Filed under: Peace movement
Question:
Henry, you really are an idiot. you’re just a pompous angry white penile deficient blow hard FAUX news addicted impotent amerikan male sheeple
Right, but you are still the world’s biggest idiot.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To answer your ignorant question, "why does it make sense to lose lives to retrieve the dead" read the following: There is no greater humiliation for a soldier than to be left unburied, his body eaten by vultures and dogs. Our servicemen deserve to be brought back to their families, and their homeland, its the least we owe them. But dont worry, a coward such as yourself would never have to worry about that because you live in a fantacy land where every one is at peace. There will always be brave "MEN" who will fight for undeserving idiots like yourself. I understand that your a scared little coward who was probably born with a silver spoon in your little mouth. You believe what cowardly democrats want you to believe. I guess you think prayer in schools in unconstitutional too. This country was not founded by cowards like you. Since you are so righteous, maybe you should go to iraq and see how well you can do. Im sure they would love to have your cowardly ass over there, to drag through the streets and publicly humiliate. hell, maybe if you ask them nicely then they will have a change of heart and yall can sit around the fire and sing folk songs together.
let’s see, now. these brave men in the military fought for "me" in: Afghanistan? Nope Iraq (2) Nope Iraq (1) Nope Grenada Nope Panama Nope Vietnam Nope Korea Nope and please spare me the "we were attacked" bullshit re: Pearl Harbor. Why don’t you dig up FDR and ask him why he knew about it a year in advance; why it was a set-up to get the U.S. involved in WWII. Recall that the peace movement at that time had the support of 80% of the American public. In short, in the last 100 years this country has never been directly attacked or occupied. Certainly not like most of Europe (like FRANCE, which lost over a million soldiers in WWI). I won’t attempt to explain why your voodoo christian prayers don’t belong in public schools. I doubt you can read, let alone comprehend, the Bill of Rights. Rush and Ollie have probably brainwashed you into "believing" the Bill of Rights is a subversive liberal document. Well, that’s half right: it is a liberal document. You are just another one of those angry white, pot bellied, brain-dead, lobotomized sheeple who gets his "news" from Fifteenth Century Faux or any of the litany of rabid drooling mooncalves squatting in the ghetto of AM talk radio. Now go have another beer and send a check off to Pat Robberson.
Response:
Henry, you really are an idiot. you’re just a pompous angry white penile deficient blow hard FAUX news addicted impotent amerikan male sheeple Right, but you are still the world’s biggest idiot.
yawn. Rush is tugging at the zipper on your pants (again)
Response:
No I am just a proud American and Former Marine who has earned my place in this country. Why don’t you step onto a Marine Corp base and speak your idiotic views. You don’t have the balls and you know it. You would never say these things in public. I however would tell anyone directly, how i feel. I guess that is the non-liberal in me. I don’t hide behind political correctness. You on the other hand, are a coward. Your probably a flaming queer also, which would explain your loyalty to Bill Clinton. People like you are destroying this country, with your idiotic views and solutions.
Response:
No I am just a proud American and Former Marine who has earned my place in this country. Why don’t you step onto a Marine Corp base and speak your idiotic views. You don’t have the balls and you know it. You would never say these things in public. I however would tell anyone directly, how i feel. I guess that is the non-liberal in me. I don’t hide behind political correctness. You on the other hand, are a coward. Your probably a flaming queer also, which would explain your loyalty to Bill Clinton. People like you are destroying this country, with your idiotic views and solutions.
Tough talking cream puff! Shazam! Gomer Pyle was a Marine too….. Let’s see, you had three options: 1) law enforcement 2) prison guard 3) Military service. Took the latter because it requires no individual thought process. Speaking of "queers," what about all those swishy Marines from Pendleton who used to cruise the beaches near Oceanside? Made the place unfit for children and families. Oh, you’re a webtv moron…. Hmm, Bill Clinton or George Bush. That’s tough. Peace and prosperity versus depression … a commitment to civil rights versus a christian police state …. Let’s see…. Clinton smoked dope…. Bush is a dope…and a drunk…and a coke head…and a deserter who, under military rules, should be facing a firing squad. Yeah, your values are where your head is: embedded up your ass. Don’t inhale, tough guy.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tough talking cream puff! Shazam! Gomer Pyle was a Marine too….. Let’s see, you had three options: 1) law enforcement 2) prison guard 3) Military service. Took the latter because it requires no individual thought process. Speaking of "queers," what about all those swishy Marines from Pendleton who used to cruise the beaches near Oceanside? Made the place unfit for children and families. Oh, you’re a webtv moron…. Hmm, Bill Clinton or George Bush. That’s tough. Peace and prosperity versus depression … a commitment to civil rights versus a christian police state …. Let’s see…. Clinton smoked dope…. Bush is a dope…and a drunk…and a coke head…and a deserter who, under military rules, should be facing a firing squad. Yeah, your values are where your head is: embedded up your ass. Don’t inhale, tough guy.
You are still an anonymous idiot, world’s greatest.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – let’s see, now. these brave men in the military fought for "me" in: Afghanistan? Nope Iraq (2) Nope Iraq (1) Nope Grenada Nope Panama Nope Vietnam Nope Korea Nope and please spare me the "we were attacked" bullshit re: Pearl Harbor. Why don’t you dig up FDR and ask him why he knew about it a year in advance; why it was a set-up to get the U.S. involved in WWII. Recall that the peace movement at that time had the support of 80% of the American public. In short, in the last 100 years this country has never been directly attacked or occupied. Certainly not like most of Europe (like FRANCE, which lost over a million soldiers in WWI). I won’t attempt to explain why your voodoo christian prayers don’t belong in public schools. I doubt you can read, let alone comprehend, the Bill of Rights. Rush and Ollie have probably brainwashed you into "believing" the Bill of Rights is a subversive liberal document. Well, that’s half right: it is a liberal document. You are just another one of those angry white, pot bellied, brain-dead, lobotomized sheeple who gets his "news" from Fifteenth Century Faux or any of the litany of rabid drooling mooncalves squatting in the ghetto of AM talk radio. Now go have another beer and send a check off to Pat Robberson.
Don’t forget to wear your tin-hat – before FDR sends aliens to abduct you – idiot.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – let’s see, now. these brave men in the military fought for "me" in: Afghanistan? Nope Iraq (2) Nope Iraq (1) Nope Grenada Nope Panama Nope Vietnam Nope Korea Nope and please spare me the "we were attacked" bullshit re: Pearl Harbor. Why don’t you dig up FDR and ask him why he knew about it a year in advance; why it was a set-up to get the U.S. involved in WWII. Recall that the peace movement at that time had the support of 80% of the American public. In short, in the last 100 years this country has never been directly attacked or occupied. Certainly not like most of Europe (like FRANCE, which lost over a million soldiers in WWI). I won’t attempt to explain why your voodoo christian prayers don’t belong in public schools. I doubt you can read, let alone comprehend, the Bill of Rights. Rush and Ollie have probably brainwashed you into "believing" the Bill of Rights is a subversive liberal document. Well, that’s half right: it is a liberal document. You are just another one of those angry white, pot bellied, brain-dead, lobotomized sheeple who gets his "news" from Fifteenth Century Faux or any of the litany of rabid drooling mooncalves squatting in the ghetto of AM talk radio. Now go have another beer and send a check off to Pat Robberson. Don’t forget to wear your tin-hat – before FDR sends aliens to abduct you – idiot.
it won’t be aliens; it will be a treasonous thug from the bush cabal. aren’t you missing rush by pecking out these brilliant scribes?
Response:
What do you do for a living? lick envelopes? Surely it is not gonna be a job requiring any type of physical labor, cause im sure you wouldnt want to get your little hands dirty. Your a scrub..
Response:
What do you do for a living? lick envelopes? Surely it is not gonna be a job requiring any type of physical labor, cause im sure you wouldnt want to get your little hands dirty. Your a scrub..
who read you the webtv operating manual?
Response:
You sir, are a fascist. How’s that for not hiding behind political correctness! Fascist like you are destroying the country. Your blind patriotism and abject fear of terrorism are destroying this country, not those who disagree with you. It’s called freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Get used to it. You’re not in the marines now, you can think for yourself. Grow up and quit being so homophobic. Homophobia is indicative of small sex organ. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No I am just a proud American and Former Marine who has earned my place in this country. Why don’t you step onto a Marine Corp base and speak your idiotic views. You don’t have the balls and you know it. You would never say these things in public. I however would tell anyone directly, how i feel. I guess that is the non-liberal in me. I don’t hide behind political correctness. You on the other hand, are a coward. Your probably a flaming queer also, which would explain your loyalty to Bill Clinton. People like you are destroying this country, with your idiotic views and solutions.
Response:
I think the democrats in Texas prove who goes AWOL. The cowards run since they do not have the courage to stand and fight.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – After the Somalia incident, there came a time when Delta Force briefed the President (Coward Clinton) about the tragic loss of life in Somalia. As the briefer related the bitter fighting to retrieve the dead, President Clinton interrupted him to ask, "Why didn’t they just leave [their dead behind]?" The shocked silence was finally broken when Clinton was told, "sir, we don’t do that". The man who had fled his country rather than serve it in uniform in time of war demonstrated yet again not only his personal unworthiness to command our military, but also his total lack of understanding of the brave men under his command. Only someone profoundly ignorant of history and culture would not understand that. *Those of you that do not support President Bush or our troops are nothing more than free loading cowards who do not deserve their freedom. If the question arises, "who do those americans think they are?". one must look and see the murder, fear, and dictatorship that the Iraqi people faced under Sadams regime. Its no secret that Sadam murdered thousands of his own people. Any of you bleeding heart liberal whimpy tree hugging politically correct bastards that still refuse to show Talk about a coward? what kind of a breast thumping, ignorant moron are you? The current occupant squatting in Washington has a yellow streak a mile wide down his scrawny little back. AWOL and desertion, cocaine use, multiple DUI’s. You think that is a sign of honor? Clinton never went AWOL or deserted. He also never stole elections. Give one good accomplishment that runty little prick Bush has done except trash the country’s economy and its world image. Gotta love the fact that al qaeda is back ruling Afghanistan and the opium poppies are in bloom (after we bribed the taliban to stop opium production) and Hussein is on the loose (along with bin Laden – of course we built both of them up to what they are/were) while Iraq descends into anarchy. Nice victory! Oh yeah, whatever happened to those wmds? Did Hussein give them to Israel? String Bush up by his thumbs. Now go back to Limpballs and O’Reilly
Response:
To answer your ignorant question, "why does it make sense to lose lives to retrieve the dead" read the following: There is no greater humiliation for a soldier than to be left unburied, his body eaten by vultures and dogs. Our servicemen deserve to be brought back to their families, and their homeland, its the least we owe them. But dont worry, a coward such as yourself would never have to worry about that because you live in a fantacy land where every one is at peace. There will always be brave "MEN" who will fight for undeserving idiots like yourself. I understand that your a scared little coward who was probably born with a silver spoon in your little mouth. You believe what cowardly democrats want you to believe. I guess you think prayer in schools in unconstitutional too. This country was not founded by cowards like you. Since you are so righteous, maybe you should go to iraq and see how well you can do. Im sure they would love to have your cowardly ass over there, to drag through the streets and publicly humiliate. hell, maybe if you ask them nicely then they will have a change of heart and yall can sit around the fire and sing folk songs together.
