get it back. He was taken to Pakistan, where Afghans have long sought haven from their never-ending wars.
Once across the border, Farouq encountered the Pakistani military. "One of the soldiers pointed a weapon toward me," Farouq told his Combatant Status Review Tribunal. The Defense Department established the tribunals after the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees could challenge their imprisonment. "The Pakistani officer took me and said, don't be mad at him, we are Muslim, we will take care of you. He asked me about my parents. He said, you are a kid, you are going to the Yemen Embassy, and you shouldn't have any problems getting back to Yemen. After that, they took me to a jail, and there were lots of people. They put handcuffs on our hands."
Farouq spent time in two Pakistani prisons before the government handed him over to American forces in Afghanistan. As a foreigner without a passport, he met the U.S. criteria for Guatanamo, and he was quickly whisked onto a plane headed for the sunny Caribbean jail that most military people refer to simply as "The Bay." In the chaos of post-9/11 Afghanistan, military leaders say, there wasn't time for much consideration of anomalies like Farouq. The United States was pulling Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis, Chinese into detention centers, some tens of thousands in all. U.S. intelligence agents weren't able to debrief every prisoner; just keeping them secure was difficult, as Afghans gathered outside temporary holding facilities and clamored for blood. They had never much liked the foreigners, whose idea of Islamic law was sometimes harsher than even the Taliban's.
By late November 2002, an FBI agent wrote, Detainee 063, Mohamed al-Kahtani, was "evidencing behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma (talking to nonexistent people, reporting hearing voices, cowering in a corner of his cell covered with a sheet for hours on end.)"
Think about it. Whether you know something or not, whether you did something or not, you know what the interrogators want you to say. You know what another has said about you, because that is the information being presented to you. Was it the truth? Was it a lie? Did you simply have the bad luck to be the mug shot under a finger when another inmate wanted to end the endless questions?
You've been told that the truth will set you free, but while interrogators come and go, you don't know anyone from your home country who has been released. Say one thing, and you might have a cigarette and a night's sleep. Say nothing, and you might spend the night shackled to the floor with Metallica ringing in your ears. Stay neutral, and it's more endless days of monotony, washing on command, exercising on command, eating on command, losing your mattress and blanket if you argue with the men in command.
What would you do?
I'm not all that worried about Guantanamo detainees. I'm worried about all the terrorists running amok blowing up innocent Iraqis, aid workers and soldiers.
Farouq will get through his dilemma; he will look back on the experience one day and realize it made him a stronger person. As a man of faith, he understands he must undergo trials and tribulations.
Do you have any idea how many Christians are tortured, detained and imprisoned just for standing up for their faith? Just check out
Apostolic Bunny Lover
I'm not all that worried about Guantanamo detainees.
Ah another pseudo christian. We often get visits from good friendly folk like you. You decided not to join the real Christians on the march to show sympathy with the many innocents being held at Guantanamo then ? There is clearly Nothing to hide or anything unchristian going on is there. It is not like those we consider most worthy in the pursuit of the Protection of human rights and dignity are concerned about anything going on in such a concentration camp.
I'm worried about all the terrorists running amok blowing up innocent Iraqis, aid workers and soldiers.
Did you fail to notice that there was no 'terrorists' in Iraq until George Bush said we are murdering these people so they we don't have to get any Americans killed . Ooops sorry he said 'we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at home.' Still it is the same thing I suppose.
Farouq will get through his dilemma; he will look back on the experience one day and realize it made him a stronger person. As a man of faith, he understands he must undergo trials and tribulations.
How pathetic. How about Jill Carroll will get through her dilemma , she will look back on the experience one day and realise it made her a stronger person , as a woman of faith she understands she must undergo trials and tribulations.
Your clearly an Islamophobic trying to disguise yourself as a Christian. A common trait amongst American extreme right wing 'Christians' who ironically seem to lack all of the qualities that would define someone as a person of the Christian faith anywhere else on the planet in particular my own country (The United Kingdom.)
The rules for this site clearly state that ANY hate speech is not allowed . You value one human life as being less worthy or less entitled to justice than another human life. Once upon time those people being judged less worthy of human dignity were Women and Black people.
Now people have realised that such thoughts are barbaric and neanderthal. So they express their perceived superiority through xenophobia and a hatred of 1 billion Muslims of which 99 percent are peaceful , kind and respectful, such as those protesting in London Today.
If you decide to return then I expect you were just having one of those unchristian days and you really are true to your faith and respect all human life as being equally worthy. That like us you deplore all acts of terrorism whether they are the sickening attack on the United states on Sept 11th 2001 or the shocking attack on the Innocent woman and children of Pakistan by the CIA last month and that you deeply disapprove of the harboring of wanted terrorists by your own country.
Religious extremism is extremely dangerous in all its forms and your multitude of comments across this site today clearly puts you in the category or such an extremist. If you wish to return please ensure you place equal value on the rights of all human beings that you are blessed to share this planet with.
Bunny, nothing you have ever written on this site would make me think for an instant that you are worried about the illegal and immoral incarceration of innocent men and boys. As for your (false) concern for innocent Iraqis, the outcome was predicted before the war, so that should logically make you anti-war. But with your penchant for informal fallacies, I find your stance explainable, if reprehensible.
"Farouq will get through his dilemma; he will look back on the experience one day and realize it made him a stronger person. As a man of faith, he understands he must undergo trials and tribulations."
Then, naturally, you desire to be illegally incarcerated, held without charge and mistreated so that one day you can become "a stronger person." After all, as a (false) woman of faith, you understand that you "must undergo trials and tribulations." Honestly, this is the most insidious of apologetics I could possibly imagine for his illegal internment. We both know you would never accept this. In other words, your position is totally hypocritical.
"Do you have any idea how many Christians are tortured, detained and imprisoned just for standing up for their faith?"
No. First it is irrelevant as it is a tu quoque ad hominem. Wrongdoing by others does not excuse wrongdoing by you.
Second, your link claims there are hundreds of people being detained for being Christian but not only can it not be bothered to name one single person, it cannot be bothered to name one single country doing this. In other words, it reeks of total bullshit. It mentions a case in which some Christians broke the law, but that is not being "imprisoned just for standing up for their faith". Being Christian in Indonesia is not illegal as this site will quickly show if you click "Indonesian," "All Denominations" then "Begin Search."
But that second point is moot, as I said. The point is irrelevant (tu quoque ad hominem).
Might I suggest less time in church and more time studying elementary logic?
I've heard it all before. The Latin flourishes and condescending tone don't phase me a bit. Good luck w/your cause. I just don't share your perspective.
You've heard before that you make elementary errors in logic but still haven't done anything to correct it? You don't have a perspective, you have a train wreak of thought.
And if you don't like my tone, don't claim on the one hand that prison is good for Muslims but is bad for Christians.
Snore (I've heard it all before...typical tactics...not very original :)
What strikes me the most about this blog is that your selection of issues to 'care about' seems to revolve around an overwhelming hatred of George Bush, America and the War. You are using the victimization of the people whose stories you report to fuel this hatred. There is nothing original, creative or caring about this mentality. The bluntness of my posts is directed more toward this mentality than the victimized parties in question.
Thanks for giving me the space to share my opinions.
Opinion, yes. That is all we've managed to get. I'm not surprised that you've heard that before.
And your opinion of this site does not surprise me either. Caring about people hurt by an unnecessary war of aggression is "using... vicitimization"? The problem with what we do here is that we dare to offer a dissenting position. That is what is unacceptable. And we offer enough unique information that you now know who Islam Karimov is (and wait on baited breath for you to petition your government to stop supporting the monster). But hatred of GW? We would have to believe in some kind of fairy tale world that Bush ruined by becoming president for that to be true. We would also believe that the man, contrary to reports, actually takes a deep interest in his work. Hatred? My life is too short and my health too precious to waste it on hatred of anything other than brussel sprouts.
Great Blog !
Keep up the good work.
Please if you wish visit my blog,
Plato the Lapdog VS the Illuminati
It's hard to tell these days what's real and what's not. Paranoia, I've got a lot. Instantly it seems that day time fears cause night time dreams. I can't sleep on it and make it; the yobs, the scheming politics, the denial of what is happening to us and because of us, go away. Because tomorrow keeps coming up as the same old day.
interesting video . . .
i like this blog
I watched much of the funeral on Cspan.. there were some great moments. Carter and Lowery really got Bush squirming. Aside from a few political swipes, most of the speakers were on point and spoke kindly of Mrs. King. Mrs Shabazz (daughter of malcolm X) spoke abit to much about her father, it just wasnt the right time. Mrs. Kings daughter ( I forget her ful name) gave a very long and at times moving Eulogy, it sounded at times though as though sehe were making a case for sainthood. Perhaps nealy 7 hours was abit to long.
