Friday, July 29, 2005

Just don't fling me in that briar patch

Ian.

To you Canadian right wingers that are so thrilled and respectful of this war on terror, do you have the courage to go south, and enlist? Why not, if it’s such an important thing for you?
To you Canadian libertarians who are so hysterical and fanatical about the sanctity of private property:

Sure doesn't seem like many of you are wearing Group 4 uniforms, or even carrying walkie-talkies, as you spout off on the Internet about the importance of property rights.

Why aren't you all security guards?

(In the private sector, to be sure -- no point trading one hypocrisy for another!)
Your family too important? Your education? Your blogging abilities? Why don’t you go kill some people in this war?
Remember, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

See you on patrol.

35 comments:

Ian Scott said...

False analogy, Mike.

I AM a security guard, of my property. I patrol my premises daily. I am responsible for my premises, and have hired the services of others (MY choice - because it's important to ME), to assist me when I am sleeping.

As a citizen and resident, I take full responsibility for MY property. And I pity the person that tries to take it from me.

I do NOT need to be licenced by the "government" to secure my property. I don't need to wear a uniform. I WILL use as much force as necessary to protect my property.

I DON'T ask for the publicans with guns to stand outside my property (even though I pay enough, both directly and indirectly for their keep).

Now, those that support the occupation in Iraq, what FORCE of their own are they using?

gm said...

Maybe Ian should run for office before he critizes politicians?
Besides whats so important about western civilization.

gm said...

Who ever said dicatators have rights!
Wasn't saddam a homicidal maniac? Didn't he like gas Kurds and Iranians...didn't he like torture dissidents and family...

Mike said...

Protecting the home front I see.

Ian Scott said...

Correct, Mike. Protecting my home front, that which _I_ value.

If others want to go to Iraq, or expect others to go there, by all means, donate your money and/or resources.

I don't ask you to protect my homefront with your resources/money. Please don't expect me to support a war with my resources/money.

Off topic - seen the latest Iraqi constitution draft? Interesting reading.

Meaghan Champion said...

Ian does protect his home and his property.

He isn't asking other people to subsidize his efforts in that capacity.

He also isn't demanding that other people sacrifice their lives, liberty and freedom or money to achieve this defence of his property.

Whereas the cheerleaders for this "war" are awfully generous spending other people's lives and money, on a cause on values that are so cheap to them, that they themselves don't have to pay for.

"Besides whats so important about western civilization."

Western Civilization can kiss my ass. I am not a hive-insect, moo cow. A "civilization" doesn't have rights. Only individuals do.

gm said...

Mr Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the I. F. Stone Fellow at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book is Why Orwell Matters.

There are at least three well-established reasons to favor what is euphemistically termed "regime change" in Iraq. The first is the flouting by Saddam Hussein of every known law on genocide and human rights, which is why the Senate--at the urging of Bill Clinton--passed the Iraq Liberation Act unanimously before George W. Bush had even been nominated. The second is the persistent effort by Saddam's dictatorship to acquire the weapons of genocide: an effort which can and should be thwarted and which was condemned by the United Nations before George W. Bush was even governor of Texas. The third is the continuous involvement by the Iraqi secret police in the international underworld of terror and destabilization. I could write a separate essay on the evidence for this; at the moment I'll just say that it's extremely rash for anybody to discount the evidence that we already possess. (And I shall add that any "peace movement" that even pretends to care for human rights will be very shaken by what will be uncovered when the Saddam Hussein regime falls. Prisons, mass graves, weapon sites... just you wait.)

Ian Scott said...

That's hillarious, gm. With that reasoning, there are at least two reasons then for regime change in the USA.

Mike said...

Well, Ian, it sounds like we're both happy to protect the home front without making a full time vocation of it with this or that organization; now you have your answer to your original question.

And as you know, I don't countenance anyone forcing you to pay for anything, but as you also know, that isn't what we're talking about here either.