Response:
Why should he wear the tin hat? You’re the one who is dislusional. Don’t like people who’s opinions disagree with yours. tough. If Osama attacked us on 9/11 to destroy our freedoms, you are aiding and abetting him. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – let’s see, now. these brave men in the military fought for "me" in: Afghanistan? Nope Iraq (2) Nope Iraq (1) Nope Grenada Nope Panama Nope Vietnam Nope Korea Nope and please spare me the "we were attacked" bullshit re: Pearl Harbor. Why don’t you dig up FDR and ask him why he knew about it a year in advance; why it was a set-up to get the U.S. involved in WWII. Recall that the peace movement at that time had the support of 80% of the American public. In short, in the last 100 years this country has never been directly attacked or occupied. Certainly not like most of Europe (like FRANCE, which lost over a million soldiers in WWI). I won’t attempt to explain why your voodoo christian prayers don’t belong in public schools. I doubt you can read, let alone comprehend, the Bill of Rights. Rush and Ollie have probably brainwashed you into "believing" the Bill of Rights is a subversive liberal document. Well, that’s half right: it is a liberal document. You are just another one of those angry white, pot bellied, brain-dead, lobotomized sheeple who gets his "news" from Fifteenth Century Faux or any of the litany of rabid drooling mooncalves squatting in the ghetto of AM talk radio. Now go have another beer and send a check off to Pat Robberson. Don’t forget to wear your tin-hat – before FDR sends aliens to abduct you – idiot.
Response:
Why should he wear the tin hat? You’re the one who is dislusional. Don’t like people who’s opinions disagree with yours. tough. If Osama attacked us on 9/11 to destroy our freedoms, you are aiding and abetting him.
Dude, he doesn’t have the brains to insult me. He’s just a webtv user (an AOL reject)
Response:
I agree. That’s why they call them jarheads. Webtv = intelecutal giant. NOT! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why should he wear the tin hat? You’re the one who is dislusional. Don’t like people who’s opinions disagree with yours. tough. If Osama attacked us on 9/11 to destroy our freedoms, you are aiding and abetting him. Dude, he doesn’t have the brains to insult me. He’s just a webtv user (an AOL reject)
Response:
After the Somalia incident, there came a time when Delta Force briefed the President (Coward Clinton) about the tragic loss of life in Somalia. As the briefer related the bitter fighting to retrieve the dead, President Clinton interrupted him to ask, "Why didn’t they just leave [their dead behind]?" The shocked silence was finally broken when Clinton was told, "sir, we don’t do that". The man who had fled his country rather than serve it in uniform in time of war demonstrated yet again not only his personal unworthiness to command our military, but also his total lack of understanding of the brave men under his command. Only someone profoundly ignorant of history and culture would not understand that. *Those of you that do not support President Bush or our troops are nothing more than free loading cowards who do not deserve their freedom. If the question arises, "who do those americans think they are?". one must look and see the murder, fear, and dictatorship that the Iraqi people faced under Sadams regime. Its no secret that Sadam murdered thousands of his own people. Any of you bleeding heart liberal whimpy tree hugging politically correct bastards that still refuse to show
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – After the Somalia incident, there came a time when Delta Force briefed the President (Coward Clinton) about the tragic loss of life in Somalia. As the briefer related the bitter fighting to retrieve the dead, President Clinton interrupted him to ask, "Why didn’t they just leave [their dead behind]?" The shocked silence was finally broken when Clinton was told, "sir, we don’t do that". The man who had fled his country rather than serve it in uniform in time of war demonstrated yet again not only his personal unworthiness to command our military, but also his total lack of understanding of the brave men under his command. Only someone profoundly ignorant of history and culture would not understand that. *Those of you that do not support President Bush or our troops are nothing more than free loading cowards who do not deserve their freedom. If the question arises, "who do those americans think they are?". one must look and see the murder, fear, and dictatorship that the Iraqi people faced under Sadams regime. Its no secret that Sadam murdered thousands of his own people. Any of you bleeding heart liberal whimpy tree hugging politically correct bastards that still refuse to show
Talk about a coward? what kind of a breast thumping, ignorant moron are you? The current occupant squatting in Washington has a yellow streak a mile wide down his scrawny little back. AWOL and desertion, cocaine use, multiple DUI’s. You think that is a sign of honor? Clinton never went AWOL or deserted. He also never stole elections. Give one good accomplishment that runty little prick Bush has done except trash the country’s economy and its world image. Gotta love the fact that al qaeda is back ruling Afghanistan and the opium poppies are in bloom (after we bribed the taliban to stop opium production) and Hussein is on the loose (along with bin Laden – of course we built both of them up to what they are/were) while Iraq descends into anarchy. Nice victory! Oh yeah, whatever happened to those wmds? Did Hussein give them to Israel? String Bush up by his thumbs. Now go back to Limpballs and O’Reilly
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – After the Somalia incident, there came a time when Delta Force briefed the President (Coward Clinton) about the tragic loss of life in Somalia. As the briefer related the bitter fighting to retrieve the dead, President Clinton interrupted him to ask, "Why didn’t they just leave [their dead behind]?" The shocked silence was finally broken when Clinton was told, "sir, we don’t do that". The man who had fled his country rather than serve it in uniform in time of war demonstrated yet again not only his personal unworthiness to command our military, but also his total lack of understanding of the brave men under his command. Only someone profoundly ignorant of history and culture would not understand that. *Those of you that do not support President Bush or our troops are nothing more than free loading cowards who do not deserve their freedom. If the question arises, "who do those americans think they are?". one must look and see the murder, fear, and dictatorship that the Iraqi people faced under Sadams regime. Its no secret that Sadam murdered thousands of his own people. Any of you bleeding heart liberal whimpy tree hugging politically correct bastards that still refuse to show Talk about a coward? what kind of a breast thumping, ignorant moron are you? The current occupant squatting in Washington has a yellow streak a mile wide down his scrawny little back. AWOL and desertion, cocaine use, multiple DUI’s. You think that is a sign of honor? Clinton never went AWOL or deserted. He also never stole elections. Give one good accomplishment that runty little prick Bush has done except trash the country’s economy and its world image. Gotta love the fact that al qaeda is back ruling Afghanistan and the opium poppies are in bloom (after we bribed the taliban to stop opium production) and Hussein is on the loose (along with bin Laden – of course we built both of them up to what they are/were) while Iraq descends into anarchy. Nice victory! Oh yeah, whatever happened to those wmds? Did Hussein give them to Israel? String Bush up by his thumbs. Now go back to Limpballs and O’Reilly
Oh now I see your problem. A chevy, Z(ero) 71 no less. Nice lead sled. Like the commercial goes, sinks "like a rock"
Response:
stuff about "Non Liberal American who drives a 4×4", to which I would like to add the following: President Clinton interrupted him to ask, "Why didn’t they just leave [their dead behind]?" The shocked silence was finally broken when Clinton was told, "sir, we don’t do that". .. tell me again why it makes sense to lose the lives of those still alive to retrieve bodies of those already dead? Cheers, Chanchao
Because we have lots of religiously inspired voodoo-ish bullshit notions about the dead
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – some stuff about "Non Liberal American who drives a 4×4", to which I would like to add the following: President Clinton interrupted him to ask, "Why didn’t they just leave [their dead behind]?" The shocked silence was finally broken when Clinton was told, "sir, we don’t do that". .. tell me again why it makes sense to lose the lives of those still alive to retrieve bodies of those already dead? Cheers, Chanchao Because we have lots of religiously inspired voodoo-ish bullshit notions about the dead
Henry, you really are an idiot.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – some stuff about "Non Liberal American who drives a 4×4", to which I would like to add the following: President Clinton interrupted him to ask, "Why didn’t they just leave [their dead behind]?" The shocked silence was finally broken when Clinton was told, "sir, we don’t do that". .. tell me again why it makes sense to lose the lives of those still alive to retrieve bodies of those already dead? Cheers, Chanchao Because we have lots of religiously inspired voodoo-ish bullshit notions about the dead Henry, you really are an idiot.
you’re just a pompous angry white penile deficient blow hard FAUX news addicted impotent amerikan male sheeple
Response:
stuff about "Non Liberal American who drives a 4×4", to which I would like to add the following: President Clinton interrupted him to ask, "Why didn’t they just leave [their dead behind]?" The shocked silence was finally broken when Clinton was told, "sir, we don’t do that".