Found your blog by chance. Glad I did on a day when the cartoon wars are making me want to scream. Every voice of truth is a candle in the dark. Greetings from the land of the Welsh dragon.
I wish I could see Bush's face!!
your blog's name is hilarious! keep up the humor!
I too found your blog by chance. I really like it!
Melissa from Pensacola, FL
Hi, like your blog, and have stumbled on it a second time. To tell you the truth, funerals have always made me sick. They are worse than weddings, where there are 40 more years ahead to prove those being honored are actually in it for the long term. With funerals, history all gets rewritten whether it was all good or bad or not. So people who use the occasion when people are being sentimental to grandstand and in the political world talk politics, are schmucks. BTW, one of the things I wondered during this funeral was: What did MLK's widow think of her late husband?
Anon, your comment prompts me to make a request to my teammate:
_H_, if I kick off and you are at the funeral, please use the opportunity to speak out against injustice and inequality. If there's any kind of afterlife, I certainly won't think you are a schmuck for doing so. If not, I'll be gone, so who cares.
_H_, if I kick off and you are at the funeral, please use the opportunity to speak out against injustice and inequality.
I tried that when voice went but the bugger came back :-) (only kidding TS)
seriously though we are dealing with a women who spent her life fighting injustice and standing up for human rights. I can think of nothing that would please such a lady more than for her funeral to be used as a platform to express the views that would have been close to her heart. She (in my view) would be very proud of those that spoke of the immoral actions of the US president and If anything happened to me I too would want such a moment to used to reflect what was important to me in my life. It was a wonderful crowning moment that in death she brought four presidents together in a position where they have to listen to the very views she was trying to get them to listen to whilst in life.
Btw Djeb , don't you dare go dying yet , we have far to much work to do and there is no time for inconsiderate actions like death ... bloody excuses they come up with these days .
Please note : Wishing to nuke or attack Iran without factual justification that would be supported by the IAEA, the United Nations and its Security Council would be classed as support of an act of genocide and would probably be classed as hate speech on this site.
If your view is simply that democratic Iran should be attacked without the international authority to do so then please don't waste your time here. We are interested in any view as long as it consists of working with the international community and its infrastructure towards finding solutions based upon factual evidence.
Factual evidence is for example the current wording of the draft resolution prepared for the possible security council resolution. It is not some book or article that may or may not be popular in the wider world but has no basis on the reality that the IAEA see on the ground.
Iran is just trying for nucleur energy? Have you lost your head?
Iran has openly tried to obtain nucleur weapons to wipe out Israel for a very very long time.
You are right on one count, there will be a War with Iran, and I expect it will start in a month.
oh ok Anonymous, then I should abandon the fact of 1400 days of go anywhere , see anything IAEA inspections that made no such conclusion and just take your word for it along with the American press and a few people trying to make a quick buck on book sales.
Did you read all that in a newspaper ? It certainly didn't come from the only credible source of information which is the IAEA itself . Maybe you personally have spent 1400 days going where you like , when you like in Iran and have actually been and seen the bombs being built ?
If your so sure why are you telling me ? why are you not contacting the IAEA as we speak to inform them of the wisdom you have gained that they have missed whilst actually inspecting the country ?
And if you have not been to the country and you have not inspected the sites yourself then on what bases do you put your confidence ? because you read it somewhere ?
The full IAEA recommendations are on this site and they do not mention once that Iran is building a bomb so why have you not told them ?
I Doubt you care very much about the lives that will be lost in such a fictitious war but maybe you do care about the lives of your own countrymen that would be lost in such a war. Please go to the IAEA web site , read it , if you thing you know more than they do then tell them and maybe this time next week we can consider your theory to have some base in fact .
Until then please read the article and leave your unqualified opinions and desires for war outside.
Finally as I am sure you have noted in the comment rules . Please supply factual evidence that is accaptable to the standards of the IAEA to this site to justify your view and note that does not mean newspaper articles.
I am with you _H_ it sounds about as credible as the lies we were told about Iraq.
We had a look at Ritter in December last year at http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/2005/12/frowns-sighs-guffaws-shock-awe-style.html and learned that in 2003, the British broadsheet newspaper, the Telegraph discovered that:
“Iraq’s intelligence services bought gold jewellery that they planned to give to the wife and daughter of Scott Ritter… as part of a clandestine project to encourage him to work closely with Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to documents discovered by The Telegraph in Baghdad.”
The same Daily Telegraph that falsely accused MP George Galloway of being on S Hussein's payroll?
The same Telegraph that received dubious Iraqi Intelligence Service documents; conveniently found intact among the rubble of a devastated building and handed to a Telegraph journalist. Documents that may well have been planted forgeries, designed to discredit pain-in-the-backside anti-war critic Galloway? Documents that appeared on TV and were written in English? (LoL!!!)
The Telegraph is just another pro-war mouthpiece I'm afraid.
Ritter I believe is an honest man who, despite his establisment career, has chosen to walk the path of truth. Not many people seem prepared to do that these days.
I'm just waiting for one of the US cabinet to roll out another barrage of lies and gross distortions against Iran.
Why does the USA pretend not to see ISRAEL'S ILLEGALLY DEVELOPED NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Iraq might have been a military walkover. Iran will involve considerably higher losses. If the Americans are seriously considering using nuclear weapons on Iran, then those people are clearly insane beyond belief. There can never be any justification for using such weapons. No nation needs them. Any nation that uses them should be severely punished.
The US is the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons and will use them again.
The rationale could easily be that: 1) Iran's facilities are under hardened bunkers and only nukes will be effective, and 2) any "conventional" bomb would result in radioactive fallout anyway.
The real reason is expediency. The US populace wouldn't tolerate a ground war in Iran. Moreover, the US military is impotent and can't even control Iraq, it must use cowardly weapons to succeed in Iran. As in Iraq, the occupiers will never be able to overcome the will of the people to resist them. If you want an example, there are dozens, but look no further than the British occupation of the colonies and the guerilla (eg, terrorist) activities of the militia that became the US government.
To the Bush cabal, Iran is only a piece of real estate between Iraq and Afganistan with oil underneath.
There is no strategy, or logical approach on the part of the Bush cabal. They thrive on chaos, panic, anxiety, and fear.
It is tragic that people argue about this adminsitration from a geopolitical and military perspective, when what we are really confronting is a delusional sociopath in control of the world's largest military. Haven't we learned anything from Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao?
Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the US were to use a nuclear weapon against Iran.
The US is the only country ever to drop a nuclear weapon on another country, and the current rogue regime in Washington have stated that they would not rule out the use of such dreadful weapons.
I think that tells us all we need to know.
It is interesting that all the rabid right wingers who would claim that the UN should get out ofthe US have nothing to say on the subject of various US breaches of international law, and how there have been no UN resolutions against the US on all of these breaches. Perhaps those who claim that they don't like the UN in the US should consider who wields vasts amounts of power in the organisation, and also ponder on why no such resolutions have been forthcoming.
Anon of February 08, 2006 2:02 AM, you are pushing the edge. Tone it down or enter the void.
"Iran has openly tried to obtain nucleur weapons to wipe out Israel for a very very long time."
Provide evidence or begone.
Weekbyweek, the smear campaigns against Ritter (he's taking money from Iraqis, he's a pedophile) have two things in common: they started right after he would not toe the party line & they have been shown to be false over time.
The country of Iran is definitely out there in its ideologies, lets hope they don't get nuked but it appears if they could they would nuke others close around them.
Since the end of the cold war, the US has been preparing for a nuclear demonstration to break the "taboo" (notice Chirac's speach). and Iran has always been the target hence, Afghanistan and Iraq trrop build-up. To boot, we get "control" of the Caspian sea and all the oil reserves in preparation of peak oil which we're already experiencing.
It's not pretty but it;'s the brutal reality.
The plan has been written a long time ago and we're not going to change it rgardless whos president.
I agree that it 'appears' that Iran will attack others 'probably Israel' but looking at the facts in the cold light of day paints a very different picture.
Three very real reasons why Iran would not Nuke (if they had one) Israel
(1) They would kill thousands of Palestinians (the very people they are angry with Israel for)nuclear weapons do not pick and choose who they kill . If Iran was to wipe out Palestine (which such an attack would) they would not be hero's in the Arab world by any stretch of the imagination.
