Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 02:44am PT
|
"Sounds like the warrior demographic. "
The warrior demographic in your mind means "male" and that is it? That's a demographic? It sounds more like the demographic of those able to leave their homes to search for work, food and water.
You are basing this on nothing Chaz. Crowley sprays a lot to be sure, but he was actaully quoting a scientific study. You on the other hand are just pulling sh#t out of your ass.
Please advise. Your ass...so dark....
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 02:51am PT
|
here is somehing for you to read, my dipshit friend chaz-
(although my best guess is the you LACK THE GUTS to read this)
Is Condi Hiding the Smoking Gun?
By Frank Rich
The New York Times
Sunday 06 May 2007
If, as J.F.K. had it, victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan, the defeat in Iraq is the most pitiful orphan imaginable. Its parents have not only tossed it to the wolves but are also trying to pin its mutant DNA on any patsy they can find.
George Tenet is just the latest to join this blame game, which began more than three years ago when his fellow Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Tommy Franks told Bob Woodward that Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's intelligence bozo, was the "stupidest guy on the face of the earth" (that's the expurgated version). Last fall, Kenneth Adelman, the neocon cheerleader who foresaw a "cakewalk" in Iraq, told Vanity Fair that Mr. Tenet, General Franks and Paul Bremer were "three of the most incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots." Richard Perle chimed in that the "huge mistakes" were "not made by neoconservatives" and instead took a shot at President Bush. Ahmad Chalabi, the neocons' former darling, told Dexter Filkins of The Times "the real culprit in all this is Wolfowitz."
And of course nearly everyone blames Rumsfeld.
This would be a Three Stooges routine were there only three stooges. The good news is that Mr. Tenet's book rollout may be the last gasp of this farcical round robin of recrimination. Republicans and Democrats have at last found some common ground by condemning his effort to position himself as the war's innocent scapegoat. Some former C.I.A. colleagues are rougher still. Michael Scheuer, who ran the agency's bin Laden unit, has accused Mr. Tenet of lacking "the moral courage to resign and speak out publicly to try to stop our country from striding into what he knew would be an abyss." Even after Mr. Tenet did leave office, he maintained a Robert McNamara silence until he cashed in.
Satisfying though it is to watch a circular firing squad of the war's enablers, unfinished business awaits. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not in the past: the war escalates even as all this finger-pointing continues. Very little has changed between the fourth anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" this year and the last. Back then, President Bush cheered an Iraqi "turning point" precipitated by "the emergence of a unity government." Since then, what's emerged is more Iraqi disunity and a major leap in the death toll. That's why Americans voted in November to get out.
The only White House figure to take any responsibility for the fiasco is the former Bush-Cheney pollster Matthew Dowd, who in March expressed remorse for furthering a war he now deems a mistake. For his belated act of conscience, he was promptly patronized as an incipient basket case by an administration flack, who attributed Mr. Dowd's defection to "personal turmoil." If that is what this vicious gang would do to a pollster, imagine what would befall Colin Powell if he spoke out. Nonetheless, Mr. Powell should summon the guts to do so. Until there is accountability for the major architects and perpetrators of the Iraq war, the quagmire will deepen. A tragedy of this scale demands a full accounting, not to mention a catharsis.
That accounting might well begin with Mr. Powell's successor, Condoleezza Rice. Of all the top-tier policy players who were beside the president and vice president at the war's creation, she is the highest still in power and still on the taxpayers' payroll. She is also the only one who can still get a free pass from the press. The current groupthink Beltway narrative has it that the secretary of state's recidivist foreign-policy realism and latent shuttle diplomacy have happily banished the Cheney-Rumsfeld cowboy arrogance that rode America into a ditch.
Thus Ms. Rice was dispatched to three Sunday shows last weekend to bat away Mr. Tenet's book before "60 Minutes" broadcast its interview with him that night. But in each appearance her statements raised more questions than they answered. She was persistently at odds with the record, not just the record as spun by Mr. Tenet but also the public record. She must be held to a higher standard - a k a the truth - before she too jumps ship.