.. tell me again why it makes sense to lose the lives of those still alive to retrieve bodies of those already dead? Cheers, Chanchao
Response:
Question:
I was noticing that in looking for something, and coming across the assorted ‘Malachy prophecy’ sites, that they all seems pretty convinced that, regardless of the veracity or etiology of the ‘prophecy’ attributed to Malachy, that just as a puzzle, JP II is second from last – Work or Labor of the Sun. I very much beg to differ, just a word puzzle, if nothing else. It doesn’t at all fit. What does fit is something else. A skipped Pope. JP I, from what I see, isn’t mentioned. The previous ‘prophecy’ is of a Lily of Lillies, a Papacy of the Lily of the Lilies. Many say that fits the coat of arm for Paul VI. I think it’s probably deeper. If you’re looking for a match, Dupont’s little book (a TAN reprint) suggest martyrdom, or at least, death. How, exactly, I can’t guess. But it’s probably more something like that which would apply. The Pope of the Moon, the Papacy of the half moon, is next, and I think would have to refer to JP II. There are two possibilities for such. The prominent symbolism of the half-moon is incorporation by Communism, world-wide, and also by . . . that’s right . . . Islam. Dupont suggests the following about this Pope, the ‘half-moon’ Pope: Symbolism of the "moon" is "the worldly kingdom" or "temporal order". Even more than Paul VI, no Pope has been so committed to a temporal ‘kingdom of this world’ than JP II. None has so embraced worldly notions, desacralization, ‘reaching to the world’, pushing out Catholic Revelation. He says, "another explanation is that he will be a bad Pope, himself influenced and dominated by worldly ideas, and thus do great havoc to The Church." Such has been said of JP II. And such is obvious. As for the symbolism of Islam – Islam seems quieter, now, following the fall of Saddam. But even now, and before, Islam grew as an international force. The French, arguably, apart from Chirac himself, acted in fear of large a Islamic minority in their midst, truly in the ‘midst of a half-moon’, to oppose any workable sanction against Saddam – which Muslims had adopted as a hero, at least apparently in France. Islam was the motive behind the 911 attack, so Bin Laden said. So there was a rise . . of Islam. Aljazeera fanned the flames. And there were the actions of Communism, also under the half-moon flag (Muslims marched in NYC, to the jeers of New Yorkers; but the ‘peace movement’ got major funding from North Korea; Communist Russia tried to forge itself into a Franco-German ‘axis’, and so on). All this, generally, may have been encouraged by the Pope in some way; apart from his specific blunder in trying to prolong the Saddam regime, and his face-to-face with a man now under detention – Tariq Aziz. Islam hasn’t exactly been . . . . opposed . . . . in Rome, which was a complaint a few years ago, specifically. So there may be a cause/effect that’s more than what seems tangential to ‘ecumenism’. The next Pope, who is said to be JP II, and clearly couldn’t be, is identified as – Work/labor of the Sun, or the Papacy of the Labor of the Sun. That sounds rather uplifting, and frankly rather orthodox. Dupont has: "Kramer . . . maintains this figure represents a highly disputed papal election." Well, in these politically correct times, particularly in the institutional church of JP II, . . . what . . . exactly . . . might cause such an overwhelming dispute? The election of someone suspected of Catholic orthodoxy . . . . perhaps? What one thing could possibly spark a greater dispute, frankly? He rules with a ‘rod of iron’. That might suggest, if you don’t confess Catholicism – Mr. Deacon, Pastor, Bishop, Cardinal – it’s out the door you go. It’s a fair reading. And it suggests the college of cardinal are outwitted in such an election – and essentially want a ‘recount’. Anyhow. All just utter speculation. It’s nothing more than that. There’s no guarantee the prophecy is a) genuine, b) whatever the case in a), that it is accurate. Peace. One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot discern truth from lies. Another is when they don’t even bother to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear. [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I was noticing that in looking for something, and coming across the assorted ‘Malachy prophecy’ sites, that they all seems pretty convinced that, regardless of the veracity or etiology of the ‘prophecy’ attributed to Malachy, that just as a puzzle, JP II is second from last – Work or Labor of the Sun. I very much beg to differ, just a word puzzle, if nothing else. It doesn’t at all fit. What does fit is something else. A skipped Pope. JP I, from what I see, isn’t mentioned. The previous ‘prophecy’ is of a Lily of Lillies, a Papacy of the Lily of the Lilies. Many say that fits the coat of arm for Paul VI. I think it’s probably deeper. If you’re looking for a match, Dupont’s little book (a TAN reprint) suggest martyrdom, or at least, death. How, exactly, I can’t guess. But it’s probably more something like that which would apply. The Pope of the Moon, the Papacy of the half moon, is next, and I think would have to refer to JP II. There are two possibilities for such. The prominent symbolism of the half-moon is incorporation by Communism, world-wide, and also by . . . that’s right . . . Islam. Dupont suggests the following about this Pope, the ‘half-moon’ Pope: Symbolism of the "moon" is "the worldly kingdom" or "temporal order". Even more than Paul VI, no Pope has been so committed to a temporal ‘kingdom of this world’ than JP II. None has so embraced worldly notions, desacralization, ‘reaching to the world’, pushing out Catholic Revelation. He says, "another explanation is that he will be a bad Pope, himself influenced and dominated by worldly ideas, and thus do great havoc to The Church." Such has been said of JP II. And such is obvious. As for the symbolism of Islam – Islam seems quieter, now, following the fall of Saddam. But even now, and before, Islam grew as an international force. The French, arguably, apart from Chirac himself, acted in fear of large a Islamic minority in their midst, truly in the ‘midst of a half-moon’, to oppose any workable sanction against Saddam – which Muslims had adopted as a hero, at least apparently in France. Islam was the motive behind the 911 attack, so Bin Laden said. So there was a rise . . of Islam. Aljazeera fanned the flames. And there were the actions of Communism, also under the half-moon flag (Muslims marched in NYC, to the jeers of New Yorkers; but the ‘peace movement’ got major funding from North Korea; Communist Russia tried to forge itself into a Franco-German ‘axis’, and so on). All this, generally, may have been encouraged by the Pope in some way; apart from his specific blunder in trying to prolong the Saddam regime, and his face-to-face with a man now under detention – Tariq Aziz. Islam hasn’t exactly been . . . . opposed . . . . in Rome, which was a complaint a few years ago, specifically. So there may be a cause/effect that’s more than what seems tangential to ‘ecumenism’. The next Pope, who is said to be JP II, and clearly couldn’t be, is identified as – Work/labor of the Sun, or the Papacy of the Labor of the Sun. That sounds rather uplifting, and frankly rather orthodox. Dupont has: "Kramer . . . maintains this figure represents a highly disputed papal election." Well, in these politically correct times, particularly in the institutional church of JP II, . . . what . . . exactly . . . might cause such an overwhelming dispute? The election of someone suspected of Catholic orthodoxy . . . . perhaps? What one thing could possibly spark a greater dispute, frankly? He rules with a ‘rod of iron’. That might suggest, if you don’t confess Catholicism – Mr. Deacon, Pastor, Bishop, Cardinal – it’s out the door you go. It’s a fair reading. And it suggests the college of cardinal are outwitted in such an election – and essentially want a ‘recount’. Anyhow. All just utter speculation. It’s nothing more than that. There’s no guarantee the prophecy is a) genuine, b) whatever the case in a), that it is accurate.
Why don’t you just canonize Jeanne Dixon? Paul
Response:
I’m glad they are about to canonize the guy who gave us cappacino…so much more useful and worhty than yet one more idiot people like Mark adore simply because they killed a lot of non-Catholics. Paul
Response:
Question:
"Rob Duncan" <robdun…@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:yK6dnePs-M8Z6OKjXTWcoA@gbronline.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "original" <willysn…@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:b5nisj$ai4$1@bob.news.rcn.net… > > <hant…@netins.net> wrote in message > news:b5nf43$f4d$1@ins22.netins.net… > > > original wrote: > > > > Here’s a check you can take to the bank and cash right here and now: > > > > Regardless of what is presented, the "peace movement" will blame the > > > United > > > > States, which is held responsible for each and every failure, outrage > > and > > > > disappointment in the world no matter where it occurs. Nothing — > > > absolutely > > > > nothing — will change this. > > > That has to be the dumbest remark I have seen in this ng! > > > K.K. 
> > Sometimes the truth can be a very dumb thing. > I thought about it. What you said is true. Not that there isnt, but I > couldnt think of anything that the leftists havent blamed on the US. > According to wacko left-libbers, everything bad that happens, is Americas > fault. > Rob
Rob – you don’t have a clue about why I said what I said to original – do you? I was just paying him back for saying the same thing to me. And if it makes you feel bigger & better to refer to me (or ones like me) as a wacko – so be it. It doesn’t bother me at all….:-) K.K.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > Sometimes the truth can be a very dumb thing. > > I thought about it. What you said is true. Not that there isnt, but I > > couldnt think of anything that the leftists havent blamed on the US. > > According to wacko left-libbers, everything bad that happens, is Americas > > fault. > > Rob > Rob – you don’t have a clue about why I said what I said to original – do > you? I was just paying him back for saying the same thing to me. And if it > makes you feel bigger & better to refer to me (or ones like me) as a wacko – > so be it. It doesn’t bother me at all….:-) > K.K.
I was just refering to his statement. That all problems in the world are caused by America and Republicans. I dare you to name one problem caused by liberals. Come on… I dare ya! ;^) Or name me one problem that "isnt" caused by Republicans. I dont think "you" are a leftist wacko. Just an idealistic kind hearted individual. Thats all. And thats a good thing. And thats a lot. The right cant be right all the time, independants cant be right all the time, and the left cant be wrong all the time. Plenty of "wrongness" to go around if you ask me. All opinions are needed. But so’s an educated opinion. But reading and believing liberal authors doesnt make one educated. Just indoctrinated. Rob Rob
Response:
"Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message
news:b5m63c0b4i@enews3.newsguy.com… > "Rob Duncan" <robdun…@gbronline.com> wrote in message > news:gROdnfyx7IC-CeOjXTWcoA@gbronline.com… > > guarded by an army batalion headed by a GENERAL? With electric fencing > > surrounding it? > Who’d you get *that* info from? A battalion and a general?
Ahem… according to AP: > The U.S. military’s discovery was first reported by the Jerusalem Post, > which has a reporter travelling with the unit from the army’s 3rd Infantry > Division which reached the chemical plant. The newspaper reported that > about 30 Iraqi troops, including a general, surrendered at the plant.
First time I ever heard of a batallion of 30. And I see in other stories that "general" has become "general officer"… which is a pretty vague term. As I said… I do believe there will actually be some real, honest to God chem weapons found somewhere, and that there won’t be a great deal of them. We’ll see. ((U)) M
Response:
"Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message
news:b5m63c0b4i@enews3.newsguy.com… > "Rob Duncan" <robdun…@gbronline.com> wrote in message > news:gROdnfyx7IC-CeOjXTWcoA@gbronline.com… > > guarded by an army batalion headed by a GENERAL? With electric fencing > > surrounding it? > Who’d you get *that* info from? A battalion and a general?
From the reporter on scene with the troops. What? Who? I didnt say battalion. Platoon. oops. But to be honest I was thinking battalion when I wrote that for some reason. dont know why I had battalion on my mind. The reporter on scene reported that it was a General. Two of them in fact. But she wasnt sure if their rank equated more to a rank lower. But she was pretty sure it was a Brig Gen. > Sure ain’t the Pentagon talking about shit like that. All *they* say is > that there’s a lot of small-arms ammo in the place and some > suspicious-looking documents they need to have translated right quick.
They havent entered the building due to potential booby-traps. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > The reason we dont/cant/will never share secret info is because it > > compromises our inteligence gathering capabilities. Not to mention its > gets > > our spies killed and drys up all usefull sources of info. > Rob. > Think, maybe… OK? > Once the place is already invaded and secured, there are no longer any > intelligence sources to be risked in letting folks know exactly what’s been > found there. The source of the info suddenly becomes the very people who > invaded, secured and are occupying the place… and everyone already knows > who there are and why they’re doing what they’re doing. > ((U)) > M
Were thinking along two different tracks. Im talking about turning over classified info to UN weapons inspectors prior to this whole thing starting. If they had done that they would then reverse engineer who they got the info from and that guy is gone, and all future usefull info that could come from him is gone as well. Thats why it was never turned over. Dya think we just stumbled across a top-secret chem-warfare manufacture plant in the middle of a nation the size of California? We drove straight to it. Not to mention that out of the thousands of elements in that country that particular one had a reporter on it. For… you know who. Plans within plans within plans within plans. Yer right though… once we got there its a moot point. Rob
Response:
"Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message
news:b5m6rg0ck9@enews3.newsguy.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message > news:b5m63c0b4i@enews3.newsguy.com… > > "Rob Duncan" <robdun…@gbronline.com> wrote in message > > news:gROdnfyx7IC-CeOjXTWcoA@gbronline.com… > > > guarded by an army batalion headed by a GENERAL? With electric fencing > > > surrounding it? > > Who’d you get *that* info from? A battalion and a general? > Ahem… according to AP: > > The U.S. military’s discovery was first reported by the Jerusalem Post, > > which has a reporter travelling with the unit from the army’s 3rd Infantry > > Division which reached the chemical plant. The newspaper reported that > > about 30 Iraqi troops, including a general, surrendered at the plant. > First time I ever heard of a batallion of 30.
LOL. I addressed my mistake in the previous post. Still not sure why I had battalion on my mind. Just REAL big guys with REAL big mustaches. > And I see in other stories that "general" has become "general officer"… > which is a pretty vague term. > As I said… I do believe there will actually be some real, honest to God > chem weapons found somewhere, and that there won’t be a great deal of them. > We’ll see. > ((U)) > M
My fear is that this is the tip of the iceberg. I watched a press briefing with Iraqs top dog and they sound awfully confident. I think they may be intentionally surrendering and are just sucking us in for a bad-ass flanking movement in which well be gas-bombed to death. Something is awfully fishy about all of this. I think that they have far more bio-chem weapons than we could imagine and they are just baiting the trap. This isnt looking so good. Rob
Response:
Rob Duncan wrote: > My fear is that this is the tip of the iceberg. I watched a press briefing > with Iraqs top dog and they sound awfully confident. I think they may be > intentionally surrendering and are just sucking us in for a bad-ass flanking > movement in which well be gas-bombed to death. Something is awfully fishy > about all of this. I think that they have far more bio-chem weapons than we > could imagine and they are just baiting the trap. > This isnt looking so good. > Rob
I saw friendly people welcoming our troops to their town. The next day I watched a reporter interviewing men in the same town and they were decidedly unfriendly. My thought was that the troops were being sucked into Bagdad and then Saddam could wipe them out. If he thinks he is doomed, he could wipe out the entire town. At least he would leave a legacy of some sort. Saddam would be remembered forever. Shortly after that I watched a former CIA man say basically the same thing I had been thinking. The increased fighting the following day wiped out the feeling that it was going to easy for the troops. Saddam will be making a major announcement on tv tonight so I’m staying up until he talks. Carole
Response:
"Rob Duncan" <robdun…@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:mt6cnTp4N7A3NuOjXTWcqg@gbronline.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message > news:b5m6rg0ck9@enews3.newsguy.com… > > As I said… I do believe there will actually be some real, honest to God > > chem weapons found somewhere, and that there won’t be a great deal of > them. > > We’ll see. > > ((U)) > > M > My fear is that this is the tip of the iceberg. I watched a press briefing > with Iraqs top dog and they sound awfully confident. I think they may be > intentionally surrendering and are just sucking us in for a bad-ass flanking > movement in which well be gas-bombed to death. Something is awfully fishy > about all of this.