(2) A nuclear strike against Israel would receive a swift nuclear reaction from the United States / the UK and Israel . Using a single bomb against the Israelis would bring so many nukes raining down on Iran that the country would cease to exist. (It would be wiped off the map)
(3) Iran doesn't start wars , our press can demonize them as much as they like but there is no history to show Iran as being a country that starts wars with anyone. (unlike their 'enemies')
Thanks for this Djeb
I think I recognise the two presenters from real British day time TV. They could fit right in and nobody would even notice.
I 've posted it in my blog as well...
Thanks for posting this. It was touching. Incredibly sad, but realistic and deep.
Glad to have helped memento , pass it on to as many as you can. :-)
It was a pleasure M , I am delighted I can please you occasionally although obviously the subject is not pleasing to any of us .
I don't know what to say. I was deeply moved and I will put the link on my blog also. Thanks for showing this to me .... the world needs to know. I will also be adding your blog to my blogroll.
It was very, very painful. It moved me to tears.
Powerful clip. I don't know when we will learn that we cannot over come violence with violence, we can only overcome evil with good.
Interesting how this excellent little movie is getting talked about on so many blogs. I posted on it the other day myself. Love your blog.
i prefer to remember the images of 9-11.
if that day never happened im sure there would be no need for images like that.god bless the USA!
And what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq ?
Btw I am quite sure that if their is a god he would be blessing the whole world and not just the USA.
I'm not in the business of blessing nations. Sorry.
Sorry to sound so negative, but I find this a sad manipulation of human suffering for anti-war propaganda.
How many of those bleeding kids were wounded by TERRORIST ATTACKS? How many of those kids would have ended up in plastic shredders, gassed, maimed, raped or tortured by Sadaam's Baathist cronies?
It amazes me how people can sit on their behind and boo hoo about how horrible the Iraq war is. The fact is, these poor oppressed people may actually have a chance to live in freedom like we do. Is freedom just for the privileged West? Let's remember that our country had to fight a war to get free from the British. Our country fought a long and bloody war to eradicate slavery. War is an awful bloody ordeal but sometimes that's the price you pay for freedom.
It would be great if we could all go to Iraq and help the Iraqi's rebuild but it seems like Westerners who do that end up being kidnapped by terrorists who enjoy beheading them as a public spectacle. I pray to God that the Iraq can attain enough strength and stability to ward of these goons. If an American presence is necessary for that to happen, I'm willing to support that.
The real question, bunny, is how many were killed in "a war of aggression" which "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme [emphasis mine] international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole"? [See the Nuremburg Judgement]
Now it amazes me how people who claim to be spiritual can sit on their behind and boo hoo about people who dare to show the effects of this war that is so dear to you. (Forgive the plagiarism.)
Now, as for your claims to a war of liberation? Please. It was your government that supported the Butcher of Baghdad through his worst crimes - going so far as to increase suport for him after Halabja.
And how about liberating the poor souls living under the brutal regime of Islam Karimov? You know, the guy who boils dissenters to death and sends his army out to shoot protesters? I'd be pretty easy to make that suffering stop: just get your government to stop equipping and training his military and stop giving him diplomatic support. Mmmm, yes, but he doesn't count, does he. Nor does Saparmurat Niyazov or Teodoro Obiang, to name but two more.
And let's look at the conflicts you list:
The U.S. War of Independence. Is there some irony here I am missing? This conflict involved group of people (colonisers in an already inhabited land, actually) overthrowing a corrupt external government. Sorry, in this analogy the U.S. is too close to being Britain.
And the U.S. Civil War, an internal conflict, not an attack by a foreign country. But don't fret, things are shaping to towards civil war in Iraq (as was warned about before the war, if that is what you are pining for.
Finally, you mention the goons - the very response to the U.S. presence in Iraq. You want them to stop? You "pray to God" for them to stop? Then you'd best pressure your government to withdraw from Iraq.
I find your train of thought astonishing. You think the Iraq situation is worse than Sudan? The Holocaust? Rwanda? (I could go on and on). Good God! I'm referring to the level of torture, misery and suffering inflicted on innocent people (regardless of whether the conflict was internal or the result of an outside invasion).
You totally missed the point about the Civil War. The war was the price America paid to end slavery. Freedom has a price. Would you have been 'anti-war' back then? Would you have preferred that the slaves not be liberated, if war was necessary to accomplish that goal?
I have no doubt that the US supports and has supported some very unsavory goons, including Sadaam. We were horrible to the Native Americans. I know that no one is doing anything about Sudan because it has no political value. I know the invasion of Iraq was motivated at the very highest levels by it's strategic value.
Nevertheless, here's my point Which do you prefer:
a) The Iraqi people live under Sadaam and suffer the oppression and torture inflicted by the Baathist regime.
b) The Iraqi people go through a difficult and painful period of post-war reconstruction but emerge a free people.
I choose b. What about you? Isn't it an 'ad hominem' attack to find so much to hate about America that you would rather see the Iraqi people remain under Sadaam?
I find your train of thought astonishing. You think the Iraq situation is worse than Sudan? The Holocaust? Rwanda?
It appear though that the democratically elected leader of the United States is not directly responsible for all those horrors . Iraq is a different story the blood of the children in this video is clearly on his hands. (which is what this thread is about)
You totally missed the point about the Civil War. The war was the price America paid to end slavery. Freedom has a price. Would you have been 'anti-war' back then? Would you have preferred that the slaves not be liberated, if war was necessary to accomplish that goal?
Backwards logic . keeping slaves was the status quo and those wishing to bring about change were the extremists so by your own logic The insurgents in Iraq are trying to end the occupation of their country by foreign forces , hence you are in strong support of their actions ?
Which do you prefer:a) The Iraqi people live under Saddam and suffer the oppression and torture inflicted by the Baathist regime.b) The Iraqi people go through a difficult and painful period of post-war reconstruction but emerge a free people.I choose b. What about you?
Why are you only assuming two possible outcomes. The weapons inspection program could have been allowed to reach its conclusion and the world may have taken some more coordinated action. Why Iraq ? why not Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or any of the may barbaric regimes in the area. Democracies are only started from within as they did in your country and recently in Russia.
What right do you have to exchange one set of evil where the Shia are tortured by the Sunni , To another where the Sunni are tortured by the Shia. I would possibly have some sympathy for your argument if the US was rushing round all the rogue states of the world turning them all into democracies but this is clearly a feeble after thought by the American administration that bares little relationship to the opinion of real Iraqis in the country.
Isn't it an 'ad hominem' attack to find so much to hate about America that you would rather see the Iraqi people remain under Sadaam?
how strange. Nobody here hates America . I merely despise the sick and twisted administration of your country the two things are not the same. The crimes of Saddam speak for themselves that has nothing to do with the disregard of the United nations and the breaking of its charter, the Illegal Invasion of a sovereign country, the total lack of respect for the Geneva convention. The kidnap , the torture, the use of chemical weapons, the massacre at falluja , the targeting of Hospitals and TV stations. the use of land mines , the events at abu graab the use of depleted uranium .....
As pointed out to you before the crimes of one does not negate the crimes of the other. If you are sickened by the crimes of Saddam (as we are) then why would not all of the above sicken you equally ? Are you morals blinded by the colours of your nation state ? it seems so .
"I find your train of thought astonishing. You think the Iraq situation is worse than Sudan? The Holocaust? Rwanda?"
Honestly, are you trying for straw man fallacy of the month? Did I even mention them? I did, however, mention a few relevant examples that you conveniently ignored. If you are "referring to the level of torture, misery and suffering inflicted on innocent people," then the examples I gave, examples that your tax dollars aid, were perfect examples. (Unless of course you don't have a problem with boiling people to death.)
"You totally missed the point about the Civil War. The war was the price America paid to end slavery. Freedom has a price."
No, I recognised that you were presenting a flawed analogy. You were trying to compare an internal struggle for freedom with a war of aggression. Of course the leaders of aggressive campaigns always claim noble intent. It's meaningless. The measure is by action. Now, there was a chance at freedom being achieved internally in Iraq, but one particular nation did not want that to happen:
Let us not forget that at the conclusion of the 1991 war, the United States allowed Hussein's forces to use helicopter gunships to put down uprisings. In their book, Bush and Scowcroft offer a pathetic explanation for that decision (see p. 490 of "A World Transformed"), but the real reason is clear: A breakaway Kurdish state in the north and Shi'a [note: some use Shitte; not sure what AP style is] Muslim state in the south would have made it more difficult for the United States to control the region; a dictator of a unified Iraq who supports U.S. policy is much preferred. Governments that might truly represent the people are feared by U.S. policymakers, given that those people sometimes have funny ideas about who should control the resources of their lands.