Edward, you should take a tip from MWW of a thousand faces, and use multiple aliases, so people don't just dismiss your sloganeering out of hand when they see the byline.

Ian Scott said...

Mike, your analogy is still utterly false. I adhere to the "non-aggression" principle.

For those that support aggression in all it's glory, I'd suggest once again that they go and try it out for themselves.

Mike, I really "DON'T" know what you are talking about.

I DO make it a full time vocation to protect my property, Mike. I don't ask or want others to have their resources used up to protect my property, taking away from their own resources to protect theirs.

I am FREE to choose to have other "organizations" assist me in my endeavors, but I don't have ANY desire to have your resources stolen from you to support my endeavor of protecting my property.

I really don't understand what you are trying to get at, Mike.

"Edward, you should take a tip from MWW of a thousand faces, and use multiple aliases, so people don't just dismiss your sloganeering out of hand when they see the byline."

Ad hominem. Point to the "sloganeering," Mike. Pretend you didn't read the bi-line, and respond to the content.

Meaghan Champion said...

Oh so.. pointing out that "a civilization" doesn't have rights.. only individuals do.. is "sloganeering"?

And this complaint of sloganeering is coming from people who are cheerleading for the "war on terror."

irony.

Pray do tell...exactly what are rhe "rights" that a civilization has.

That ought to be fun.

By the way... did you catch the news of Marc Emery's being arrested, probably to be extradited and sent to the US to spend the rest of his life in Prison for daring to challenge "the war on drugs"

Ah yes... America, sweet land of liberty! Freedom and all sorts of lovely things like that are on the March!

Seriously, you should go take a good long look at the Iraq Government's constitution draft. As Ian pointed out... it's whacky funny stuff!

All those 10s of thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost, all the hundreds of billions of extorted tax-dollars spent, to basically make a "free country" where the Constitution is now going to be based on Sharia!

Woo Hoo!

As for the comment you responded to Ian... No worries...All Mike has done has just aptly demonstrated his "values" by making that subtle commentary. It's a warning to me Ian. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Thanks for the demonstration of your ethics Mike.

Much appreciated.

Be sure and tell your pro-war state worshipping friends about this exchange and then brag about how you can compell silence from a critic of the war by breaking confidence of those who stupidly trusted you and your companions enough to reveal their identity to you.

Maybe you want to drop a dime to US Government officials, and let them know that there are some people writing an anonymous blog who are critical of the "War on Terror" and President Bush... and you know who they are.

Why don't you do that Mike?
Half measures are for wimps...
Why don't you follow your ethics right to where they are leading you?

State-Worship... it's not just for commie dummies. It's seductive is it not Mike? Somebody says something you don't like, and what's your first impulse?

You may think you revealed something about me with this exchage. But I think it actually has revealed something far more interesting about you.

gm said...

Iraq was one of several nations that harbored and continued to aid and abet anti-Western terrorists worldwide. Yes, including al-Qaeda. Second, it was a brutal dictatorship. It has killed hundreds of thousands of its own people and has periodically endangered or outright attacked its neighbors. President Bush as US commander-in-chief had the obligation to remove this danger to America and the moral right to do so. He had the moral right not only as a matter of protecting the American people from some future attack more horrendous than 9/11 (think ten or twenty times worse), but also because any freer nation has the moral right to overthrow a dictatorship.
True, a moral right doesn't necessarily equal an obligation. But when a nation rises to the threat level that Iraq had become—openly declaring war on the US (1998) and promising to help terrorists acquire even horrendous biological weapons against the US—then that moral right morphs into a moral responsibility. Don't forget that President Bush, as well as every one of the members of Congress, swore oaths to defend that country to the best of their ability. It's their number one obligation as elected officials. It's the one duty they cannot ethically shirk, sidestep, or smirk away. President Bush took it seriously, as did the majority of Congress.