The fishiest thing is what I just heard on BBC radio. Apparently, according to a defense strategy expert with some unnamed US and UK connections, it was the main plan (honest to God, I’m not making this up… though it’s possible the "expert" was making it up… I don’t trust *any* war info,) to get the outer ring of Republican Guard defense around Baghdad to rebel on their orders and to do the invading of Baghdad, which would prevent coalition forces having to go in and risk casualties themselves in a street-fight… and (oh, what a surprise) the plan appears to be failing. > I think that they have far more bio-chem weapons than we > could imagine and they are just baiting the trap.
Like you said: it’s war…. for them, too. They’re out to force, corner, demoralize, paralyse and destroy coalition forces in every way available to them… What’s happening is a press by Iraqi forces for urban war, because even though vastly outnumbered and completely doomed, they stand their best chance of humiliating a few US soldiers and a great many US planners that way. Coalition planners are being forced to choose between inflicting massive casualties on civilians in an all-out aerial and mid-range artillery assault, or possibly sustaining unacceptable casualties themselves in a ground assault conducted house to house. It was predicted a long time ago… and apparently avoiding it has been insufficiently thought through. ((U)) M
Response:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:54:29 -0800, "Rob Duncan" <robdun…@gbronline.com> wrote in alt.support.mult-sclerosis: >This isnt looking so good.
It hasn’t looked good from the beginning, Rob. War is never good. — Joan Beware Tommy the Troll who is now asking for handouts on the internet.
Response:
original wrote: > Here’s a check you can take to the bank and cash right here and now: > Regardless of what is presented, the "peace movement" will blame the United > States, which is held responsible for each and every failure, outrage and > disappointment in the world no matter where it occurs. Nothing — absolutely > nothing — will change this.
That has to be the dumbest remark I have seen in this ng! K.K.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<hant…@netins.net> wrote in message news:b5nf43$f4d$1@ins22.netins.net… > original wrote: > > Here’s a check you can take to the bank and cash right here and now: > > Regardless of what is presented, the "peace movement" will blame the > United > > States, which is held responsible for each and every failure, outrage and > > disappointment in the world no matter where it occurs. Nothing — > absolutely > > nothing — will change this. > That has to be the dumbest remark I have seen in this ng! > K.K.
Sometimes the truth can be a very dumb thing.
Response:
"original" <willysn…@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:b5nisj$ai4$1@bob.news.rcn.net… > <hant…@netins.net> wrote in message
news:b5nf43$f4d$1@ins22.netins.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > original wrote: > > > Here’s a check you can take to the bank and cash right here and now: > > > Regardless of what is presented, the "peace movement" will blame the > > United > > > States, which is held responsible for each and every failure, outrage > and > > > disappointment in the world no matter where it occurs. Nothing — > > absolutely > > > nothing — will change this. > > That has to be the dumbest remark I have seen in this ng! > > K.K. > Sometimes the truth can be a very dumb thing.
I thought about it. What you said is true. Not that there isnt, but I couldnt think of anything that the leftists havent blamed on the US. According to wacko left-libbers, everything bad that happens, is Americas fault. Rob
Response:
Actually, it’s a weapons facility. About 100 acres large, well-camouflaged, surrounded by an electric fence. Maybe this will satisfy the puke-for-peace crowd. CW
Response:
"CW" <chsw10…@att.net> wrote in message
news:%Wtfa.21472$ja4.1472670@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… > Actually, it’s a weapons facility. About 100 acres large, well-camouflaged, > surrounded by an electric fence. > Maybe this will satisfy the puke-for-peace crowd.
I’ll believe it fully if the UN inspectors are invited in immediately, and if they verify beyond question that the evidence isn’t planted. (I’m inclined to believe it already, but I’ve heard so many lies and so much disinformation in the last 26 months that I no longer have the ability or the will to accept even what my gut tells me is probably true.) ((U)) M
Response:
Michael wrote: > I’ll believe it fully if the UN inspectors are invited > in immediately, and if they verify beyond question that > the evidence isn’t planted.
Don’t hold your breath. The Washington Post, buried in a story about new data re: weapons in Iraq, reported that "the White House has decided, for now, to assign no role in the disarmament effort to the key U.N. agencies that were charged by the Security Council with carrying out the search for banned weapons." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57066-2003Mar19?language=pr… And … "there will be no independent U.N. witnesses in the search". The US also admitted that it, too, violated Resolution 1441: "Officials said the United States has more information on Hussein’s weapons programs than it has shared publicly or with U.N. inspectors." As we’ve said continually, the US will "find" weapons. No one believes that it won’t. News reports indicated about a half day ago that no weapons had been found … and then, voila! There they were. Oddly enough, Bush said today that he was pleased the Iraq hadn’t used weapons of mass destruction. He never said, however, what he thought they were saving them for. — Kathie kkt@tds[DON'T_SPAM_IT'S_NOT_NICE].net [take out what doesn't belong] "She wrote a letter ‘calling me twisted and maniacal, but she didn’t say I was wrong’" Greg Palast on Katherine Harris
Response:
"CW" <chsw10…@att.net> wrote in message
news:%Wtfa.21472$ja4.1472670@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… > Actually, it’s a weapons facility. About 100 acres large, well-camouflaged, > surrounded by an electric fence. > Maybe this will satisfy the puke-for-peace crowd.
Oh come on, of course it won’t. The "peace activists" will never believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime possesses chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. If confronted with the evidence, they will say the U.S. planted it. If that is authoritatively refuted, they will say Hussein had the sovereign right to possess these weapons. Here’s a check you can take to the bank and cash right here and now: Regardless of what is presented, the "peace movement" will blame the United States, which is held responsible for each and every failure, outrage and disappointment in the world no matter where it occurs. Nothing — absolutely nothing — will change this.
Response:
"Michael" <muirh…@island.net> wrote in message
news:b5ls9h02d53@enews4.newsguy.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "CW" <chsw10…@att.net> wrote in message > news:%Wtfa.21472$ja4.1472670@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… > > Actually, it’s a weapons facility. About 100 acres large, > well-camouflaged, > > surrounded by an electric fence. > > Maybe this will satisfy the puke-for-peace crowd. > I’ll believe it fully if the UN inspectors are invited in immediately, and > if they verify beyond question that the evidence isn’t planted. > (I’m inclined to believe it already, but I’ve heard so many lies and so much > disinformation in the last 26 months that I no longer have the ability or > the will to accept even what my gut tells me is probably true.)
Ahem. As I said… http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/23/chemicals_030323 Reports of Iraq chemical cache ‘premature’: Pentagon Last Updated Sun, 23 Mar 2003 22:22:09 WASHINGTON – Stories by some media outlets that U.S. forces have uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory in Iraq may be wrong, the Pentagon cautioned late Sunday. Various news agencies carried reports that a factory had been found near the city of Najaf, about 160 kilometres from Baghdad. Troops are examining "sites of interests," U.S. Central Command confirmed in a statement. But it offered no details, and warned that claims the factory produced chemical weapons are "premature."
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"KT" <adfa…@adfa.com> wrote in message news:3E7E7FA9.5705FDE@adfa.com… > Michael wrote: > > I’ll believe it fully if the UN inspectors are invited > > in immediately, and if they verify beyond question that > > the evidence isn’t planted. > Don’t hold your breath. The Washington Post, buried in a story about > new data re: weapons in Iraq, reported that "the White House has > decided, for now, to assign no role in the disarmament effort to the > key U.N. agencies that were charged by the Security Council with > carrying out the search for banned weapons." > http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57066-2003Mar19?language=pr… > And … "there will be no independent U.N. witnesses in the search". > The US also admitted that it, too, violated Resolution 1441: > "Officials said the United States has more information on Hussein’s > weapons programs than it has shared publicly or with U.N. > inspectors." > As we’ve said continually, the US will "find" weapons. No one > believes that it won’t. News reports indicated about a half day ago > that no weapons had been found … and then, voila! There they were. > Oddly enough, Bush said today that he was pleased the Iraq hadn’t > used weapons of mass destruction. He never said, however, what he > thought they were saving them for. > — > Kathie
Whats your point? This isnt a UN action. This is a US action backed by over 30 willing countries. A "pesticide" plant? Over one-hundred acres, guarded by an army batalion headed by a GENERAL? With electric fencing surrounding it? The reason we dont/cant/will never share secret info is because it compromises our inteligence gathering capabilities. Not to mention its gets our spies killed and drys up all usefull sources of info. Why are some people incapable of understanding that? Rob
Response:
"Rob Duncan" <robdun…@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:gROdnfyx7IC-CeOjXTWcoA@gbronline.com… > guarded by an army batalion headed by a GENERAL? With electric fencing > surrounding it?
Who’d you get *that* info from? A battalion and a general? Sure ain’t the Pentagon talking about shit like that. All *they* say is that there’s a lot of small-arms ammo in the place and some suspicious-looking documents they need to have translated right quick. > The reason we dont/cant/will never share secret info is because it > compromises our inteligence gathering capabilities. Not to mention its gets > our spies killed and drys up all usefull sources of info.
Rob. Think, maybe… OK? Once the place is already invaded and secured, there are no longer any intelligence sources to be risked in letting folks know exactly what’s been found there. The source of the info suddenly becomes the very people who invaded, secured and are occupying the place… and everyone already knows who there are and why they’re doing what they’re doing. ((U)) M
Response:
Question:
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. And a nitwit seeks to waste newsgroup bandwidth with off-topic posts. Don’t feed the trolls.
Feed the trolls! they’re more interesting than tennis is anyway!
Response:
A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.
And a nitwit seeks to waste newsgroup bandwidth with off-topic posts. Don’t feed the trolls.