It's now been nearly five years since Ms. Rice did her part to sell the Iraq war on a Sept. 8, 2002, Sunday show with her rendition of "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Yet there she was last Sunday on ABC, claiming that she never meant to imply then that Saddam was an imminent threat. "The question of imminence isn't whether or not somebody is going to strike tomorrow" is how she put it. In other words, she is still covering up the war's origins. On CBS's "Face the Nation," she claimed that intelligence errors before the war were "worldwide" even though the International Atomic Energy Agency's Mohamed ElBaradei publicly stated there was "no evidence" of an Iraqi nuclear program and even though Germany's intelligence service sent strenuous prewar warnings that the C.I.A.'s principal informant on Saddam's supposed biological weapons was a fraud.
Of the Sunday interviewers, it was George Stephanopoulos who went for the jugular by returning to that nonexistent uranium from Africa. He forced Ms. Rice to watch a clip of her appearance on his show in June 2003, when she claimed she did not know of any serious questions about the uranium evidence before the war. Then he came as close as any Sunday host ever has to calling a guest a liar. "But that statement wasn't true," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. Ms. Rice pleaded memory loss, but the facts remain. She received a memo raising serious questions about the uranium in October 2002, three months before the president included the infamous 16 words on the subject in his State of the Union address. Her deputy, Stephen Hadley, received two memos as well as a phone call of warning from Mr. Tenet.
Apologists for Ms. Rice, particularly those in the press who are embarrassed by their own early cheerleading for the war, like to say that this is ancient history, just as they said of the C.I.A. leak case. We're all supposed to move on and just worry about what happens next. Try telling that to families whose children went to Iraq to stop Saddam's nukes. Besides, there's a continuum between past deceptions and present ones, as the secretary of state seamlessly demonstrated last Sunday.
On ABC, she pushed the administration's line portraying Iraq's current violence as a Qaeda plot hatched by the Samarra bombing of February 2006. But that Qaeda isn't the Qaeda of 9/11; it's a largely Iraqi group fighting on one side of a civil war. And by February 2006, sectarian violence had already been gathering steam for 15 months - in part because Ms. Rice and company ignored the genuine imminence of that civil war just as they had ignored the alarms about bin Laden's Qaeda in August 2001.
Ms. Rice's latest canard wasn't an improvisation; it was a scripted set-up for the president's outrageous statement three days later. "The decision we face in Iraq," Mr. Bush said Wednesday, "is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11." Such statements about the present in Iraq are no less deceptive - and no less damaging to our national interest - than the lies about uranium and Qaeda- 9/11 connections told in 2002-3. This country needs facts, not fiction, to make its decisions about the endgame of the war, just as it needed (but didn't get) facts when we went to war in the first place. To settle for less is to make the same tragic error twice.
That Ms. Rice feels scant responsibility for any of this was evident in her repeated assertions on Sunday that all the questions about prewar intelligence had been answered by the Robb-Silberman and Senate committee inquiries, neither of which even addressed how the administration used the intelligence it received. Now she risks being held in contempt of Congress by ducking a subpoena authorized by the House's Oversight Committee, whose chairman, Henry Waxman, has been trying to get direct answers from her about the uranium hoax since 2003.
Ms. Rice is stonewalling his investigation by rambling on about separation of powers and claiming she answered all relevant questions in writing, to Senator Carl Levin, during her confirmation to the cabinet in January 2005. If former or incumbent national security advisers like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski could testify before Congress without defiling the Constitution, so can she. As for her answers to Senator Levin's questions, five of eight were pure Alberto Gonzales: she either didn't recall or didn't know.
No wonder the most galling part of Ms. Rice's Sunday spin was her aside to Wolf Blitzer that she would get around to reflecting on these issues "when I have a chance to write my book." Another book! As long as American troops are dying in Iraq, the secretary of state has an obligation to answer questions about how they got there and why they stay. If accountability is ever to begin, it would be best if those questions are answered not on "60 Minutes" but under oath.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 02:53am PT
|
If Crowley could do simple math he would see the people who sold him his sacred "655,000" number are wrong. And he was stupid enough to buy it without thinking.