US leaders, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, speak of their desire to see 'regime change' in Iraq. However, ever since 1991 US administrations have shied away from provoking fundamental change in Iraq, and have sought instead 'an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein', according to Thomas Friedman, Diplomatic Correspondent of the New York Times, writing on 7 July 1991: sanctions were there to provoke a coup to create 'the best of all worlds', a return to the days when Saddam's 'iron fist... held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia.' In March 1991 this prospect was described by Ahmed Chalabi (now leader of the Iraqi opposition group the Iraqi National Congress) as 'the worst of all possible worlds' for the Iraqi people. (Quoted in Noam Chomsky, World Orders, Old and New, 1994, p. 9)
The US commitment 'leadership change' rather than 'regime change' was demonstrated when Kurds and Shias rose against the regime in March 1991: the US granted permission to Baghdad to use helicopter gunships against the rebels, refused to release captured arms dumps to rebel forces, and refused to intervene to defend the rebellions. Richard Haass, director for Near East affairs for the US National Security Council, explained in March 1991, 'Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime.' (Andrew and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, HarperCollins 1999, p. 37) 'Washington's calculation is that a break-up of Iraq would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East, especially if it led to the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Turkey, a steadfast US ally with a large Kurd minority, would be destabilised. Iran could exploit the vacuum.' (FT, 1 Feb. 2002, supplement p. III)
An officer involved in US planning says, 'Our question was, "What about the day after?" For example, do you take the Republican Guard [the military unit most loyal to Saddam] and disarm it? Or is it preferable to turn it from having a capability to protect Saddam to a capability to protect Iraq?' (New Yorker, 24 Dec. 2001, p. 63) Protect Iraq from fragmentation, that is. In Feb. 1991, large elements of the Republican Guard, including the Hammurabi Heavy Division, the most powerful single force in the Republican Guard, were boxed in near Basra, almost certainly about to be destroyed, when President Bush Sr. called a ceasefire, preserving this central pillar of the regime.
Now, in the cases you conveniently ignored, freedom has a profit not a price. If your government would stop propping up Karivmov, for example, it would mean that U.S. tax dollars would be saved and Uzbek lives would be spared horrible deaths.
"Would you have been 'anti-war' back then?"
Again, faulty analogy. A war of aggression and a struggle for freedom are not the same thing no matter how you might want them to be.
"a) The Iraqi people live under Sadaam and suffer the oppression and torture inflicted by the Baathist regime."
Try a.1) I would not have helped bring the monster "to power on a CIA train" in the first place.
or a.2) I would have allowed the Iraqi people to free themselves in 1991. All they asked for was access to captured Iraq military equipment but were denied. They might have made it anyway had the U.S. not allowed the Republican Guard to go and quell the uprising and had not allowed Iraqi forces to go in and fly their helicopters to assist in putting down the rebellion. That was a conscious decision by the U.S. not to allow the people of Iraq to be in charge of their own country.
or a.3) I would not have held Iraq under 13 years of crippling sanctions that weakened the people and strengthened the butcher. Then they could have a had a chance at real freedom - freedom with Iraqis in charge.
As for the "freedom" today, it is already too late. Forgetting for now the puppet government that was installed until non-violent Iraqi protest forced elections. Forgetting for now that the U.S. says it will occupy the country indefinitely. Forgetting for now that the democratic will of the people is to have had an end to their occupation years ago. The U.S. has already gone in and stripped the public wealth of the nation in the name of "free markets," which, when the U.S. does invoke them, always benefit U.S. corporations over the people of the country in question.
"b) The Iraqi people go through a difficult and painful period of post-war reconstruction but emerge a free people."
Yes, on a long enough time line, the U.S. will be out of Iraq. Then it will have a chance at being free provided that it does not have to endure interference from some other nation.
"Isn't it an 'ad hominem' attack to find so much to hate about America that you would rather see the Iraqi people remain under Sadaam?"
No, hence your need to spend less time at church and more studying elementary logic. I mistakenly thought that it was such a common term that you would know what it meant. Try looking up the term if you don't know what it means.
As for me 'hating' America, well, only if one take the totalitarian position that criticism of government policy equals hatred to the entire nation. Unfortunately for people who take this position, I have the tendancy to defend Americans in need, praise progressive movements in the U.S. and progressive actions by the government (not many of those these days), and have a lot of American friends.
Now here's a question for you: why won't you even say "Boo!" about your government's support now for a man who is so viscious that he has boiled several opponents to death and has had a man's hand boiled until the flesh sloughed off the bone as a form of torture? If you end that, there will be freedom for the people of Uzbekistan and it won't have a price, it will literally cut prices - millions saved on military "aid" to Karimov's regime. Then the people can achieve true freedom internally.
You didn't answer my question: a or b?
Instead you attacked the United States and brought up the past.
I did look up the definition of ad hominem and you make quite a few such comments.
why won't you even say "Boo!" about your government's support now for a man who is so viscious that he has boiled several opponents to death and has had a man's hand boiled until the flesh sloughed off the bone as a form of torture? If you end that, there will be freedom for the people of Uzbekistan and it won't have a price, it will literally cut prices - millions saved on military "aid" to Karimov's regime. Then the people can achieve true freedom internally.
Probably because I've never heard of the guy.
I heard your false dichotomy and ignored it. And I did not attack the U.S., I attacked past policies of the U.S. Only someone with a totalitarian mind would fail to recognise this.
Next, I challenge you to point out where I have made even one ad hominem. The problem it that you still don't understand what an ad hominem is. I suggest you get T. Edward Damer's book Attcking Faulty Reasoning.
And, you've never heard of Islam Karimov? Well, you are not very well informed, but if you are sticking to the U.S. media or to right-wing websites, I'm not surprised that you haven't heard of him... until I mentioned him. And that was my point. I did mention him and you cannot even bring yourself to comment on him.
Just think, if it weren't for the illegal invasion in the first place, those 800 people, or more, would still be alive today. Thanks to the "liberators".
My thoughts exactly TS seing all 800 on the graphic certainly brings home the tragedy of it all and of course this is just one month.
Threatening nations with attack is a violation of international law. (And if it is America doing the threatening, it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.) This is as true for other nations as it is for Iran.
very true Djeb
what a joke. there is no DOUBT what he did... the legal system is a mess...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
First thing Grid you have know Idea who I am. I have (as I have said at least a hundred times) Been to Iraq I have worked right across the middle east. I have lost friends due to terrorism and have worked in related fields for more years than you were a kid.
I have not been a 'young kid' for more years than I would care to remember.
So on the first count your message is insulting to me and 100 % wrong.
rather than play guessing games why not actually try to find out whom I might be before you come here spouting your fictious analysis of my persona .
Whilst your at it why not read our posting rules before leaving a comment.
Message deleted due to breaking rule 4 of our posting rules .
Feel free to post again aslong as you follow the rules like everyone else here.
The Grid, there is nothing in anything "we" have written about whether or not Saddam is guilty. The editors are very away of Saddam's crimes against humanity and have never suggested his innocence. We have, however, consistently called for a fair trial.
As for our irrelevant personal experiences, I have had a loved one horribly victimised. And the relevance of that to the cost of the war counter? Zero.
And taking a stand defending rights? Well, you didn't read much of the site obviously.
At any rate, your little fact-free rant leaves you you sounding like you are just some "uniformed kid" [sic] without much life experience. (Please forgive the plagiarism.)
Oh. That approach is better, _H_.
BTW, _H_, if you have not been "a 'young kid' for more years than [you] would care to remember," where does that leave your elders like me?
watch it Grandad ! :-P
Interesting article, thanks for posting this. By the same chain of command premise it should be noted that Bush, Rumsfeld et al knew of torture and abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, white phosphorous being used in Fallujah, and several breaches of the Geneva conventions.
very true and I dont doubt following this 'chain of command' would lead us to the murder of a lot more than the 148 people Saddam is currently charged with.
Well, now we know that Rummy, like many of his ilk, has never bothered to study history.
hahahaha...yea i guess he isnt worthy of the title yet..poor hitler, being compared to so many people..i thought he was uique :P
I'm pretty sure that I, a 16 year old girl, would be compared to Hitler as well since I *gasp* drive a hybrid. :P Pretty sure thats a big no no in the Bush administration.
It seems that the only person Rumsfeld hasn't compared to Hitler is George W. Bush.
And that might actually fit.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
And you need to read our posting policy Anonymous you just broke rule 4.
rumsfeld just makes me laugh sometimes, especially at times like these...
Lets see, Rumsfield needs to study history, poor Hitler (wtf??), and, my personal favorite: Im 16, mommy bought my love from daddy at the cost of a hybrid and somehow my familys dysfunction has something to do with whether President Bush- a man I'll never perchance to meet and whose policies I admit are easier to blindly ridicule than understand- would approve of the friggin' car I drive? Really?