The civilization that wants us to become islamic is of a militant muslim mind set.It is the ultimate in collectivist thinking: the complete subjugation of the individual to an abstract collective cause and directed against another abstract collective where, in both, individuals don't matter.This to my mind is pre western, pre enlightenment and is not worthy of civilized places emulating.

As far as Marc Emery goes...drug laws are anti-american.

gm said...

Op-Ed:
Against Pacifism



by Damon W. Root

In 1941, with Hitler’s war machine furiously hacking Western civilization to bits, George Orwell famously observed that "objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi."

Today, as Islamic fascists like Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban struggle to bring the world under another yoke of vicious, anti-Semitic totalitarianism, our own anti-war activists inform anyone who will listen that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind."

Since these folks would apparently rather see Islamic fascism run free than have America vigorously engage her enemies, let’s consider just what sort of world the modern pacifist is objectively in favor of.

Afghanistan, under the Taliban, is literally a hell on earth. Women and girls are deprived of every imaginable civil, social, political, and economic liberty. Their humanity itself is under brutal attack, every minute of every day.

According to Human Rights Watch, Taliban officials "beat women on the streets for dress code violations and for venturing outside the home without the company of a close male relative." Amnesty International reports that "women who wear nail varnish could have their fingers chopped off."

Forbidden to speak with or visit any male who is not a close relative (including doctors and dentists), women and girls regularly go without basic medical attention. In addition, the Taliban have banned music, films, television, playing cards, and other forms of entertainment. Musical instruments and books have been seized and burned. Civil liberties like freedom of speech and religion are repressed by force. For example, the punishment for converting to Christianity or Judaism, professing these religions, or distributing their literature, is death.

Amnesty International describes how two men convicted of sodomy "were placed under a wall of dried mud which was bulldozed upon them." In Kabul, an unmarried man convicted of premarital sex received 100 lashes with a leather strap. Had he been married, "the punishment would have been death by stoning," the report states.

With each passing day, similar accounts of misogyny and oppression come pouring in. Kim Candy, President of the National Organization for Women, observes that "when such extremism is allowed to flourish anywhere in the world, none of us is safe."

Confront the moral relativists who infest our college campuses and progressive institutions with these unspeakable events, however, and they respond with juvenile slogans like "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter." In New York City, popular graffiti artist and left-wing dissident De La Vega has a statement hanging in his gallery that reads "Osama, whether right or wrong, is a fighter for freedom."

Following the logic of this idiocy, we should elevate Hitler’s holocaust and South Africa’s apartheid into noble ideals simply because some illiterate thugs were willing to shed blood on their behalf. Thankfully, we do nothing of the sort.

Just what sort of freedom do people like De La Vega think bin Laden and the Taliban are fighting for? Freedom to throw acid in the faces of unveiled women? Freedom to torture and murder gays, Jews, and atheists? Anyone suggesting a similarity between the values of Martin Luther King and Mullah Omar ought to put down the placard, quit the protest, and hide their head in shame. The Islamic fascists have brought nightmare to life in their own lands, while their ideology calls for its export. To profess pacifism in the face of such horror is to appease evil itself.

Damon W. Root is a writer for the Objectivist Center and graduated from Columbia College in 1999. The Objectivist Center is a national not-for-profit think tank promoting the values of reason, individualism, freedom and achievement in American culture.

Meaghan Champion said...

GW, you still haven't addressed my question about what "rights" does a civilization have.

I'll be happy to tackle the rest of this, when you deal with that.

Ian Scott said...

gm, you need to go back and study some history. Iraq and Iran went to war, Iraq with the blessing, support, and intelligence of the US of A.

Iraq attacked Kuwaitt because of issues regarding the drilling methods by Kuwait. Kuwait was being accused of parallel drilling into Iraqi oilfields. Kuwait refused to stop.

The American ambassador to Iraq told Saddam, "We won't interfere with your issues with Kuwait" knowing full well Saddam was building up military at Kuwait's border.