For that number to be realistic Americans would have to have killed 448 people a day, every day, for four years straight.
I call bullshit!
Crowley = Bullshit!
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 02:58am PT
|
here's more info that CHAZ WILL NEVER READ
Tenet-Bush Pre-9/11 "Small Talk"
By Robert Parry
Consortium News
Sunday 06 May 2007
In late August 2001, when aggressive presidential action might have changed the course of US history, CIA Director George Tenet made a special trip to Crawford, Texas, to get George W. Bush to focus on an imminent threat of a spectacular al-Qaeda attack only to have the conversation descend into meaningless small talk.
Alarmed CIA officials already had held an extraordinary meeting with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on July 10 to lay out the accumulating evidence of an impending attack and had delivered on Aug. 6 a special "Presidential Daily Brief" to Bush entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US."
"A few weeks after the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events," Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. "This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens," where Tenet had grown up.
Tenet's trip to Crawford - like the July 10 meeting with Rice and the Aug. 6 briefing paper for Bush - failed to shock the administration out of its lethargy nor elicit the emergency steps that the CIA and other counterterrorism specialists wanted.
While Tenet and Bush made small talk about "the flora and the fauna," al-Qaeda operatives put the finishing touches on their plans.
It wasn't until Sept. 4 - a week before 9/11 - when senior Bush administration officials, including Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "finally reconvened in the White House Situation Room" to discuss counter-terrorism plans "that had been lingering unresolved all summer long," Tenet wrote.
Tenet's memoir also provided new details about the emergency July 10 meeting that Tenet had demanded with Rice to lay out the startling new evidence of an impending al-Qaeda attack.
By July 10, senior CIA counterterrorism officials, including Cofer Black, had collected a body of intelligence that they first presented to Tenet.
"The briefing [Black] gave me literally made my hair stand on end," Tenet wrote. "When he was through, I picked up the big white secure phone on the left side of my desk - the one with a direct line to Condi Rice - and told her that I needed to see her immediately to provide an update on the al-Qa'ida threat."
"Significant Terrorist Attack"
After reaching the White House, a CIA briefer, identified in the book only as Rich B., started his presentation by saying: "There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!"
Rich B. then displayed a chart showing "seven specific pieces of intelligence gathered over the past 24 hours, all of them predicting an imminent attack," Tenet wrote. The briefer presented another chart with "the more chilling statements we had in our possession through intelligence."
These comments included a mid-June statement by Osama bin Laden to trainees about an attack in the near future; talk about decisive acts and a "big event"; and fresh intelligence about predictions of "a stunning turn of events in the weeks ahead," Tenet wrote.
Rich B. told Rice that the attack will be "spectacular" and designed to inflict heavy casualties against U.S. targets, Tenet wrote.
"Attack preparations have been made," Rich B. said about al-Qaeda's plans. "Multiple and simultaneous attacks are possible, and they will occur with little or no warning."
When Rice asked what needed to be done, the CIA's Black responded, "This country needs to go on a war footing now." The CIA officials sought approval for broad covert-action authority that had been languishing since March, Tenet wrote.
Despite the July 10 briefing, other senior Bush administration officials continued to pooh-pooh the seriousness of the al-Qaeda threat. Two leading neoconservatives at the Pentagon - Stephen Cambone and Paul Wolfowitz - suggested that the CIA might be falling for a disinformation campaign, Tenet wrote.
But the evidence of an impending attack continued to pour in. At one CIA meeting in late July, Tenet wrote that Rich B. told senior officials bluntly, "they're coming here," a declaration that was followed by stunned silence.
The intelligence community's evidence was summarized in the special PDB that was delivered to Bush while he was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford.
The PDB ended by noting that "FBI information ... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."