If any of you understood the real world you may understand why the things you say are so terribly depressing.
Chalk it up to "Free speech" I guess. Im glad we didnt get around to saving the planet for our next generation cause the "next generations" get dumber every generation.
Good luck, kids, youre gonna need it!
(whoo boy are their kids gonna be hurtin')
Yeah you can delete this now, buddy but you know I'm right!
Has anyone checked out his site , he says I consider myself "awake and aware of reality". LOL yea of course he does. nobody reads his blog so clearly nobody has ever pointed out the fallacy in his self created understanding of the world.
My sympathy to the people who have to read such drivel whilst trying to keep up with the latest on this site. go find somewhere else to play 'the grid' your just making yourself look foolish.
well done for proving to the rest of the world that some people on the right can actually read a thread without having to take a sleeping tablet half way through. Sadly your don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of sarcasm or factual accuracy. But hey that's your problem 'kid'
As for Bush's polices it is quite clear the man does not understand them himself so how would you expect more evolved people to do so ?
It is also obvious to see why you would support him . You came here without a clue as to whats going on . thought you had it all worked out and then got shown to be 100 percent wrong in your previous comment.
But does that shame you?
Or concern you that you could be so completely wrong on everything you said ?
Do you say sorry for insulting people who have lost friends and family to terrorism ?
Are you disgusted at your own very immature behavior ?
Obviously not , you come back and post again as if nobody is going to notice that the accuracy of your 'facts' within your comments is zero. hmmm You and Mr Bush clearly deserve each other.
stay happy in your little 2% of the planet that has any respect for GWB . If you don't mind I will stay with the 98 % of planet earth that can see him for what he is.
Of course your message can stay. the vast majority of the world whom you from your tiny little minority perspective consider to be less wise than yourself (how egotistical) would be interested in what your little group has to say.
As for you being 'right' well self praise is no recommendation and I will gladly leave your 10 out of 10 attempt at showing the world your reading skills.
thanks for you comment.
Quite a rant, grid. What you lacked in basic grammer and spelling you made up for in... Well, come to think of it, you didn't make up for your impoverished grasp of your own native language at all.
By the way, if you bump into Rummy, tell him his command of history is as poor as your command of the English language.
Excellent commentary. The sad thing is that the more people compare fill-in-the-blank with Hitler the more we forget the horrible atrocities he committed. Might as well start calling people Satan or Dr. Doom.
Thanks, teethwriter. I think I may do that...
Frankly, this news doesn't surprise me in the least H. What i'd like to know, considering some of the language from rabid right wingers is exactly what Mueller means when he makes a claim about identifying "individuals who were providing material support to terrorists".
Seems to me that the US will attack Iran in some fashion. The military is already over there and Iran was originally listed as one of the three axis of evil. The stage is now set.
Yes with Iraq and Afghanistan on either side of Iran swarming with US troops, its almost too easy!
It's hard to tell from the blog, so would you please just tell us which you would prefer of the following:
(a) Iran eventually builds itself atomic bombs; or
(b) Iran never gets its hands on atomic bombs
I'm a big (b) person myself. You? Please don't say you are indifferent between those two choices.
greetings Anonymous . I am clearly a big (b) person to....
But I answer that question having read every single IAEA report and not seeing a single Piece of evidence that they are actually attempting to make a bomb at all. I am sure you have read the resolution (above link in article) and there is no mention what so ever that Iran 'IS' building a bomb in it. so the question is purely hypothetical for nobody at all knows if they are even trying too , for the sake of your question I will assume that they are trying too but in the real world I would not nor could not make such a claim for I do not work for the IAEA and have not personally inspected the country.
I feel though that the only realistic way to achieve the end result that we both seem to want is to remove all Nuclear weapons from the region. Israel has over 200 warheads and the others will not allow themselves to be without an adequate defence against them .
So my solution is to show a fair hand by insisting that Iran stops working towards a higher level of enrichment than required for peaceful nuclear energy. That restrictions are placed upon the level and amount of centrifuges imported and more importantly to let the IAEA do its job.
1400 days of random (go anywhere ,see anything) inspections have failed to show us anything that says Iran is building a bomb. and we have only reached this point due to nation based pressure upon the IAEA to put Iran forward to the security council. The IAEA certainly would not be doing so if it wasn't for the bullying of nation states that have shown their track record for accuracy in their previous perceived weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when Hans blix and co clearly said that there was nothing to see.
I do accept Iran is clearly enriching uranium at a higher grade than is necessary for peaceful purposes . But at the same time they are nowhere near being able to create weapons grade uranium. In fact I am closer to being the next American president than Iran is to having the bomb. (and I am British)
Iran's new hard water treatment facility is due to come online in 2012 and there is no possibility of them making any bomb until then at least. They need thousands of centrifuges and even though the right wing press has speculated that they have them the real experts (the IAEA) have not seen any possibility of this being true. They are currently enriching at around 7% and until they build new reactors they are not going to reach the 90(odd) % required to make weapons grade material and we are nowhere near them being able to do so.
I like everyone else ,I find the rhetoric coming out of Iran disgusting but I see it as genuine rhetoric . Iran does not start wars with anyone even when it has had the chance to attack Israel directly it never has. By using such a weapon against Israel they would be killing thousands of Palestinians whom are one of the key reasons for the anger with Israel (not to mention the fact that Israel/ US and UK would then wipe Iran off the map. The Rhetoric is awful but the reality is quite sobering.
With such rhetoric there is a certain irony in how seriously people take Iran when it says that Israel should be pushed into the sea etc but when they talk about how no decent civilized society would want nuclear weapons and that Iran neither wants , desires or needs such weapons people fail to take these very same people for their word.
I find it funny the words that are noticed by the world and the ones that are not. This excerpt is from the recent speech by the Iranian president and was not barely touched by the worlds media. Now i am NOT saying every word is true. But if you fail to notice the content and intent of such a speech then a person would not be making conclusions based on fact but on politics and media speculation. this is what they said...
A nation which has culture, logic and civilization does not need nuclear weapons. The countries which seek nuclear weapons are those which want to solve all problems by the use of force. Our nation does not need such weapons.
They ask us why we have started [nuclear] research. Our reply is that there is no limitation to research. There are no limits imposed on research in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty nor in the Additional Protocol. Nor have we made any such commitment say openly that they are opposed to this research. By what right do you make such a statement? Is this not a fundamentalist medieval perspective? We believe that, unfortunately, despite their technological and scientific development, in certain parts of the world, several Western countries still have an ideological and intellectual perspective which belong to the medieval age.
Today, the language of hegemony, of force, of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is no longer applicable. These things are no longer effective in international dealings. Today, nations have awakened, and they will determine their own future.
We have adhered to international laws and continue to do so. Over 1,400 days of inspection have been carried out at our facilities - that is unprecedented.
We have put forward a proposal calling for the UN to set up a disarmament committee. But some countries hold a stick over our head during the negotiations, threatening to refer our case to the UN Security Council unless we bend to their will. Why do they tarnish the integrity of international institutions?
Why do they force the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] to get involve with politics?
Our path is very clear. We shall continue with our activities within the regulations of the IAEA and the NPT. According to international law,
Iran has the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. We are acting in the framework of the IAEA's regulations. Today, we are carrying out research. I should also say that our people will not accept that others should impose on us whatever they want. Our nation has a definite right to peaceful nuclear technology and will achieve it.
We are the only nation that has invited all others to come and join us. If you say that you do not trust us, you can come and become our partner. We are ready to become your partner in your [nuclear] technology. We can each supervise the others activities. We can watch that you do not deviate towards nuclear weapons, and you can also become our partners and monitor our activities directly.How do you justify this logic of having a full arsenal of nuclear weapons, but when it comes to nations such as ours, you do not even allow research? This logic cannot rule the world today.
Even if the Security Council gets involved in this subject, it will not help solve the equation. We do not want to move in this direction. But those who insist on undermining our rights should know that this will not happen.
so why not take them up on it ? why not join them ? unless someone doesn't want Iran to have its lawful right to nuclear energy then of course such a thought would too be disgusting and I would want no part of those that wish for a planet where countries are forced to not gain technology or risk attack . that would be a travesty of injustice.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing.
If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple. If we keep the NPT then clearly we need to ensure that ALL countries sign it .
Now Israel must have security and deserves to live in peace I will be the first to say that. But Israel has built the bomb behind the worlds backs and then has refused to sign the NPT. Iran has not broken any laws so far at all . They are following the NPT to the letter. so in my view Israel needs to come on par with those that have signed.If my neighbor who is always angry with me had a gun . trust me I would want a gun too .