Response:
"Awake" < Thanks for shareing! Pops
Response:
The Jewish fourball tee off at 11 am each Sturday at my club. Nice bunch of blokes.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Copyright March 24, 2003 The American Conservative Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. by Patrick J. Buchanan The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: "Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?" Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so. Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these "Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’-and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen-it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’" Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a "key tenet of neoconservatism." He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush "sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible." (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.) David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: "Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. … Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left." Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: "In London … one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy." Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine "has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of … Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’" Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that "members of the Bush team have been doing Israel’s bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’" Kaplan thunders: The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be. What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: "Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card." What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives. Indeed, it is the charge of "anti-Semitism" itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon. And this time the boys have cried "wolf" once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus: And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. . These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. "If Stanley Hoffman can say this," asks Kaus, "why can’t Chris Matthews?" Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party. In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, "The Likudniks are really in charge now." Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.) Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a "special closeness" to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, "For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies." And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon’s interest, is it in America’s interest? This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, "Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight." We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity. Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War. They charge us with anti-Semitism-i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a "passionate attachment" to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America. The Neoconservatives Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980. A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank. Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.). All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson. Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power. Beating the War Drums When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into
… read more »
Response:
Copyright March 24, 2003 The American Conservative Whose War? A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest. by Patrick J. Buchanan The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: "Can you assure American viewers … that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?" Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what comes naturally, seeking student deferments from political combat by claiming the status of a persecuted minority group. People who claim to be writing the foreign policy of the world superpower, one would think, would be a little more manly in the schoolyard of politics. Not so. Former Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot kicked off the campaign. When these "Buchananites toss around ‘neoconservative’-and cite names like Wolfowitz and Cohen-it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is ‘Jewish conservative.’" Yet Boot readily concedes that a passionate attachment to Israel is a "key tenet of neoconservatism." He also claims that the National Security Strategy of President Bush "sounds as if it could have come straight out from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible." (For the uninitiated, Commentary, the bible in which Boot seeks divine guidance, is the monthly of the American Jewish Committee.) David Brooks of the Weekly Standard wails that attacks based on the Israel tie have put him through personal hell: "Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail and in my mailbox. … Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It’s just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite Right, but on the peace-movement left." Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan endures his own purgatory abroad: "In London … one finds Britain’s finest minds propounding, in sophisticated language and melodious Oxbridge accents, the conspiracy theories of Pat Buchanan concerning the ‘neoconservative’ (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy." Lawrence Kaplan of the New Republic charges that our little magazine "has been transformed into a forum for those who contend that President Bush has become a client of … Ariel Sharon and the ‘neoconservative war party.’" Referencing Charles Lindbergh, he accuses Paul Schroeder, Chris Matthews, Robert Novak, Georgie Anne Geyer, Jason Vest of the Nation, and Gary Hart of implying that "members of the Bush team have been doing Israel’s bidding and, by extension, exhibiting ‘dual loyalties.’" Kaplan thunders: The real problem with such claims is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic. Invoking the specter of dual loyalty to mute criticism and debate amounts to more than the everyday pollution of public discourse. It is the nullification of public discourse, for how can one refute accusations grounded in ethnicity? The charges are, ipso facto, impossible to disprove. And so they are meant to be. What is going on here? Slate’s Mickey Kaus nails it in the headline of his retort: "Lawrence Kaplan Plays the Anti-Semitic Card." What Kaplan, Brooks, Boot, and Kagan are doing is what the Rev. Jesse Jackson does when caught with some mammoth contribution from a Fortune 500 company he has lately accused of discriminating. He plays the race card. So, too, the neoconservatives are trying to fend off critics by assassinating their character and impugning their motives. Indeed, it is the charge of "anti-Semitism" itself that is toxic. For this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their warmongering threatens our country, even as it finds a reliable echo in Ariel Sharon. And this time the boys have cried "wolf" once too often. It is not working. As Kaus notes, Kaplan’s own New Republic carries Harvard professor Stanley Hoffman. In writing of the four power centers in this capital that are clamoring for war, Hoffman himself describes the fourth thus: And, finally, there is a loose collection of friends of Israel, who believe in the identity of interests between the Jewish state and the United States. . These analysts look on foreign policy through the lens of one dominant concern: Is it good or bad for Israel? Since that nation’s founding in 1948, these thinkers have never been in very good odor at the State Department, but now they are well ensconced in the Pentagon, around such strategists as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. "If Stanley Hoffman can say this," asks Kaus, "why can’t Chris Matthews?" Kaus also notes that Kaplan somehow failed to mention the most devastating piece tying the neoconservatives to Sharon and his Likud Party. In a Feb. 9 front-page article in the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser quotes a senior U.S. official as saying, "The Likudniks are really in charge now." Kaiser names Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith as members of a pro-Israel network inside the administration and adds David Wurmser of the Defense Department and Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. (Abrams is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor emeritus of Commentary, whose magazine has for decades branded critics of Israel as anti-Semites.) Noting that Sharon repeatedly claims a "special closeness" to the Bushites, Kaiser writes, "For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud government are pursuing nearly identical policies." And a valid question is: how did this come to be, and while it is surely in Sharon’s interest, is it in America’s interest? This is a time for truth. For America is about to make a momentous decision: whether to launch a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations against which Harvard professor Samuel Huntington has warned, a war we believe would be a tragedy and a disaster for this Republic. To avert this war, to answer the neocon smears, we ask that our readers review their agenda as stated in their words. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, "Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight." We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity. Not in our lifetimes has America been so isolated from old friends. Far worse, President Bush is being lured into a trap baited for him by these neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations in the Cold War. They charge us with anti-Semitism-i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a "passionate attachment" to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America. The Neoconservatives Who are the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, boat-people from the McGovern revolution who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism’s long march to power with Ronald Reagan in 1980. A neoconservative, wrote Kevin Phillips back then, is more likely to be a magazine editor than a bricklayer. Today, he or she is more likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) or one of its clones like the Center for Security Policy or the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). As one wag writes, a neocon is more familiar with the inside of a think tank than an Abrams tank. Almost none came out of the business world or military, and few if any came out of the Goldwater campaign. The heroes they invoke are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Martin Luther King, and Democratic Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson (Wash.) and Pat Moynihan (N.Y.). All are interventionists who regard Stakhanovite support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed. Among their luminaries are Jeane Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennett, Michael Novak, and James Q. Wilson. Their publications include the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New Republic, National Review, and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Though few in number, they wield disproportionate power through control of the conservative foundations and magazines, through their syndicated columns, and by attaching themselves to men of power. Beating the War Drums When the Cold War ended, these neoconservatives began casting about for a new crusade to give meaning to their lives. On Sept. 11, their time came. They seized on that horrific atrocity to steer America’s rage into all-out war to destroy their despised enemies, the Arab and Islamic "rogue states" that have resisted U.S. hegemony and loathe Israel. The War Party’s plan, however, had been in preparation far in advance of 9/11. And when President Bush, after defeating the Taliban, was looking for a new front in the war on terror, they put their precooked meal in front … read more »
Response:
Question:
in an ultimate attempt to be funny and witty at once, that summum of the evolution – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First Person: Saddam’s brutality is a reality, says victim By Katrin Michael 17-03-2003 As an Iraqi woman who wages peace and has fought in war, I am compelled to support a U.S.-led action to remove Saddam Hussain. After 26 years of resistance against Saddam, I have come to the conclusion that only forces from outside Iraq can bring an end to the nightmare of his rule. Sodamn has until Tuesday to get out of town. She will be pleased. Bob The stories of Saddam’s brutality are all true. Ethnic cleansing, summary imprisonment and execution, torture and rape are all part of the nightmare. I know this from personal experience. My father founded an Iraqi peace movement, a crime for which he was murdered. At the age of 14, I was arrested by the regime merely because I joined the Iraqi Women’s League. I was not the only young girl arrested for such a trivial offence. Later, I joined the Kurdish resistance, even though I was, in their eyes, a mere woman and a Christian. I travelled in disguise to Baghdad and around the country to organise the opposition to Saddam. But when I was injured in one of his chemical bombardments against hundreds of Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988, I was forced to flee to a refugee camp in southern Turkey, where I stayed until I recovered and finally reached freedom in the United States in 1997. I continue to suffer to this day from lung, nerve and eye damage caused by these weapons. No one in Iraq is immune from Saddam’s brutality
Question:
Is It A War On Islam? By Pervez Hoodbhoy Street opinion in Pakistan, and probably most Muslim countries, holds that Islam is the sole target of America’s new wars.
Dubya’s religious fascism is probably secondary to the oil.
Response:
By the way, a few might have spoken up, but a majority remain silent. Not to say that I blame them. I hear it’s rather difficult to get your message out when you live under the rule of a dictator.
And I guess you would know, living in the USA under un-elected Bush and his cronies. Strange how the contracts are getting awarded to them, isn’t it? And don’t go shooting your mouth about freedom of speech, when you deny it to your anti-war demonstrators. Stan Kurowski
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Being that the problem America has to confront (you know the radical killers who have vowed to destroy us) consists of millions of radical muslims. I think that the non-radical muslims out there would be a lot more productive (and safe) if they would speak out against the radical factions of their religion instead of sitting around whining. Oh, I forgot productivity is not a popular trait of any muslim country these days, go figure… What do you mean these days, when was it ever?
How many Muslims work in the middle east? In Saudi Arabia 70%+ of the work force is not a national.