If I remember correctly, that was about a week before Iraq attacked Kuwait. There is no bloody way in hell that the US did not know Iraq was preparing for a military solution to what they saw as theft of Iraqi oil.

Am I correct or incorrect?

Pietr said...

Edward and Ian,my sympathy has been with you in this debate up to now,but suddenly the surface has been scratched and ET appears to be nothing more than an apologist for good ole' Saddam.
'It was all Americas fault.And Kuwait wasn't innocent....blah blah...'
There are millions of 'greeny-red' europeans ready to lap up this crap.

Ian Scott said...

Soreheaduk, whilst I appreciate your "sympathy," I don't expect it.

My goal is not to garner sympathy, it is to garner truth. I am NOT saying, "it was all America's fault" nor "Kuwait wasn't innocent."

I am however pointing out truths that many do not want to hear, or that have not heard, while they are forming their opinion.

I personally have NO CLUE if the allegations against Kuwait by Saddam were truthful allegations or not.

I really don't know. But having said that, those allegations seem to have become lost in the debate... and the US' initial response to Saddam regarding those allegations.

PERHAPS Saddam was entirely "fucked up" when he made those allegations. But it IS on record that the US stated they would not interfere with Saddam's dispute with Kuwait.

None of us really know if Saddam's allegations were in fact truthful. We do however,have a record of the US ambassador to Iraq stating that Iraq's dispute with Kuwait was none of the US' business.

It is also a fact that Saddam did not try to clear this issue with military force first. He in fact did attempt negotiation, arbitration, and got no where with it.

I am NOT saying Kuwait was NOT innocent. I simply don't know. I AM saying that there is "evidence" (using the term 'evidence' in its strictest sense) that Kuwait was not innocent. Those allegations have never been given much thought by any side in the west as to the "reasons" why Saddam invaded Kuwait in the first place.

I don't ask for sympathy. I merely ask for investigation of what is truth.

If you can show that I am wrong that the US assured Saddam that the Kuwait issue was "none of their business," then I'm all ears and eyes.

But to ignore this allegation, and the fact that Saddam had attempted diplomatic solutions to what he saw as theft, but the diplomacy went no where, is to ignore truth.

To claim that Iraq has invaded two of its neighbours, but fail to inform that the first neighbour, Iran, was done with the implicit permission AND explicit support of the USA, is to hide truth.

Anyone with a bit of history knowledge will recall that the US was not best friends with Iran during the time, and in fact, supported Iraq's war with Iran. So to use this as a valid reason for showing that Saddam was a bad person, only shows that the US government was equally bad, as they provided support to Saddam for invading that neighbour.

Truth, not sympathy, Soreheaduk.

And bear in mind, this thread has indeed gone of the original topic of whether it was a false analogy or not regarding protection of property, and support for a war.

Sorry.. rambling.. tired.. but more than willing to discuss this with you further.

Pietr said...

Naturally I reserve sympathy for those approaching the truth more closely,sometimes,hopefully,more closely than I have been able to do myself or along a different route.
My understanding of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was that Kuwait had financed the Iraqi war against Iran,and Iraq simply didn't want to repay the loans,so they 'annexed' Kuwait and took out further 'loans' by force and road.

The oilfield dispute was sabre rattling in the mid nineties that ensured a continuing US presence in Saudi and Kuwait.
Which was the alleged excuse for Bin Laden's campaign of outrage.
If Billious Clintoris had sent in the troops in the nineties,or if G.Bush snr had kept going, there would have been no WTC,USS Cole or Saudi Barracks attack,assuming Laden meant what he claimed.
Of course,he was merely imitating the barrack-bombers of Lebanon who killed 250 Marines in the mid 80's.
If Ronnie hadn't pulled out, they would never have believed it would work.
Of course, now it is too late and they don't have anything to lose either.
Tragic.

gm said...

All these side issues are as phoney as hell. The question is does the US have a right to self defence? I say yes- you say no...
Btw mostIraqi weapons had a made in the USSR stamp not a made in the USA stamp.