Bush apparently was not pleased by the CIA's intrusion on his vacation nor with the report's lack of specific targets and dates. He glared at the CIA briefer and snapped, "All right, you've covered your ass," according to an account in author Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine., which relied heavily on senior CIA officials.
Ordering no special response, Bush returned to his month-long vacation of fishing, clearing brush and working on a speech about stem-cell research.
Averting 9/11
While it will never be known whether a different reaction by Bush and his national security team might have disrupted the 9/11 attacks, a variety of options - both short- and long-term - were available.
Inside the FBI in August, there were other warnings that went unheeded. FBI agents in Minneapolis arrested Zacarias Moussaoui because of his suspicious behavior in trying to learn to fly commercial jetliners when he lacked even rudimentary skills.
FBI agent Harry Samit, who interrogated Moussaoui, sent 70 warnings to his superiors about suspicions that the Islamic extremist had been taking flight training in Minnesota because he was planning to hijack a plane for a terrorist operation.
FBI officials in Washington showed "criminal negligence" in blocking requests for a search warrant on Moussaoui's computer or taking other preventive action, Samit testified more than four years later at Moussaoui's criminal trial.
Samit's futile warnings matched the frustrations of other federal agents in Minnesota and Arizona who had gotten wind of al-Qaeda's audacious scheme to train pilots for operations in the United States. The agents couldn't get their warnings addressed by senior officials at FBI headquarters.
But another big part of the problem was the lack of urgency at the top. Bush and his top aides shrugged off the growing alarm within the U.S. intelligence community.
Counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke said the 9/11 attacks might have been averted if Bush had shown some initiative in "shaking the trees" by having high-level officials from the FBI, CIA, Customs and other federal agencies go back to their bureaucracies and demand any information about the terrorist threat.
If they had, they might well have found the memos from the FBI agents in Arizona and Minnesota. They also might have exploited the information that two known al-Qaeda operatives, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawar al-Hazmi, had entered the United States. On Sept. 11, they boarded American Airlines Flight 77 and helped fly it into the Pentagon.
In his book, Against All Enemies, Clarke contrasted President Bill Clinton's urgency over the intelligence warnings that preceded the Millennium events with the lackadaisical approach of Bush and his national security team.
"In December 1999, we received intelligence reports that there were going to be major al-Qaeda attacks," Clarke said in an interview about his book. "President Clinton asked his national security adviser Sandy Berger to hold daily meetings with the attorney general, the FBI director, the CIA director and stop the attacks.
"Every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information. You know, when you know the United States is going to be attacked, the top people in the United States government ought to be working hands-on to prevent it and working together.
"Now, contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the President ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No." [CNN's "Larry King Live," March 24, 2004]
Other Priorities
In his book, Clarke offered other examples of pre-9/11 mistakes by the Bush administration, including a downgrading in importance of the counterterrorism office, a shifting of budget priorities, an obsession with Saddam Hussein's Iraq and an emphasis on conservative ideological issues, such as Ronald Reagan's Star Wars missile defense program.
A more hierarchical White House structure also insulated Bush from direct contact with mid-level national security officials who had specialized on the al-Qaeda issue.
The chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission - New Jersey's former Republican Gov. Thomas Kean and former Democratic Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton - agreed that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.
"The whole story might have been different," Kean said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on April 4, 2004. Kean cited a string of law-enforcement blunders including the "lack of coordination within the FBI" and the FBI's failure to understand the significance of Moussaoui's arrest in August while training to fly passenger jets.
Yet, as the clock ticked down to 9/11, the Bush administration continued to have other priorities. On Aug. 9, 2001, Bush gave a nationally televised speech on stem cells, delivering his judgment permitting federal funding for research on 60 preexisting stem-cell lines, but barring government support for work on any other lines of stem cells derived from human embryos.
On side trips from his August vacation, Bush also made forays to Middle American cities that Bush said represented "heartland values" and the basic decency of Americans. Some residents living near the Atlantic and Pacific oceans viewed the hype about "heartland values" as a not-so-subtle snub at the so-called "blue" coastal states that favored Al Gore.