Of course Israel cant give up such a defence until it feels safe but it will never feel safe whilst it has such weapons. So in tandem with its needs for security Israel MUST sign the NPT and agree to a long term aim of giving up the bomb. Then countries like Iran can not rightly claim double standards and hypocrisy (which they can now)
The world should be even handed in its condemnation of such weapons . That means that Pakistan and India should be under the worlds spotlight right now for their crimes of building the bomb and certainly the US should not be signing major weapon deals with them as if they good little countries that have done no wrong.
I understand Iran's point of view . it feels like its being picked on when nobody stopped Israel,India and Pakistan from gaining the bomb but it has signed the NPT and followed the additional voluntary protocol. others haven't even signed the basic NPT and actually do have the bomb are almost rewarded for their sneaky ways.
I watched the Israeli foreign minister on the BBC a few months back and I was shocked to hear him state quite clearly that Israel would not allow Iran to have peaceful nuclear power. Such a right is why Iran signed the NPT and every other country on earth accepts Iran's right to peaceful nuclear power. That can not be accepted . the will of the United nations and the wording of the NPT must be applied.
So Iran must be allowed to create peaceful nuclear energy as President bush reiterated again the other day.
in conclusion we have till 2012 (al tleast) so we need to keep Iran at the table and we need to bring into the discussion those other countries that have brought such evil weapons to the arsenal.
The Idea behind the NPT is to remove such weapons from the planet all together . That can only be done by stopping new countries from building them and just as important by removing them from countries that have got them . especially countries that are not party to the NPT.
sorry if you just wanted a simple (a) or (b) answer for I don't do such things . this answer itself is highly simplistic compared to how much I would need to say and (a) and (b) usually turn out to be loaded questions.
But if you have only read the first and last line of this then the answer you got was a (b) with all of the above (and more) taken into account.
thanks for your question . In fact I have answered it many times and the answers are all over this blog but I accept the answer was not in this single article so I have helped you on your way to understanding my opinion on this subject but much more detail can be found by reading the other 150 articles I have put on this site about Iran and obviously the subsequent comments.
I'm not as sanguine as you are about Iran's peaceful motives. Do you have a special connection to Iran that bolsters your confidence about what they are up to?
Far from what you say, el-Baradei and his organization have not concluded that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. To the contrary, as the New York Times notes today: "Dr. ElBaradei, whom the Bush administration tried to oust from his job only a year ago, circulated a report that pointed to links between Iran's ostensibly civilian nuclear program and its military. The report characterized designs that inspectors had found in Iran, supplied by Dr. Khan's network, as clearly "related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components." Those designs sketched out how to perfect uranium spheres, a shape that can be imploded to set off a nuclear explosion." The full article is well worth reading.
Iran's efforts to secretly obtain weapons-related designs from the Khan network out of Pakistan are well documented.
Your comment that "Iran does not start wars with anyone even when it has had the chance to attack Israel directly it never has" may be technically true, but the word "directly" is your hedge. They sponsor all kinds of terrorist groups, and so attack Israel indirectly. Also, who's to say whether they would attack Israel if they thought they had a chance to win the resulting war? As far as I'm concerned, all you've really proved is that they aren't suicidal.
I have no connection to Iran what so ever in answer to your first question. I am white , english and of no religion what so ever . I have been to the middle east (but not Iran)...
Your article from the NYT I have read but it makes no claim that Iran is actually building a bomb at all , Of course they have the know how . there are very few countries on the planet that do not know 'how' to make a bomb. what I said is that the IAEA have seen no evidence that Iran 'IS' building a bomb. there is a key difference between the two concepts
If you want to know how Iran learnt the know how to build a bomb then try looking at This . But my advice would be to not read media reports at all on the subject as none of the reporters have inspected the country either , better to go the the web site of the IAEA itself and read their words for yourself . there is not one claim they have made ever that Iran is building a bomb.
I accept that Iran has connections to Terrorism but so does the US . for one example of many it harbours the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles responsible for putting a bomb on a passenger plane and killing all 70 odd civilians on board including women and children . He is wanted for his crimes but the US refuses to hand him over due to him working for the CIA at the time of the terrorist act (He may well of done it for them , who knows)
Iran's support of terrorist acts are disgusting but the are tiny compared to the 500 million the CIA spends every year in support of similar activities and we are not asking the US to give up their bombs are we ?
and not liking hypocrisy it would be wrong to condemn Irans support of terrorism and not condemn the US for the same actions . so I clearly state both is equally wrong and neither has the moral authority to call the other on it.
My aim was not to prove anything , quite the opposite , it was to show that nothing has been proven and such talk of sanctions and attacking a country without a single piece of evidence (as so many of the uninformed are doing) would be barbaric,sickening and wrong.
So we should let the IAEA do its job and if they need the support of nation states then they will ask for it. the world should not play politics with the IAEA that was my point in this article and my answer to you..
good post H.. that is my take on it too.
the media and government officials are asking for Iran's head over here.
how dare they, seems to be the sentiment.
those evil muslims..
and that is not right.. it is sickening..
i'm sorry for there idea
i am from iran
our countery isnt in terror but usa and Eurep want take our Oil .
they are resume it in every 30 years . before this in 30 years ago and in iraq attack the all countries help saddam in iran war. in 60 years ago and after running away shah from iran usa and british help to shah to back to iran . (poit it to cia document)
and now the Israel have many neclear bomb and same but usa and Eurep is relax by them
i am iranian
and we are never remission you in history!
some of us haven't forgotten the history..
i have seen the cia documents. they are quite the read.
i hope Iran can live in peace as i would hope the US could live in peace.
Anyone who thinks there's no evidence for Iran's WMD program needs to do some proper research. They could start with reading Kenneth Timmerman's "Countdown To Crisis", which details Iran's 20+ year program to develop nuclear weapons. http://www.kentimmerman.com/
Iran has a "cheat and retreat" tactic that they have used very well to deal with IAEA inspections. This allows them a 2 steps forward, 1 step backwards approach.
People will be shocked at inaction by US intelligence over the last 20 years but particularly the massive roles played by China, Russia, Germany and France to help Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Have you read the link above Anonymous ? The CIA gave the Iranians access to the bomb.
The track record of the western Intelligence agencies is to quote Hans Blix "100 percent wrong" and after the slaughter of so many innocents in Iraq if the US administration has even an ounce of moral conscience left it will back off and let the IAEA do its job.
I have said many times and I will say it to you and Mr Timmerman (as well as many others that write on the subject)
If you think you have any information that prooves Iran is trying to build a bomb then the first thing to do is not to let us know , or write a book or a newspaper article .... the first thing to do is inform the IAEA of the facts you have.
They have perfomed 1400 days of go anywhere see anything , whenever they like inspections and have not come to any such conclusions
Nobody doubts Iran has the 'knowledge' to build a bomb but there is no real evidence that Iran 'IS' trying to build a bomb at all and I will always take the word of the real on the ground experts who assess this on behalf of the world every single day . then someone who wrote a book for personal profit.
If 'any' of the facts in Mr Timmermans book are true then I can assure you the IAEA will already be aware of it.
I enjoyed your blog. It is good to have one source where you gather all these news
ALthough I don`t like to get into politics too much, there are 2 articles in my blog you may be interested in reading:
Oh dear, as you say, this is rather worrying.
That article is misleading, the 'victim' actually receives random texts informing them that they are being tracked.
It is impossible to do without either the person's knowledge or constant access to the phone.
Well you only need access to the phone for a few mins (about as long as it takes a person to go to the bathroom)
I have been testing it with my wife (with her consent and full knowledge) and we have not recieved any random texts yet at all.
I hope your correct Anonymous and to be fair we have only been testing it for about 12 hours but so far if she hadnt of been there when we set it up then she would have no idea she was being stalked
so how often are these random messages sent ? , being able to stalk someone for 12 hours without their knowledge seems scary enough for me.
Apparently to have the support of the Networks in the UK and Ofcom they had to implement the random text thing, part of the code of practice is below;
"Subsequent to activation, the [location service provider] must send periodic SMS alerts to all locatees to remind them that their mobile phone can be located by other parties. These alerts should be sent at random intervals, not in a set pattern. The suggested text and minimum standard frequency for sending the alerts is set out in Annex D."
But Annex D is kept private so no idea on how often. It could be days or weeks, it would be interesting to know though.
Interesting , Thanks Anonymous , well if I get any random text messages then I wil be sure to include the point here (if anyone else is testing it and gets such a random message please let us all know)
We are over 21 hours now without the user being notified and so it certainly does not look good in fact it surely borders on being criminal.
At last, an issue we agree on.