Response:
I hope so. Mike.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is It A War On Islam? By Pervez Hoodbhoy Street opinion in Pakistan, and probably most Muslim countries, holds that Islam is the sole target of America’s new wars. Even moderate Muslims are worried. The profiling of Muslims by the INS, the placing of Muslim states on the US register of rogues, and the blanket approval given to Israeli bulldozers as they level Palestinian neighborhoods appear dangerous indicators of a religious war. But Muslims undeservedly award themselves special status and imagine what is not true. America’s goal goes much beyond subjugating inconsequential Muslim states. Instead it seeks to remake the world according to its needs, preference, and convenience. The war on Iraq is but the first step. Aggressive militarism has been openly endorsed by America’s corporate and political establishment. Mainstream commentators in the US press now argue that, given its awesome military might, American ambition has been insufficient. Max Boot, editor of the Wall Street Journal, writes that "Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets". The Washington Post calls for an "imperialist revival" and the need for Americans to "impose their own institutions on disorderly ones". The Atlantic Monthly remarks that American policy makers should learn from the Greek, Roman, and British empires for tips on how to run American foreign policy. Although many Americans still cling to the belief that their country’s new unilateralism is no more than "injured innocence", and a natural response of any victim of terror, the Establishment does not suffer from such naivety. Empire has been part of the American way of life for a long time. The difference after 911 – and it is a significant one – is that America no longer sees need to battle for the hearts and minds of those it would dominate; there is no other superpower to whom the weak can turn. In today’s Washington, a US-based diplomat recently confided to me, the United Nations has become a dirty word. International law is on the way to irrelevancy, except when it can be used to further US goals. Still, none of this amounts to a war on Islam. Some will disagree. The fanatical hordes spilling out of Pakistan’s madrassas imagine seeing Richard the Lion Hearted bearing down upon them. Sword in hand they pray to Allah to grant war and send the modern Saladin, one who can miraculously dodge cruise missiles and hurl them back to their launchers. On the other side, Christian-Jewish extremists, extending from the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons to the leaders of Israel’s Likud, yearn for yet another crusade. They too are convinced that inter-civilizational religious war is not only inevitable but also desirable. Belief in final victory is, of course, never doubted by the faithful. But the counter-evidence to a civilizational war is much stronger. Between 1945 and 2000 the US has fought 28 major, and countless minor, wars. Korea, Guatemala, Congo, Laos, Peru, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, and Iraq are only some of the countries which the US has bombed or invaded. The Vietnam War alone claimed a million lives. By comparison America’s wars on Muslim states have been far less bloody. Iraqi deaths during the Gulf War, and the recent victims of bombing in Afghanistan, amount to fewer than 70 thousand. Even if one throws in casualties from the Israeli-Arab wars of 1967 and 1971 and attributes them to the US, Muslim deaths are only a few percent of the Vietnam War total. Material self-interest, and not antipathy to Islam, has been the driving force behind US foreign policy. A list of America’s Muslim foes and friends makes this crystal clear. America’s foes during the 1950’s and 1960’s were secular nationalist leaders. Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran, who opposed Standard Oil’s grab at Iran’s oil resources, was removed by a CIA coup. Ahmed Sukarno of Indonesia, accused of being a communist, was removed by US intervention and a resulting bloodbath that consumed abouteight hundred thousand lives. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, who had Islamic fundamentalists like Saiyyid Qutb publicly executed, fell foul of the US and Britain after the Suez Crisis. On the other hand, until very recently, America’s friends were the sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, all of whom practiced highly conservative forms of Islam but were the darlings of Western oil companies. Nevertheless, Washington has occasionally misunderstood American self-interests – sometimes fatally so. "Mission myopia", as the CIA now wanly admits, led to the network of global jihad in the early 1980’s. With William Casey as CIA director, the largest covert operation in history was launched after Reagan signed the "National Security Decision Directive 166", calling for American efforts to drive Soviet forces from Afghanistan "by all means available". US counter-insurgency experts worked closely with the Pakistani ISI in bringing men and material from around the Arab world and beyond. All this is well known. Less known is the ideological help provided by US institutions, including universities. Readers browsing through book bazaars in Rawalpindi and Peshawar can, even today, find textbooks written as part of the series underwritten by a USAID $50 million grant to the University of Nebraska in the 1980’s. These textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism through creating enthusiasm in Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children to "pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs". Years after the books were first printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in madrassas – a stamp of their ideological correctness. The cost of America’s mission myopia has been a staggering one. The network of Islamic militant organizations created primarily out of the need to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan did not disappear after the immediate goal was achieved but, instead, like any good military-industrial complex, grew from strength to strength. Nevertheless, until 11 September, US policy makers were unrepentant, even proud of their winning strategy. It took a cataclysm to bring them down to earth. But militant organizations have done far greater harm to Muslims, whose causes they claim to promote, than to those who they battle against. Killing tourists and bombing churches is the work of moral cretins and is not just cowardly and inhumane, but also a strategic disaster. Indeed, fanatical acts can sting the American colossus but never seriously hurt it. Though perfectly planned and executed, the 911 operation was a strategic blunder of colossal proportions. It vastly strengthened American militarism, gave Ariel Sharon the license to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and allowed state-sponsored pogroms of Muslims in Gujarat to get by with only a squeak of international condemnation. The absence of a modern political culture and the weakness of Muslim civil society have long rendered Muslim states inconsequential players on the world stage. An encircled, enfeebled dictator is scarcely a threat to his neighbors as he struggles to save his skin. Tragically, Muslim leaders, out of fear and greed, publicly wring their hands but collude with the US and offer their territory for bases as it now bears down on Iraq.Significantly, no Muslim country has proposed an oil embargo or a serious boycott of American companies. What, then, what should be the strategy for all those who believe in a just world and are appalled by America’s war on the weak? Vietnam, to my mind, offers the only viable model of resistance. A stern regard for morality, said their strategists, is the best defense of the weak. Even though B-52s were carpet-bombing his country, Ho Chi Minh did not call for hijacking airliners or blowing up buses. On the contrary the Vietnamese reached out to the American people, making a clear distinction between them and their government. By inviting media celebrities like Jane Fonda and Joan Baez, Vietnam generated enormous goodwill. On the other hand, can you imagine the consequences of Vietnam’s leadership being with Osama bin Laden rather than Ho Chi Minh? That country would surely have been a radioactive wasteland, rather than the unique victor against imperialism. Only a global peace movement that explicitly condemns terrorism against non-combatants can slow, and perhaps halt, George Bush’s madly speeding chariot of war. Massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington, New York, London, Florence, and other western cities have brought out hundreds of thousands at a time. A sense of commitment to human principles and peace – not fear or fanaticism – impelled these demonstrators. But why are the streets of Islamabad, Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus, and Jakarta empty? Why do only fanatics demonstrate in our cities? Let us hang our heads The author teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.
Response:
Redneck hawk? Wow, that’s original. By the way, a few might have spoken up, but a majority remain silent. Not to say that I blame them. I hear it’s rather difficult to get your message out when you live under the rule of a dictator.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Being that the problem America has to confront (you know the radical killers who have vowed to destroy us) consists of millions of radical muslims. I think that the non-radical muslims out there would be a lot more productive (and safe) if they would speak out against the radical factions of their They have, you just haven’t paid attention, like everyone other Republican redneck hawk on this NG. religion instead of sitting around whining. You mean like you sitting here, whining and moaning about them??? SG
Response:
Being that the problem America has to confront (you know the radical killers who have vowed to destroy us) consists of millions of radical muslims. I think that the non-radical muslims out there would be a lot more productive (and safe) if they would speak out against the radical factions of their religion instead of sitting around whining. Oh, I forgot productivity is not a popular trait of any muslim country these days, go figure…
What do you mean these days, when was it ever?
Response:
Being that the problem America has to confront (you know the radical killers who have vowed to destroy us) consists of millions of radical muslims. I think that the non-radical muslims out there would be a lot more productive (and safe) if they would speak out against the radical factions of their
They have, you just haven’t paid attention, like everyone other Republican redneck hawk on this NG. religion instead of sitting around whining.
You mean like you sitting here, whining and moaning about them??? SG
Response:
Being that the problem America has to confront (you know the radical killers who have vowed to destroy us) consists of millions of radical muslims. I think that the non-radical muslims out there would be a lot more productive (and safe) if they would speak out against the radical factions of their religion instead of sitting around whining. Oh, I forgot productivity is not a popular trait of any muslim country these days, go figure…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is It A War On Islam? By Pervez Hoodbhoy Street opinion in Pakistan, and probably most Muslim countries, holds that Islam is the sole target of America’s new wars. Even moderate Muslims are worried. The profiling of Muslims by the INS, the placing of Muslim states on the US register of rogues, and the blanket approval given to Israeli bulldozers as they level Palestinian neighborhoods appear dangerous indicators of a religious war. But Muslims undeservedly award themselves special status and imagine what is not true. America’s goal goes much beyond subjugating inconsequential Muslim states. Instead it seeks to remake the world according to its needs, preference, and convenience. The war on Iraq is but the first step. Aggressive militarism has been openly endorsed by America’s corporate and political establishment. Mainstream commentators in the US press now argue that, given its awesome military might, American ambition has been insufficient. Max Boot, editor of the Wall Street Journal, writes that "Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets". The Washington Post calls for an "imperialist revival" and the need for Americans to "impose their own institutions on disorderly ones". The Atlantic Monthly remarks that American policy makers should learn from the Greek, Roman, and British empires for tips on how to run American foreign policy. Although many Americans still cling to the belief that their country’s new unilateralism is no more than "injured innocence", and a natural response of any victim of terror, the Establishment does not suffer from such naivety. Empire has been part of the American way of life for a long time. The difference after 911 – and it is a significant one – is that America no longer sees need to battle for the hearts and minds of those it would dominate; there is no other superpower to whom the weak can turn. In today’s Washington, a US-based diplomat recently confided to me, the United Nations has become a dirty word. International law is on the way to irrelevancy, except when it can be used to further US goals. Still, none of this amounts to a war on Islam. Some will disagree. The fanatical hordes spilling out of Pakistan’s madrassas imagine seeing Richard the Lion Hearted bearing down upon them. Sword in hand they pray to Allah to grant war and send the modern Saladin, one who can miraculously dodge cruise missiles and hurl them back to their launchers. On the other side, Christian-Jewish extremists, extending from the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons to the leaders of Israel’s Likud, yearn for yet another crusade. They too are convinced that inter-civilizational religious war is not only inevitable but also desirable. Belief in final victory is, of course, never doubted by the faithful. But the counter-evidence to a civilizational war is much stronger. Between 1945 and 2000 the US has fought 28 major, and countless minor, wars. Korea, Guatemala, Congo, Laos, Peru, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, and Iraq are only some of the countries which the US has bombed or invaded. The Vietnam War alone claimed a million lives. By comparison America’s wars on Muslim states have been far less bloody. Iraqi deaths during the Gulf War, and the recent victims of bombing in Afghanistan, amount to fewer than 70 thousand. Even if one throws in casualties from the Israeli-Arab wars of 1967 and 1971 and attributes them to the US, Muslim deaths are only a few percent of the Vietnam War total. Material self-interest, and not antipathy to Islam, has been the driving force behind US foreign policy. A list of America’s Muslim foes and friends makes this crystal clear. America’s foes during the 1950’s and 1960’s were secular nationalist leaders. Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran, who opposed Standard Oil’s grab at Iran’s oil resources, was removed by a CIA coup. Ahmed Sukarno of Indonesia, accused of being a communist, was removed by US intervention and a resulting bloodbath that consumed abouteight hundred thousand lives. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, who had Islamic fundamentalists like Saiyyid Qutb publicly executed, fell foul of the US and Britain after the Suez Crisis. On the other hand, until very recently, America’s friends were the sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, all of whom practiced highly conservative forms of Islam but were the darlings of Western oil companies. Nevertheless, Washington has occasionally misunderstood American self-interests – sometimes fatally so. "Mission myopia", as the CIA now wanly admits, led to the network of global jihad in the early 1980’s. With William Casey as CIA director, the largest covert operation in history was launched after Reagan signed the "National Security Decision Directive 166", calling for American efforts to drive Soviet forces from Afghanistan "by all means available". US counter-insurgency experts worked closely with the Pakistani ISI in bringing men and material from around the Arab world and beyond. All this is well known. Less known is the ideological help provided by US institutions, including universities. Readers browsing through book bazaars in Rawalpindi and Peshawar can, even today, find textbooks written as part of the series underwritten by a USAID $50 million grant to the University of Nebraska in the 1980’s. These textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism through creating enthusiasm in Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children to "pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs". Years after the books were first printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in madrassas – a stamp of their ideological correctness. The cost of America’s mission myopia has been a staggering one. The network of Islamic militant organizations created primarily out of the need to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan did not disappear after the immediate goal was achieved but, instead, like any good military-industrial complex, grew from strength to strength. Nevertheless, until 11 September, US policy makers were unrepentant, even proud of their winning strategy. It took a cataclysm to bring them down to earth. But militant organizations have done far greater harm to Muslims, whose causes they claim to promote, than to those who they battle against. Killing tourists and bombing churches is the work of moral cretins and is not just cowardly and inhumane, but also a strategic disaster. Indeed, fanatical acts can sting the American colossus but never seriously hurt it. Though perfectly planned and executed, the 911 operation was a strategic blunder of colossal proportions. It vastly strengthened American militarism, gave Ariel Sharon the license to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and allowed state-sponsored pogroms of Muslims in Gujarat to get by with only a squeak of international condemnation. The absence of a modern political culture and the weakness of Muslim civil society have long rendered Muslim states inconsequential players on the world stage. An encircled, enfeebled dictator is scarcely a threat to his neighbors as he struggles to save his skin. Tragically, Muslim leaders, out of fear and greed, publicly wring their hands but collude with the US and offer their territory for bases as it now bears down on Iraq.Significantly, no Muslim country has proposed an oil embargo or a serious boycott of American companies. What, then, what should be the strategy for all those who believe in a just world and are appalled by America’s war on the weak? Vietnam, to my mind, offers the only viable model of resistance. A stern regard for morality, said their strategists, is the best defense of the weak. Even though B-52s were carpet-bombing his country, Ho Chi Minh did not call for hijacking airliners or blowing up buses. On the contrary the Vietnamese reached out to the American people, making a clear distinction between them and their government. By inviting media celebrities like Jane Fonda and Joan Baez, Vietnam generated enormous goodwill. On the other hand, can you imagine the consequences of Vietnam’s leadership being with Osama bin Laden rather than Ho Chi Minh? That country would surely have been a radioactive wasteland, rather than the unique victor against imperialism. Only a global peace movement that explicitly condemns terrorism against non-combatants can slow, and perhaps halt, George Bush’s madly speeding chariot of war. Massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington, New York, London, Florence, and other western cities have brought out hundreds of thousands at a time. A sense of commitment to human principles and peace – not fear or fanaticism – impelled these demonstrators. But why are the streets of Islamabad, Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus, and Jakarta empty? Why do only fanatics demonstrate in our cities? Let us hang our heads The author teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.