Bush kept drawing distinctions, too, between his presidency and Bill Clinton's. Bush and his senior advisers continued their hostility toward what they viewed as the old Clinton phobia about terrorism and this little-known group called al-Qaeda.
Tenet's late August trip to Crawford seeking to underscore the urgency of the terrorist threat may have been viewed in that light, helping to explain why it devolved into a meaningless discussion of the ranch's "flora and fauna."
Despite the Sept. 4, 2001, meeting of senior Bush aides to review the counterterrorism initiatives that had been languishing since March, the administration still didn't seem moved by the urgency of the moment.
On Sept. 6, 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto of a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, seeking to transfer money from strategic missile defense to counterterrorism.
Also on Sept. 6, former Sen. Gary Hart, who had co-chaired a commission on terrorism, was again trying to galvanize the Bush administration into showing some urgency about the threat. Hart met with Rice and urged the White House to move faster. Rice agreed to pass on Hart's concerns to higher-ups.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 03:03am PT
|
War is Hell, Crowley.
That's why when The President Of The United States told Hussein to get his ass out of the country and to take his useless sons with him, he should have listened.
Matt,
If I wanted to know what Frank Rich and Robert Parry think, I wouldn't be on here.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 03:11am PT
|
From the original linked article
"Citing media reports, McConnell said some lawmakers in Iraq's parliament wanted a vote to ask the United States to leave.
"I want to assure you, if they vote to ask us to leave, we'll be glad to comply with their request," he said."
From
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/
On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.......
Yup, more than half of the Iraqi parliament voted to ask us to leave, it just needs to get to an official vote. Funny the news didn't even report what should be front page news
Edit: Americans don't even know our own death toll. We know there's over 100,000 US troops in Iraq but few know that the number of contractors is also over 100,000. They get paid WAY more than us troops in general and over 770 of them have died. They're killing Iraqis too. Why shouldn't the contractor deaths be included in the US Death toll? That would put us way over 4000 deaths.
Important contacting article at
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/12/1136/
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 03:27am PT
|
"If Crowley could do simple math he would see the people who sold him his sacred "655,000" number are wrong. And he was stupid enough to buy it without thinking. "
When you get a PhD in statistics feel free to come on here and explain why that's wrong. For now you're just a guy asking for information and then grasping at the nearest straw to dismiss the information that you just asked for.
"Yup, more than half of the Iraqi parliament voted to ask us to leave, it just needs to get to an official vote. Funny the news didn't even report what should be front page news "
Karl some folks on NPR were talking about it to be sure. I think nobody wants to be the first network to push the story because the Repubs have done such a good job at scaring the media out of even appearing liberal. The reality too is that the vote could go nowhere. It was non-binding and when push comes to shove a lot of MP's might not actually want to push us out. They know as well as we do that tough times are ahead.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
So. Cal.
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 03:50am PT
|
HiDesertDJ writes:
"When you get a PhD in statistics feel free to come on here and explain why that's wrong."
That's the beauty of a number that is so far off, like Crowley's asinine "655,000" number of Iraqi dead. You don't gotta be a genius to know it's wrong. You just need to run the numbers to see how far out of line it is.
"655,000" dead in four years requires more than 448 dead every single day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for four years straight. Anybody smarter than Crowley (a bar set damn low BTW) can see how un-realistic that number is.
The worst day since the war started only killed about 200:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/nov2006/iraq-n25.shtml
200 a day is less than half of what would be required to arrive at Crowley's bullshit number of "655,000". And that is the worst day of death since 2003.
"The Iraqi Ministry of Health reported that the official number of civilians violently killed in October—3,709 men, women and children—was the highest of any month since the March 2003 invasion."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/nov2006/iraq-n24_prn.shtml
Sounds like a lot. It sure is. But 3,709 dead a month, assuming that this highest monthly number is an average, means 178,032 for the four years since we got there. A shitload to be sure, but almost a half-million short of Crowley's Bullshit Number of "655,000".