Pietr said...

Of course the US has a right to self defence.
So do I.
But if a sneaky little bastard punches me in the nose and runs off,I don't kill the town drunk because he laughed.
(Maybe I piss on his head).

Mike said...

Ian, what I've gotten at is that your request for supporters of Iraq's liberation to join the US army is an arbitrary one, seemingly based on a standard nobody ever applies to anything anywhere else.

I don't care whether you want to support the army or not. I don't want anyone to force you to pay for anything you don't want to pay for. It's too bad that that's how things are done in 2005, really.

If you know a better way to fight back against a murderous totalitarian ideology bent on nuclear blackmail and global domination, then there is lots of space below.

Ian Scott said...

"Ian, what I've gotten at is that your request for supporters of Iraq's liberation to join the US army is an arbitrary one, seemingly based on a standard nobody ever applies to anything anywhere else."

I don't know how you came up with that. It's a standard that _I_ apply, and I'm certainly in the number of 'everyone'.

Not everyone shares my standards, I agree. But some do.

"f you know a better way to fight back against a murderous totalitarian ideology bent on nuclear blackmail and global domination, then there is lots of space below."

Uhhh.. can you point to this "nuclear blackmail and global domination" Mike?

Or is it just your belief? Do you have evidence of "nuclear blackmail?"

Do you have evidence of "global domination?"

This is starting to sound like a James Bond comedy.

gm said...

History provides evidence that terrorists and tyrants want... global domination... and will resort to blackmail.

Pietr said...

'James Bond comedy'.
Ah yes.Speciousness.
The first refuge of the fraudster.
If an Iranian terrorist,objecting to unwarranted CIA interference in the coups that brought the Shah back in the fifties,explodes a nuclear suitcase bomb(they didn't actually have any a couple years ago.Who knew?)in Chicago,what dead-stop somersaults will your mind perform to avoid that?
Heck,you've avoided 9/11 pretty well.

Ian Scott said...

As someone quite familiar with terrorism, and have had friends and family who were victims of it, indeed I am not a fraudster or seeking refuge.

My question was clear and to the point. Please point out evidence of a desire for "global domination" or "nuclear blackmail" that is being alleged to exist.

9/11 is NOT evidence of a desire for global domination or nuclear blackmail.

It has however, seemingly motivated one nation's government to go and occupy a nation that has no direct link to 9/11. (Sure, there may be indirect links... but there IS a direct link to the alleged "mastermind" and Pakistan RIGHT NOW. I'll also point out to you that I did not bring up 9/11 - you did - I'm responding to allegations of world domination and nuclear blackmail - neither of which I see in 9/11).

Yes, bin Laden and his "organization" do seem to have taken on the aura of the world dominating seeking bad guys in James Bond flicks.

Do you truly believe that Osama bin Laden wishes world domination?

gm said...

Herr Hitler had no connection too Pearl Harbor!

Out of the 22 wars in the world how many are because of the peaceful muslims?
The militant muslim mind set is the ultimate in collectivist thinking: the complete subjugation of the individual to an abstract collective cause and directed against another abstract collective where, in both, individuals don't matter.

Also, Saddam helped with first WTC bombing in the 90s, sponsored the terrorists in the London Embassy of Iran in 1980.Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers until recently.No connections between Iraq and terror groups? It's hard not to see them.These connections also include the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad, where former Iraqi intelligence brigadier Jamal al-Qurairy had said that non-Iraqi Islamic radicals were trained to hijack aircraft using knives. Plus this gem! A new affirmation by the Czech government that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 plotters, met an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ibrahim al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001. Some US officials had suggested this meeting did not happen. But in a signed statement dated 24 February, 2003, Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, said his government 'can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta ... there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was on 22 April, 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities not compatible with his diplomatic status [the usual euphemism for spying]'. Garzon's indictment says Galan was part of a cell which organized bank robberies on behalf of al-Qaida, and which had supported the group around Atta financially and logistically.