Response:
Street opinion in Pakistan, and probably most Muslim countries, holds that Islam is the sole target of America’s new wars. Even moderate Muslims are worried.
Great, wipe the fuckers out.
Response:
O to god the gift to gie us to see ourselves as others see us.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is It A War On Islam? By Pervez Hoodbhoy Street opinion in Pakistan, and probably most Muslim countries, holds that Islam is the sole target of America’s new wars. Even moderate Muslims are worried. The profiling of Muslims by the INS, the placing of Muslim states on the US register of rogues, and the blanket approval given to Israeli bulldozers as they level Palestinian neighborhoods appear dangerous indicators of a religious war. But Muslims undeservedly award themselves special status and imagine what is not true. America’s goal goes much beyond subjugating inconsequential Muslim states. Instead it seeks to remake the world according to its needs, preference, and convenience. The war on Iraq is but the first step. Aggressive militarism has been openly endorsed by America’s corporate and political establishment. Mainstream commentators in the US press now argue that, given its awesome military might, American ambition has been insufficient. Max Boot, editor of the Wall Street Journal, writes that "Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets". The Washington Post calls for an "imperialist revival" and the need for Americans to "impose their own institutions on disorderly ones". The Atlantic Monthly remarks that American policy makers should learn from the Greek, Roman, and British empires for tips on how to run American foreign policy. Although many Americans still cling to the belief that their country’s new unilateralism is no more than "injured innocence", and a natural response of any victim of terror, the Establishment does not suffer from such naivety. Empire has been part of the American way of life for a long time. The difference after 911 – and it is a significant one – is that America no longer sees need to battle for the hearts and minds of those it would dominate; there is no other superpower to whom the weak can turn. In today’s Washington, a US-based diplomat recently confided to me, the United Nations has become a dirty word. International law is on the way to irrelevancy, except when it can be used to further US goals. Still, none of this amounts to a war on Islam. Some will disagree. The fanatical hordes spilling out of Pakistan’s madrassas imagine seeing Richard the Lion Hearted bearing down upon them. Sword in hand they pray to Allah to grant war and send the modern Saladin, one who can miraculously dodge cruise missiles and hurl them back to their launchers. On the other side, Christian-Jewish extremists, extending from the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons to the leaders of Israel’s Likud, yearn for yet another crusade. They too are convinced that inter-civilizational religious war is not only inevitable but also desirable. Belief in final victory is, of course, never doubted by the faithful. But the counter-evidence to a civilizational war is much stronger. Between 1945 and 2000 the US has fought 28 major, and countless minor, wars. Korea, Guatemala, Congo, Laos, Peru, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, and Iraq are only some of the countries which the US has bombed or invaded. The Vietnam War alone claimed a million lives. By comparison America’s wars on Muslim states have been far less bloody. Iraqi deaths during the Gulf War, and the recent victims of bombing in Afghanistan, amount to fewer than 70 thousand. Even if one throws in casualties from the Israeli-Arab wars of 1967 and 1971 and attributes them to the US, Muslim deaths are only a few percent of the Vietnam War total. Material self-interest, and not antipathy to Islam, has been the driving force behind US foreign policy. A list of America’s Muslim foes and friends makes this crystal clear. America’s foes during the 1950’s and 1960’s were secular nationalist leaders. Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran, who opposed Standard Oil’s grab at Iran’s oil resources, was removed by a CIA coup. Ahmed Sukarno of Indonesia, accused of being a communist, was removed by US intervention and a resulting bloodbath that consumed abouteight hundred thousand lives. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, who had Islamic fundamentalists like Saiyyid Qutb publicly executed, fell foul of the US and Britain after the Suez Crisis. On the other hand, until very recently, America’s friends were the sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, all of whom practiced highly conservative forms of Islam but were the darlings of Western oil companies. Nevertheless, Washington has occasionally misunderstood American self-interests – sometimes fatally so. "Mission myopia", as the CIA now wanly admits, led to the network of global jihad in the early 1980’s. With William Casey as CIA director, the largest covert operation in history was launched after Reagan signed the "National Security Decision Directive 166", calling for American efforts to drive Soviet forces from Afghanistan "by all means available". US counter-insurgency experts worked closely with the Pakistani ISI in bringing men and material from around the Arab world and beyond. All this is well known. Less known is the ideological help provided by US institutions, including universities. Readers browsing through book bazaars in Rawalpindi and Peshawar can, even today, find textbooks written as part of the series underwritten by a USAID $50 million grant to the University of Nebraska in the 1980’s. These textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism through creating enthusiasm in Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children to "pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs". Years after the books were first printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in madrassas – a stamp of their ideological correctness. The cost of America’s mission myopia has been a staggering one. The network of Islamic militant organizations created primarily out of the need to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan did not disappear after the immediate goal was achieved but, instead, like any good military-industrial complex, grew from strength to strength. Nevertheless, until 11 September, US policy makers were unrepentant, even proud of their winning strategy. It took a cataclysm to bring them down to earth. But militant organizations have done far greater harm to Muslims, whose causes they claim to promote, than to those who they battle against. Killing tourists and bombing churches is the work of moral cretins and is not just cowardly and inhumane, but also a strategic disaster. Indeed, fanatical acts can sting the American colossus but never seriously hurt it. Though perfectly planned and executed, the 911 operation was a strategic blunder of colossal proportions. It vastly strengthened American militarism, gave Ariel Sharon the license to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and allowed state-sponsored pogroms of Muslims in Gujarat to get by with only a squeak of international condemnation. The absence of a modern political culture and the weakness of Muslim civil society have long rendered Muslim states inconsequential players on the world stage. An encircled, enfeebled dictator is scarcely a threat to his neighbors as he struggles to save his skin. Tragically, Muslim leaders, out of fear and greed, publicly wring their hands but collude with the US and offer their territory for bases as it now bears down on Iraq.Significantly, no Muslim country has proposed an oil embargo or a serious boycott of American companies. What, then, what should be the strategy for all those who believe in a just world and are appalled by America’s war on the weak? Vietnam, to my mind, offers the only viable model of resistance. A stern regard for morality, said their strategists, is the best defense of the weak. Even though B-52s were carpet-bombing his country, Ho Chi Minh did not call for hijacking airliners or blowing up buses. On the contrary the Vietnamese reached out to the American people, making a clear distinction between them and their government. By inviting media celebrities like Jane Fonda and Joan Baez, Vietnam generated enormous goodwill. On the other hand, can you imagine the consequences of Vietnam’s leadership being with Osama bin Laden rather than Ho Chi Minh? That country would surely have been a radioactive wasteland, rather than the unique victor against imperialism. Only a global peace movement that explicitly condemns terrorism against non-combatants can slow, and perhaps halt, George Bush’s madly speeding chariot of war. Massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington, New York, London, Florence, and other western cities have brought out hundreds of thousands at a time. A sense of commitment to human principles and peace – not fear or fanaticism – impelled these demonstrators. But why are the streets of Islamabad, Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus, and Jakarta empty? Why do only fanatics demonstrate in our cities? Let us hang our heads The author teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.
Response:
Is It A War On Islam? By Pervez Hoodbhoy Street opinion in Pakistan, and probably most Muslim countries, holds that Islam is the sole target of America’s new wars. Even moderate Muslims are worried. The profiling of Muslims by the INS, the placing of Muslim states on the US register of rogues, and the blanket approval given to Israeli bulldozers as they level Palestinian neighborhoods appear dangerous indicators of a religious war. But Muslims undeservedly award themselves special status and imagine what is not true. America’s goal goes much beyond subjugating inconsequential Muslim states. Instead it seeks to remake the world according to its needs, preference, and convenience. The war on Iraq is but the first step. Aggressive militarism has been openly endorsed by America’s corporate and political establishment. Mainstream commentators in the US press now argue that, given its awesome military might, American ambition has been insufficient. Max Boot, editor of the Wall Street Journal, writes that "Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets". The Washington Post calls for an "imperialist revival" and the need for Americans to "impose their own institutions on disorderly ones". The Atlantic Monthly remarks that American policy makers should learn from the Greek, Roman, and British empires for tips on how to run American foreign policy. Although many Americans still cling to the belief that their country’s new unilateralism is no more than "injured innocence", and a natural response of any victim of terror, the Establishment does not suffer from such naivety. Empire has been part of the American way of life for a long time. The difference after 911 – and it is a significant one – is that America no longer sees need to battle for the hearts and minds of those it would dominate; there is no other superpower to whom the weak can turn. In today’s Washington, a US-based diplomat recently confided to me, the United Nations has become a dirty word. International law is on the way to irrelevancy, except when it can be used to further US goals. Still, none of this amounts to a war on Islam. Some will disagree. The fanatical hordes spilling out of Pakistan’s madrassas imagine seeing Richard the Lion Hearted bearing down upon them. Sword in hand they pray to Allah to grant war and send the modern Saladin, one who can miraculously dodge cruise missiles and hurl them back to their launchers. On the other side, Christian-Jewish extremists, extending from the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons to the leaders of Israel’s Likud, yearn for yet another crusade. They too are convinced that inter-civilizational religious war is not only inevitable but also desirable. Belief in final victory is, of course, never doubted by the faithful. But the counter-evidence to a civilizational war is much stronger. Between 1945 and 2000 the US has fought 28 major, and countless minor, wars. Korea, Guatemala, Congo, Laos, Peru, Vietnam, Cambodia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, and Iraq are only some of the countries which the US has bombed or invaded. The Vietnam War alone claimed a million lives. By comparison America’s wars on Muslim states have been far less bloody. Iraqi deaths during the Gulf War, and the recent victims of bombing in Afghanistan, amount to fewer than 70 thousand. Even if one throws in casualties from the Israeli-Arab wars of 1967 and 1971 and attributes them to the US, Muslim deaths are only a few percent of the Vietnam War total. Material self-interest, and not antipathy to Islam, has been the driving force behind US foreign policy. A list of America’s Muslim foes and friends makes this crystal clear. America’s foes during the 1950’s and 1960’s were secular nationalist leaders. Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran, who opposed Standard Oil’s grab at Iran’s oil resources, was removed by a CIA coup. Ahmed Sukarno of Indonesia, accused of being a communist, was removed by US intervention and a resulting bloodbath that consumed abouteight hundred thousand lives. Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt, who had Islamic fundamentalists like Saiyyid Qutb publicly executed, fell foul of the US and Britain after the Suez Crisis. On the other hand, until very recently, America’s friends were the sheikhs of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, all of whom practiced highly conservative forms of Islam but were the darlings of Western oil companies. Nevertheless, Washington has occasionally misunderstood American self-interests – sometimes fatally so. "Mission myopia", as the CIA now wanly admits, led to the network of global jihad in the early 1980’s. With William Casey as CIA director, the largest covert operation in history was launched after Reagan signed the "National Security Decision Directive 166", calling for American efforts to drive Soviet forces from Afghanistan "by all means available". US counter-insurgency experts worked closely with the Pakistani ISI in bringing men and material from around the Arab world and beyond. All this is well known. Less known is the ideological help provided by US institutions, including universities. Readers browsing through book bazaars in Rawalpindi and Peshawar can, even today, find textbooks written as part of the series underwritten by a USAID $50 million grant to the University of Nebraska in the 1980’s. These textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism through creating enthusiasm in Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children to "pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs". Years after the books were first printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in madrassas – a stamp of their ideological correctness. The cost of America’s mission myopia has been a staggering one. The network of Islamic militant organizations created primarily out of the need to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan did not disappear after the immediate goal was achieved but, instead, like any good military-industrial complex, grew from strength to strength. Nevertheless, until 11 September, US policy makers were unrepentant, even proud of their winning strategy. It took a cataclysm to bring them down to earth. But militant organizations have done far greater harm to Muslims, whose causes they claim to promote, than to those who they battle against. Killing tourists and bombing churches is the work of moral cretins and is not just cowardly and inhumane, but also a strategic disaster. Indeed, fanatical acts can sting the American colossus but never seriously hurt it. Though perfectly planned and executed, the 911 operation was a strategic blunder of colossal proportions. It vastly strengthened American militarism, gave Ariel Sharon the license to ethnically cleanse Palestine, and allowed state-sponsored pogroms of Muslims in Gujarat to get by with only a squeak of international condemnation. The absence of a modern political culture and the weakness of Muslim civil society have long rendered Muslim states inconsequential players on the world stage. An encircled, enfeebled dictator is scarcely a threat to his neighbors as he struggles to save his skin. Tragically, Muslim leaders, out of fear and greed, publicly wring their hands but collude with the US and offer their territory for bases as it now bears down on Iraq.Significantly, no Muslim country has proposed an oil embargo or a serious boycott of American companies. What, then, what should be the strategy for all those who believe in a just world and are appalled by America’s war on the weak? Vietnam, to my mind, offers the only viable model of resistance. A stern regard for morality, said their strategists, is the best defense of the weak. Even though B-52s were carpet-bombing his country, Ho Chi Minh did not call for hijacking airliners or blowing up buses. On the contrary the Vietnamese reached out to the American people, making a clear distinction between them and their government. By inviting media celebrities like Jane Fonda and Joan Baez, Vietnam generated enormous goodwill. On the other hand, can you imagine the consequences of Vietnam’s leadership being with Osama bin Laden rather than Ho Chi Minh? That country would surely have been a radioactive wasteland, rather than the unique victor against imperialism. Only a global peace movement that explicitly condemns terrorism against non-combatants can slow, and perhaps halt, George Bush’s madly speeding chariot of war. Massive anti-war demonstrations in Washington, New York, London, Florence, and other western cities have brought out hundreds of thousands at a time. A sense of commitment to human principles and peace – not fear or fanaticism – impelled these demonstrators. But why are the streets of Islamabad, Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus, and Jakarta empty? Why do only fanatics demonstrate in our cities? Let us hang our heads The author teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.