Interesting, the guy almost has a point but now type Muslim+Pig+Offense+Britain into Google and see what comes up.
Now do the Muslims really have it so bad in Europe?
so whats your answers to the question ?
would Catholics be offended if someone put a picture of a priest having anal sex with a small boy with the caption 'Jesus said bring the little ones to me' on it ? due to the very occasional catholic priest being a pedophile. Or maybe a rabbi with a swastika on his head standing over a dead Palestinian child and the caption 'Hitlers work continues in Israel' ?
I have no religion at all and both of these would offend me . would they offend you ?
of course they may not and I would respect such a view(but not agree) But so many of the people complaining are the very same that were up in arms a few weeks ago about the GWB failing to put merry Christmas in his seasons greetings.
I am all for freedom of speech and I strongly condemn the violence shown by a small number of Muslims. The burning of the embassy today should not be defended by anyone. But double standards is another issue and many that think a cartoon on Mohamed with a bomb is fine would object to the cartoons described above and that would be hypocrisy
You do have a point however, I think the press should be held responsible
what is the quickest way to piss off anybody?
how about make fun of something very personal to them. like their mother or religion.
very true Hype
The paper published this headline:
"Yes, we have the right to caricature God." The paper ran a front page cartoon with Buddha, the Christian and Jewish Gods and the Prophet Mohammed sitting on a cloud above Earth, with the Christian God saying: "Don't complain Mohammed, we've all been caricatured here."
As you say M that was the headline , but alas it was only a headline the reality is the paper in question does apply Double standards . Its easy to make a headline , it is less easy to ensure the newspaper you run applies fairness in its aproach.
So are you planning of speaking of the violence, or only about one side of the conflict?
I already did in the comments above M. I take the same view that the British Press have done. There can be NO excuse for the violence.
I am sure you read my comment above that says 'I strongly condemn the violence shown by a small number of Muslims. The burning of the embassy today should not be defended by anyone'
Or did you miss that ?
You know my personal view we have discussed it via email
If you do a search on all the blogs you will find 95 % of them only putting the other side of the story so here you get the flip side. Tell me you have not seen dozens of articles that failed to say any of the above but only condemed the violence ?
Whats your view on my question to anonymous ?
'would Catholics be offended if someone put a picture of a priest having anal sex with a small boy with the caption 'Jesus said bring the little ones to me' on it ?' due to the very occasional catholic priest being a pedophile.
Or maybe a Jewish rabbi with a swastika on his head standing over a murdered Palestinian child and the caption 'Hitlers work continues in Israel' ?
I have no religion at all and both of these would offend me . would they offend you ?
I am not one of the sheeple M that all follow the arse hole in front with just a single point of view.
I have never supported any violence on this site.My view as you well know is that I am sickened by such violence but that does not blind me to the double standards of what we call 'freedom of speech'
for the American readers I suppose the motto of the Sheeple should be
"Follow the Asshole in front of you"
instead of 'arsehole' .... oh the wonders of the culture divide
Yes, we did speak about this in detail over email. That was before you decided to post something.
I do not think the cartoons should have been published- not as a legal issue, but as an ethical issue. The author transcribed the Qur'an, I mean, he was not ignorant about Islam. He was aware of the sacredness of the Prophet. Yet he chose to take it to this level. It was culturally insensitive and defied an ethical standard. As for the freedom of expression- I am not clear on the laws in the pertinent countries and have no law degree, so I am not sure how to argue on that point. It is contentious to be sure.
The violence, is undisputable. It is one thing to mention the violence in a comment, it is another thing to mention it on your blog site. Again- its your choice to post what you wish- I simply find it interesting that you decide to post a whole bunch about the publishing of the cartoons, but nothing on the violence.
And why not mention all the other chaos this debacle has created? The EU? The boycotting? The arson? The sabotages? What a mess!
"for the American readers I suppose the motto of the Sheeple should be
"Follow the Asshole in front of you""
The US has criticized the publications, by the way.
To answer your questions:
"would they offend you ?"
Whether the cartoon offends me or not, I do not think it should have been published (ethically) and I do not think if I was offended I should act violently. PERIOD.
"Tell me you have not seen dozens of articles that failed to say any of the above but only condemed the violence ?"
We are speaking about this ONE post- not the 95% of others you have posted.
M you come here to read what is not already being said everywhere else in the blogosphere.
As i said I am not a sheeple I wont just follow the heard .One thing for sure if nobody else had posted on the violence then i probably would have.
The opening comment on the article I state clearly 'the Mohamed cartoon issue that everyone in the Blogosphere seems to have already debated to the point of saturation.' So your wondering why I didn't add to that saturation ? the answer is in the question you will find.
I agree that we should not be talking about a legal issue here but a moral one and they should not have been published.My country has countless daily papers and not a single one has decided to post even one of the cartoons. (for once they seem to have morals and ethics).
Your constantly wondering about why I didn't post this or did post that M , but you have your own site if you feel something is being missed. The decision to post articles on this site is obviously purely a matter for the editors and the decision on whether to read the article and comments is purely a matter for you.
What concerns me a little is that you seem more interested in analysing me than you do the article. if so it is a mission doomed to failure. you can not analyise a person through a web site , this is merely a persona and you would actually have to know me to understand my motives in all I do.
The question I hear from you is 'why are you not following the sheep' the answer is ' I never will '
Could you respectfully please try to deal with issues in the articles and comments posted and not the editing policy of the site. You obviously have no influence over what we decide to post but you can bring your wisdom to analysing the actual article posted and the comments there after . something you have completely failed to do in this thread.
It is one thing to focus on what is not here (even though the violence is discussed in the article) but you not have made any points thus far on what actually is here. Again I am not telling you what to write but there is only so many times i can explain to you our posting policy and also only so many times I would be willing to do so if your not even responding to the article itself or replies direct to you on points you make.
So starting again from the top M , do you have any opinion on the actual article I posted ? or any opinion on any of the comments made ?
BTW the sheeple 'follow the asshole in front' 'American' comment was a translation of the meaning it would be incredibly silly to presume that I am talking about American people wouldn't it ?
Sheeple exist all over the world the point is in the different spelling not in any regard to how Americans think , behave act or whatever .. is that another misinterpretation of my meaning ?
in answer to you third post . i was asking if you had seen them anywhere , I assume you do not only read my web site . so what is the common view your coming across .... but never mind
thank you M
Whatever about the cartoons. But isn't it ironic that one of the cartoons features Mohammad with a bomb for a turban...and now MORE THAN A FEW Muslims are killing and threatening violence in the streets.
This is the greatest concern in the ME? Not that there are kids with little or no health care or people suffering from lack of adequate food?
No...those things aren't important enough to charge into the streets and fire off AK47s... a damned cartoon though...well that's worth killing over.
Panties on the head? Kill and protest.
Cutting human beings heads off with a knife? Barely a word.
More of the same from "religious fanatics."
Barely a word because a) dissent is suppressed in the Middle East, and b) such dissent when it happens (and it does) it not conductive to the image that the mainstream media in the west aim to protray - it serves western interests more to depict all Muslims as mindless savages.
It is very dificult to sit in one culture and make judgments on another. Religion is the essence of society in the Middle East and as Djeb has already said 'it serves western interests more to depict muslims as mindless savages'
Take Hamas they have spent more of their time and money over the last decade (and more) building schools and hospitals and feeding the poor in Palastine but we are only told about their 'terrorist' actions against Israel.
Which was probably the last thing on the minds of the voters.
I totally disagree w/the article. But I must say the following remarks are directed at the radical Wahabi-style strain of Islam that advocates violence and suppression of non-Muslim 'infidels'. I am saddened by the fact that the voice of moderate Islam is being drowned out by the clamor of radical jihadists:
1) The rape comparison is not equivalent. Priests don't use Jesus as a justification for their sex crimes. Radical muslims do use the Koran (based on the teachings of Mohammed) as justification for suicide and terrorist bombings. Thus the picture of Mohammed w/the bomb-turban depicts the Mohammed of the muslim extremists. The extremists are playing the 'religious bigotry' card to shame people into denial regarding their terrorist motives.
2) The media continually disrespects Christianity while kowtowing to other faiths. Consider
Polly Toynbee's review of the "Chronicles of Narnia":
Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls.we ask him to? Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of a guilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart.
So basically she calls the central tenet of the Christian faith 'repugnant'. And then there is Brittney Spears, scheduled to appear on Will & Grace as a Christian caricature hosting a cooking show entitled "cruci-fixins". One complains about such stuff and gets labeled as a humorless, right wing boor. I could go on and on. The Muslims are getting off easy.