Lisa said...

Ian;

Do you think the US seeks world domination and if so, can you provide some evidence?

Ian Scott said...

gm, nothing like twisting words, huh? I NEVER wrote that there were no links to "terror." I wrote: "...and occupy a nation that has no direct link to 9/11."

Do you get the difference, gm?

"Out of the 22 wars in the world how many are because of the peaceful muslims?"

I have no clue. I always thought it took at least two governments to have a "war."

"The militant muslim mind set is the ultimate in collectivist thinking: the complete subjugation of the individual to an abstract collective cause and directed against another abstract collective where, in both, individuals don't matter."

Sounds pretty much like the aim of any government. It's called an expecation of "patriotism."

"Also, Saddam helped with first WTC bombing in the 90s,"

Did he now? You KNOW this, how? Whilst there is evidence he harboured a SUSPECT... YOU Have direct evidence of this? Cite this please. And please... let's stay away from the Iraqi passport issue? The 9/11 bombers carried a variety of international passports - none of those countries have been accused of "terror sponsors."

As far as 9/11 goes, George Bush AND Rumsfield are BOTH on record saying that Saddam was NOT involved.

"sponsored the terrorists in the London Embassy of Iran in 1980."

True. There were some serious conflicts going on between Iraq and Iran which lead to war in 1980. The Iran embassy was siezed. Do I agree with this? No. But if one is going to use this as "evidence," well.. we can also discuss, using the same logic, American "terrorism" on foriegn soil.

"Saddam payed the families of Palestinian suicide bombers until recently."

Yeah? So? What does that have to do with us, here in North America? You do realize that Americans paid the families of IRA terrorists, right?

Again, I'm not justifying it at all. I AM however suggesting that this discussion is rather unbalanced right now.

"No connections between Iraq and terror groups? It's hard not to see them."

As pointed out above, you are adding meanings to my words which are not there.

"These connections also include the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad, where former Iraqi intelligence brigadier Jamal al-Qurairy had said that non-Iraqi Islamic radicals were trained to hijack aircraft using knives."

More terrorists throughout the world have been trained in Libyian camps.

"Plus this gem! A new affirmation by the Czech government that Mohamed Atta, the leader of the Sept. 11 plotters, met an Iraqi intelligence officer, Ibrahim al-Ani, in Prague in April 2001."

Oh! This gem! American politicians have been meeting with Gerry Adams for years - Adams who just this past month, resigned from "The War Council" of the IRA!

"Some US officials had suggested this meeting did not happen.

Gerry Adams has denied belonging to the IRA. Interesting how he could resign his position in an organization he was never a member of, huh?

"But in a signed statement dated 24 February, 2003, Hynek Kmonicek, the Czech ambassador to the UN, said his government 'can confirm that during the stay of Mohamed Atta ... there was contact with Mr al-Ani, who was on 22 April, 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities not compatible with his diplomatic status [the usual euphemism for spying]'. Garzon's indictment says Galan was part of a cell which organized bank robberies on behalf of al-Qaida, and which had supported the group around Atta financially and logistically."

So you've come up with an "association." Good work. Won't cut it in a criminal court as "evidence" of direct involvement however.

I've met with dudes from biker gangs. Evidence of what, exactly?

Ian Scott said...

"Do you think the US seeks world domination and if so, can you provide some evidence?"

I have no idea what the "US" seeks.

Pietr said...

Well,that's more like it.But should we wait until we are attacked,or should we act pre-emptively?
Should 'we' act?
The governments of tyhe West represent minority political specialists,who have been whitewashed into the illusion of legitimacy by popular vote.
What is the alternative response to 9/11?
Well,it would still happen of course.But in the absence of a conventional US government what would be the response?
Perhaps New York's insurance company would establish the facts.
Then post a reward for Bin Laden.
Bounty hunters?They'd have to be pretty good to penetrate Taliban Afghanistan.And form what I've heard there is a $15 million bounty anyway.

gm said...