It cracks me up that Crowley was stupid enough to believe it, and even stupider to repeat it on here. And he was probably dumb enough to think all of us would believe it too.
All of us but one, that is.
Crowley, your links are lying to you, and you're a Dupe for buying it.
Karl,
I hope what you reported (Iraq Government voting us out) comes to pass. Democracy is good, even if it makes things worse.
|
|
Cosmin
Big Wall climber
Europe/China
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 04:24am PT
|
Chaz: " War is Hell, Crowley.
That's why when The President Of The United States told Hussein to get his ass out of the country and to take his useless sons with him, he should have listened."
Hmmmmm ..... and with this attitude you wonder why people piss on your parade?
When the POTUS tells the President of Another independent country to FO, no matter how wretched that Other President is the only answer is and should be - STFU!
Oh - and when the actual POTUS won elections they way he did first time and by scaring the sh#t out of his fellow countrymen the second time his opinions on democracy and pretty much anything government related - IN HIS OWN COUNTRY - are questionable, to say the least.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 08:52am PT
|
The aim of terrorism os not to create death, it's to create terror.
In people like Chaz, the terrorists have already won a decisive victory with almost no effort. He's terrified. Pisses his pants when someone even mentions the word "islam". He even attacks and abuses his own countrymen - the very people he should be standing shoulder to shoulder with in defiance of terrorism and its effects.
Chaz is a coward and a weakling; the sort of skulking, trembling little weasel who is exactly the reason that terrorism remains an effective tactic today.
After all, if people like Chaz weren't so spineless and ready to lash out at anyone and everyone the moment they're afraid, what use would terrorism have?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 10:43am PT
|
More grist for the mill. This qualifies as "research." Refute these figures AC. From this count, you're off by a factor of ten or so. An intelligent response would be nice.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
And by the way, there's a bright and shiny clown credit awaiting you unless you revert to your lame, tired BS. What does AC stand for today?
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 10:57am PT
|
Hey Chaz, how are the goats?
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 11:38am PT
|
" I feel sorry for children who have no voice in the decision."
I agree, I feel for your kids.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 12:09pm PT
|
Good point, Locker...
except that I'm not american.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 12:36pm PT
|
Fatty,
The info in the link is not a good sign.
The piece should be shown so the viewers can make up their own mind.
On the other hand, you can't even begin to talk about attrcities that Jews commit. Let alone produce a film/expose on the level of the Islam vs. Islamist piece. If one does they are labeled as anti-semitic and racist.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 12:42pm PT
|
Here's a question for Chaz and fattrad, or any neocon "warrior" to answer. It has been asked before on several occasions, and ignored each time.
How does invading the most secular country in the middle-east and handing control of that nation over to Iranian-backed Shias make the USA safer from Muslim extremists?
Thank you for your time.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 01:04pm PT
|
LMAO LOCKER!!!!
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 01:43pm PT
|
I think the whole occupation of Palestinian lands could easily count. The jackassery in Lebanon could as well. All depends on your perspective I guess. I'm pro-Israel...doesn't mean that they haven't done some stupid things.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
May 14, 2007 - 01:52pm PT
|
fattrad, first of all, thank you for ignoring my question once again.
I'm trying very hard to think of the Israeli "atrocities"
This is a joke, right? Google Ariel Sharon for just a few answers. Here's a start:
[]i]Unit 101 undertook a series of military raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that helped bolster Israeli morale and fortify its deterrent image. The unit was known for targeting civilians as well as Arab soldiers, notably in the widely condemned Qibya operation in the fall of 1953, in which 69 Palestinian civilians, some of them children, were killed by Sharon's troops in a reprisal attack on their West Bank village.
And let's not forget his Final Solution to the Palestinian problem Sabra and Shatila.
Does the USS Liberty count as an atrocity? Or do you approve of attacks on Americans?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!