3) Radical Islam is offended by a lot of things. Trying to appease them is pointless:
- Jews (descendants of apes and pigs)
- Christians (infidels)
- Pagans (worse than the above)
- Gays (dig a ditch and kill 'em)
- Rape victims and sexually active women (honor killings coming your way)
- Americans (the great Satan)
- Hollywood (Satan's warehouse)
- Women (shut up and put your veil on)
3) The Arab Media is RIFE with antiSemitism of the worst kind. Here's just a taste from www.MEMRI.org:
In one of his sermons, Saudi Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam and preacher at the Al-Haram mosque – that is the Ka'ba mosque in Mecca, the most important shrine in the Muslim world, said:
"Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of [God's] words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs… These are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption..." 
The image has pervaded the public consciousness, even that of children. In May 2002, Iqraa, the Saudi satellite television station, which, according to its website, seeks "to highlight aspects of Arab Islamic culture that inspire admiration … to highlight the true, tolerant image of Islam and refute the accusations directed against it," interviewed a three-and-a-half-year-old "real Muslim girl" about Jews, on "The Muslim Women's Magazine" program. The little girl was asked whether she liked Jews; she answered, "no." When asked why not, she said that Jews were "apes and pigs." "Who said this?" the moderator asked. The girl answered, "Our God." "Where did He say this?" "In the Qur'an." At the end of the interview, the moderator said with satisfaction: "No [parents] could wish for Allah to give them a more believing girl than she... May Allah bless her and both her father and mother."
Would Jesus say such a thing about Muslims? I sincerely doubt it.
Ah yes, the Wahhibis. Those folks who allied with Muhammad ibn Saud, founder of the House of Saud which is so dear to the Bush Family and so important to U.S. foreign interests.
Well, regarding point number one, you missed it entirely. The point is not to compare religions, that should be obvious. The point, which you so thoroughly missed is to demonstrate how one could take offense from the cartoons.
Regarding point two, again I wonder as I did in your other post on the video if this is not some subtle irony here. You mention Polly Toynbee, a woman who was nominated for "Most Islamophobic Journalist of the Year" in 2003 by the Islamic Human Rights Commission. If her work is just as offensive to Christians as the cartoons were to Muslims, why was their barely a whimper when she came in 4th place in the above mentioned 2003 awards? Indeed, why no outrage when the third place winner, Robert Kilroy-Silk, said "they (Muslims) are backward and evil, and if it is being racist to say so then I must be and happy and proud to be so." (No kowtowing there. Would Jesus say such a thing about Muslims? I sincerely doubt it.) But the real question is, did Toynbee's article claim that the central figure of the Christian religion is a terrorist? No.
And, regarding point number three, it is (as if I expected more at this point) a tu quoque ad hominem. In other words, you are saying that it is ok for our side to do something wrong because they do something wrong. (As an aside, you could have picked a better quote from SelectiveMEMRI. The one you provided was quotes from an imam, not from the media.)
You really like to shift the topic to my debating skills, or lack thereof, which seems pretty 'ad hominem' if you ask me.
Well, let's see what we agree on. I don't know much about Polly Toybee but what you said doesn't surprise me. She seems particularly venemous. I also share your disgust, BTW, w/George Bush's cushy relationship w/the Saudi Royal Family.
You didn't read the MEMRI quote in full. The second paragraph refers to a media incident. The first paragraph is the imam.
No, Polly didn't claim Jesus was a terrorist. She said his sacrificial death (sacred/cen
tral tenet of the Christian faith) was REPUGNANT. That is an equally offensive type of statement. If a major newspaper referred to Mohammed as 'repugnant', Muslims would be highly offended. I brought up the incident because you seem to feel that the Western media is respectful of Christianity while being disrespectful of Islam. On this point I totally disagree.
You said In other words, you are saying that it is ok for our side to do something wrong because they do something wrong.
Yep. I think it's hypocritical for the Arab world to rag on us for publishing a lousy cartoon when the Arab media is so rife with vicious anti-Semitic propaganda. My sympathy is reserved for Muslims who don't share those sentiments and who have to take the fall for the yammering horde of radicals screaming about jihad and strapping bombs to thier own children.
What really bothers me is that radical Islam is using 'political correctness' to dodge criticism by crying 'bigotry' and 'discrimination'. In doing so, they create a climate in which people are afraid to talk about the reality of terrorism for fear of 'offending' Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism at all. From what I have read, the offending cartoons were commissioned as an attempt to break through the stranglehold of political correctness.
WHOA! I just looked at the link posted for the Islamaphobia awards.
What is going on here? The website posted a sampling of 'Islamophobic' media quotes. Most of these quotes were referring to the actions and words of Islamic extremists.
So what is their point? When Islamic extremists talk about murdering infidels, decapitating people, etc. are we just supposed to sweep it under the rug and not report it? Is it 'Islamophobic' to suppress the truth?
The worst PR for the Islamic faith comes in the form of these extremist rantings and ravings, not the Western media.
I suppose misrepresenting and ignoring what I posted is easier than addressing it. Or perhaps you can explain to me how saying "They [Muslims] are backward and evil and if it is racist to say so then racist I must be — and happy and proud, to be so," is not Islamophobic. (Another stunner from the man in question is "Moslems everywhere behave with equal savagery.")
But let's go throught the list:
Most Islamophobic British Politician of the Year
1) Nick Griffen for a comment unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
2) David Blunkett for comments and action unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
3) William Hauge for comments unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
4) Andrew Dismore for one comments unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists" and two related.
Most Islamophobic International Politician of the Year
1) Ariel Sharon for a truly monsterous comment promoting genocide and completely unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
2) Vladmir Putin for one comment related to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
3) Silvio Berlusconi for comments unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
4) Praveen Togadia for comments unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
Most Islamophobic Media Personality of the Year
1) Melanie Phillips for comments unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists." (Painting vitually all Muslim youth with the same brush.)
2) Nicky Campbell for comments unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
3) Robert Kilroy-Silk Yup. Unrelated. We already covered that monster.
4) Polly Toynbee, the woman you love to hate, for one comment unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists," and one partially related.
Most Islamophobic Media of the Year
1) The Daily Mail. Well hey, they mention the word fanactic in the headline, but it's a headline calling someone a fanatic for identifying himself as Muslim before British.
2) The Daily Telegraph for a comment relating to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists," one that might very well be refering to U.S. funded actions, and two more that are related to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
3) The Sun for a comment unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
4) Fox Network News for 3 headlines related to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists," and one for a domestic dispute.
A speech by Sister Muddassar Arani unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
Islamophobe of the Year
1) George Bush Jr. for a comment unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
2) Franklin Graham for a comment unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists," (painting all Muslims with the same brush and ignoring evidence that negates his claim).
3) John Ashcroft for a comment unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
4) Donald Rumsfeld for a comment unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
A speech by Massoud Shadjareh unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
A piece about judo unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
Coverage by the Financial Times unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
And finally links to further information unrelated to "the actions and words of Islamic extremists."
Now a word of warning: That particular issue is settled. Most of the quotes were not referring to the actions and words of Islamic extremists. As such, if you want to waste our time on that again, you will be in violation of our sixth commenting rule (your posts in violation of the third rule have remained as a worn out courtesy), and your post will enter the digital void. Consider how you want to spend your time wisely. You have been warned.
" You really like to shift the topic to my debating skills, or lack thereof, which seems pretty 'ad hominem' if you ask me."
Scroll up. You will see that I addressed every point to made. Your trouble understanding this likely stems from a lack of understanding of what an ad hominem is. I have not made one.
"You didn't read the MEMRI quote in full. The second paragraph refers to a media incident. The first paragraph is the imam."
Ah, yes. Thank you. The third paragraph you posted does mention a media incident. As deplorable as it is, you are using the argument that because Islamic media has made despicable comments that it excuses the Danish media or western media doing the same. In other words, a tu quoque ad hominem. It does not excuse it. Posting a thousand examples of Islamic media bigotry will not change this simple fact of logic. As such, another warning, this one same as the above. You will discover the digital void if you persist on this vein.
"No, Polly didn't claim Jesus was a terrorist. She said his sacrificial death (sacred/cen
tral tenet of the Christian faith) was REPUGNANT. That is an equally offensive type of statement. If a major newspaper referred to Mohammed as 'repugnant', Muslims would be highly offended. I brought up the incident because you seem to feel that the Western media is respectful of Christianity while being disrespectful of Islam. On this point I totally disagree."
The reaction to the cartoons did not occur in a political vacuum. There have been more than a few events - even before 2001 - that have led up to the reaction.
Also, western media is not totally respectful of Christianity. It is, however, far more respectful of Christianity than it is of Islam.