The 9/11 Report states that:

1. Richard Clark, former Clinton terrorism czar, testified that Iraq cooperated on chemical weapons with terrorists, including Al Qaeda, and he speculated to Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security advisor, that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was "the direct result of the Iraq-al Qaeda agreement". Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the "exact formula used by Iraq."

2. Former Defense Secretary William Cohen testified that the Clinton administration believed that Osama bin Laden and Iraq collaborated on the construction of a nerve gas factory in the Sudan.

3. The Clinton Justice Department, in its indictment of OBL, said that AQ reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that AQ would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, AQ would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq. It's interesting that the 9/11 Report claimed no collaborative relationship between Iraq and AQ because that certainly sounds like collaboration to me.

4. Mamdouh Mahmud, an Iraqi, was the chief procurement Salim officer for AQ in Sudan and he was arrested in connection with the 1998 embassy bombings.

5. Several high ranking Iraqi officials met with AQ, and Saddam's intelligence service cut a check directly to Dr. Zawahiri, for $300,000. Zawahiri at that time merged his organization with OBL's. "The merger was de facto complete by February 1998," and Saddam suddenly ramped up his collaboration with AQ in March 1988.

I have more!

Ian Scott said...

Some interesting stuff there, gm. I'll do some research myself - you're not by chance "Peach" on a certain message board are you? Seemed like almost word for word...

Anyhow, over on the other message board, it says this in one place:
"Osama and Saddam Worked Together for Years"

Interesting. You do realize that the USA worked with BOTH Osama and Saddam for years as well?

Those bunkers in the mountains of Afghanistan - American tax dollars helped pay for them. Did you know that?

Yeah, I realize that is off-topic.. but just wondered if you knew.

gm said...

http://www.americanoutlook.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=3153

Let us start with this...

Yes, the US gave a couple of helicopters to Iraq and they also funded Stalin against Hitler. Later, they had a cold war against Stalin.

Some Highlights from the above report.

"As Knight-Ridder’s Carol Rosenberg reported from Gaza City last March 13: In a graduation-style ceremony Wednesday, the families of 22 Palestinians killed fighting Israelis received checks for $10,000 or more, certificates of appreciation, and a kiss on each cheek—compliments of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.” She added: “The certificates declared the gift from President Saddam Hussein; the checks were cut at a branch of the Cairo-Amman bank.”

According to the U.S. State Department’s May 21, 2002, report on Patterns of Global Terrorism,[9] the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization, and the Palestine Liberation Front all operated offices or bases in Hussein’s Iraq. Hussein’s hospitality toward these mass murderers directly violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from giving safe haven to or otherwise sponsoring terrorists.

· Key terrorists enjoyed Hussein’s warmth, some so recently that Coalition forces subsequently found them alive and well and living in Iraq. Among them:

o U.S. Special Forces nabbed Abu Abbas last April 14 just outside Baghdad. Abbas masterminded the October 7–9, 1985, Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in which Abbas’s men shot passenger Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year old Manhattan retiree, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Abbas briefly was in Italian custody at the time, but was released that October 12 because he possessed an Iraqi diplomatic passport. Since 2000, Abbas resided in Baghdad, still under Saddam Hussein’s protection.[10]

o Khala Khadr al Salahat, a member of the ANO, surrendered to the First Marine Division in Baghdad on April 18. As the Sunday Times of London reported on August 25, 2002, a Palestinian source said that al Salahat and Nidal had furnished Libyan agents the Semtex bomb that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988, killing 259 on board and 11 on the ground. The 189 Americans murdered on the sabotaged Boeing 747 included 35 Syracuse University students who had spent the fall semester in Scotland and were heading home for the holidays.[11]

o Before fatally shooting himself in the head with four bullets on August 16, 2002, as straight-faced Baathist officials claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal (born Sabri al Banna) had lived in Iraq since at least 1999. As the Associated Press’s Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the ANO said that he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.”[12] Nidal’s attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 more. Among other atrocities, an ANO-planted bomb exploded on a TWA airliner as it flew from Israel to Greece on September 8, 1974. The jet was destroyed over the Ionian Sea, killing all 88 people on board.[13]

· Coalition troops have shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq, including a base approximately 15 miles southeast of Baghdad, called Salman Pak.[14] Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors had said that the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills.[15]

“There have been several confirmed sightings of Islamic fundamentalists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf states being trained in terror tactics at the Iraqi intelligence camp at Salman Pak,” said Khidir Hamza, Iraq’s former nuclear-weapons chief, in sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 31, 2002. “The training involved assassination, explosions, and hijacking.”[16]

“This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world,” former Iraqi army captain Sabah Khodada told PBS’s Frontline TV program in an October 14, 2001 interview.[17] Khodada, who worked at Salman Pak, said, “Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities . . . how to prepare for suicidal operations.” Khodada added, “We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes. . . . They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane.” A map of the camp that Khodada drew from memory for Frontline closely matches satellite photos of Salman Pak, further bolstering his credibility.[18]

And More

" Although Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, ringleader of the February 26, 1993, World Trade Center (WTC) bombing plot, fled the United States on a Pakistani passport, he came to America on an Iraqi passport.

· As Richard Miniter, author of this year’s bestseller Losing bin Laden, reported on September 25, 2003, on the Tech Central Station webpage, “U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, which shows Iraq gave [al Qaeda member] Mr. [Abdul Rahman] Yasin both a house and a monthly salary.” The Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared Yasin had been charged in August 1993 for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath One World Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,042 individuals.[22] Indicted by federal prosecutors as a conspirator in the WTC bomb plot, Yasin is on the FBI’s Most-Wanted Terrorists list.[23] ABC News confirmed, on July 27, 1994, that Yasin had returned to Baghdad, where he traveled freely and visited his father’s home almost daily.[24]"

gm said...

http://www.americanoutlook.org/index.
cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=3153

Here is the link you will have to cut and paste...

Lisa said...

Ian;

Let me rephrase this question then. Does Iraq 'seek' world domination, meaning do the ruling elite there attempt to impose, by their actions, dominion over individuals by the use of force, meaning the imposition of their own set of values over and against the will of those whom such force is directed against? Are there terrorists in those regions, meaning individuals that actively go out and kill innocent people in the name of some 'higher good' or purpose?

The question I originally asked, in different and perhaps vague words, was for your opinion regarding the actions of the US, meaning the US government and military to be a bit more precise, in connection with their treatment of other nations and the citizens that are subject to the laws of that country. In particular, the topic here is about US relations with the Middle East.

I think the answer in both cases is yes. It is the nature of government, especially totalitarian ones, to inevitably and frequently infringe on the basic liberties and rights of the people under its jurisdiction and those outside of its jurisdiction.

Still, although the US does wrong, it does not follow that the US is wrong in defending their country, meaning the citizens that make up that country, against attack just because their own nose isn't clean. Are we even under attack? If we are, how do the individuals living in those areas under attack, in this case, people residing in so-called 'Western Civilization', most effectively protect their property and lives?

The end goal does not justify the means, and I am no utiltarian, and we've seen many liberties violated in the fight against terror. But IF we are under attack, on a national level, how are we to best protect our property and loved ones considering the viable options we currently have?

I am questioning here Ian - let me emphasis that.

So, I ask:

Do you think the US government 'seeks' world domination, meaning do the ruling elite there, that is the goverment and its supporters, attempt to impose, by the use of force, meaning the imposition of their own set of values over and against the will of those whom such force is directed against, dominion over people - both those residing within the borders of the US and those without?

Do the goverments of the Middle East and their supporters do the same?

Let us agree that the answer is yes. I now ask:

Do you think there is an essential difference between the two 'factions' ? If so why and if not, why not?