Response:
Question:
Danny, could you explain how the politics and economics of the U.S. are damaging to "our" interests and the worlds. And just who is "our"?
The damage is obvious as it is already in action. Whenever one country tries to dominate another group forms in opposition to it. That is regardless of other politics or ideologies. Right now that group is forming. It is lead by France and includes Germany and likely will include Russia and potentially China. It may come to include every country against the war. Those countries have a common bond in preventing the US from choosing to attack them without cause. How far it goes determines how much against US interests it will become. — 2003 February 22: Israel murders three Palestinians. — The Iron Webmaster, 2509
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – STANFORD DAILY March 4, 2003 War must be fought with Iraq Elizabeth Gordon is a senior majoring in Science Technology and The source is rather peccable. Says one of the net’s more notorious neo-nazis… Perhaps you get your opinions from a college senior in a worthless degree field. I prefer looking at history and say there is no difference between Poland in 1939 and Iraq in 2003 and there is no difference between Hitler and Bush in the matter of the unprovoked wars.
For you analogy to hold then Poland would have had to be in violation of a cease fire agreement for 12 years and 17 League of Nations resolutions telling them to disarm. When did this happen? Iraq begged for peace in 1991 and signed agreements that it has violated. I realize that facts have nothing to do with what you say, but there it is. Rich Soyack
Response:
Danny, could you explain how the politics and economics of the U.S. are damaging to "our" interests and the worlds. And just who is "our"? The damage is obvious as it is already in action. Whenever one country tries to dominate another group forms in opposition to it.
not a lot escapes you, does it, Boy Obvious. That is regardless of other politics or ideologies. Right now that group is forming. It is lead by France
now, the thought of the french "leading" anything other than a mass surrender is a joke. the french are needlessly worried about their own oil contracts in Iraq. but they’ll back down soon enough, they always do.
Response:
STANFORD DAILY March 4, 2003 War must be fought with Iraq Elizabeth Gordon is a senior majoring in Science Technology and The source is rather peccable.
Thanks for demonstrating the ad hominem, again. ___ _ o _ _ _ )) ))_ _ __ _ __ )/,)__ _ _ _ __)) __ ((__((`( (( (/’((‘ ((`(( (/’((( ((_( ((‘ ) "How many people do you think will die if America attacks Saddam? It will probably be less than the number of people he kills in a single month." — Assos Hardi, editor of the liberal newspaper Hawalati in Sulaimania
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – STANFORD DAILY March 4, 2003 War must be fought with Iraq Elizabeth Gordon is a senior majoring in Science Technology and The source is rather peccable. Says one of the net’s more notorious neo-nazis…. Joe
Of course, but let’s try to evaluate all claims without regard to the source. With Matt Giwer, it’s much easier because most of his claims evaluate to false without much discussion. He certainly doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good lie. ___ _ o _ _ _ )) ))_ _ __ _ __ )/,)__ _ _ _ __)) __ ((__((`( (( (/’((‘ ((`(( (/’((( ((_( ((‘ ) "How many people do you think will die if America attacks Saddam? It will probably be less than the number of people he kills in a single month." — Assos Hardi, editor of the liberal newspaper Hawalati in Sulaimania
Response:
I prefer looking at history
No, the google archives demonstrate that you prefer *revising* history. HTH. ___ _ o _ _ _ )) ))_ _ __ _ __ )/,)__ _ _ _ __)) __ ((__((`( (( (/’((‘ ((`(( (/’((( ((_( ((‘ ) "How many people do you think will die if America attacks Saddam? It will probably be less than the number of people he kills in a single month." — Assos Hardi, editor of the liberal newspaper Hawalati in Sulaimania
Response:
The sig sort of fits you bloodthirsty murderous types.
Matt, your posts consist of nothing but support for bloodthirsty types. Again, the irony is amusing. ___ _ o _ _ _ )) ))_ _ __ _ __ )/,)__ _ _ _ __)) __ ((__((`( (( (/’((‘ ((`(( (/’((( ((_( ((‘ ) "How many people do you think will die if America attacks Saddam? It will probably be less than the number of people he kills in a single month." — Assos Hardi, editor of the liberal newspaper Hawalati in Sulaimania
Response:
So peace protesters only protest wars that the U.S. is invovled in. And you say that it’s not anti-American? The way I understand the peace protesters is that they think no war is a good war. If that is the case why haven’t they mobilized to stop or prevent wars in other parts of the world.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Excellent letter. The peace protests really are just anti-American rallies. It may be anti-alcoholic Bush but certainly not anti-American. The biblethumper in chief is not America nor does he have any mandate from anyone to invade Iraq. Where have all these peace activists been the last 30 years? There have certainly been plenty of wars around the world, most notably in Africa, many thousands have died yet nobody is protesting these wars. Why? The US was not involved in them. — After the conquest of Iraq, if no weapons are found, will the US put the country back the way they found it? — The Iron Webmaster, 2502
Response:
If some tin-pot despot wants to wack a bunch of his own citizens, it’s nobody else’s business. —
So was it o.k. for Hitler to kill German Jews? And was it o.k. for Saddam to gas Iraqi kurds?
Response:
STANFORD DAILY March 4, 2003 War must be fought with Iraq By Elizabeth Gordon Tuesday, March 4, 2003 Am I really supposed to believe that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are worse than Saddam Hussein? Incredibly, that’s the message of the organizers of tomorrow’s campuswide strike to oppose the war in Iraq. At recent anti-war rallies, they and their fellow travelers have been hoisting signs denouncing Bush and Blair as baby killers. But not one of the anti-war groups on campus has denounced the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein. The anti-war crowd (a.k.a. "Blame America First") likes to talk about peace, but they never mention that Hussein has been conducting a war against his own people for over 30 years. Absent from campus debate is any mention of the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Hussein’s forces murdered 5,000 people with poison gas in 1988. Also lacking is any discussion of the more than 1 million Iraqis murdered by the regime, the ethnic cleansing campaigns that have seen another million deported or the use of rape and torture in Hussein’s prisons to keep Iraqis in fear and servitude, according to womenforiraq.org. Is this peace? The same anti-war crowd continues to plug the idea that internationally approved sanctions are the real cause of Iraqi suffering. They fail to mention that food, medicine and other supplies are allowed into Iraq under the sanctions; the program is called "oil for food" and began in 1997 but the oil profits have been diverted to Hussein and his army. In some cases, Hussein has resold food and medicine purchased abroad on black markets in Syria and Jordan to obtain cash for his weapons programs. If Hussein truly cared about the Iraqi people, all he needs to do is fully disarm and the sanctions would be lifted. Those who claim to stand for peace and the welfare of the Iraqi people, but are silent about Hussein’s persecution of his population
Question:
"timmerma" <timme…@brittonsd.com> wrote in message
news:3E627E7F.2614FD25@brittonsd.com… > Don’t start no war! > by Joseph Knight
<snip> An enlightening and from someone who must know much more of the horrors of war than I. All the best John
Response:
Don’t start no war! by Joseph Knight With apologies to the grammatically correct for the double negative: America, don’t start no war! In the years following my return from Vietnam, I postulated three rules of war: (1) Never lose one, (2) Never get involved in someone else’s and, perhaps most importantly, (3) Never start one. Al-Qaida started a war. Iraq has not, and neither should America. Get Al-Qaida, but don’t start no war. Being against starting a war is not un-American. Carl Schurz said, "My country, right or wrong; when right to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." It is wrong to start a war, and I want to put my country right. How dare those who advocate aggression challenge the patriotism of those who do not. Being against starting a war is not anti-American. It’s not Saddam that I’m concerned about it’s America. If we start a war, we lose something of ourselves. And I’m not against our troops. I admire them, and feel for them, and I want them home safely. When I became part of the Vietnam era peace movement, occasionally someone would show up with a Viet Cong flag or to burn an American flag. But these people don’t speak for most of those advocating peace any more than the Ku Klux Klan speaks for most of those advocating war. Being against starting a war does not mean you are a "leftist." The most vocal opponent of the proposed war against Iraq in Congress is Republican Ron Paul. He’s also the staunchest proponent of pure, laissez faire, free-market capitalism in Congress not a leftist by any acceptable definition. He, and I, are philosophical libertarians who oppose the initiation of force, whether it’s by socialists trying to seize the fruits of our labor, or by crusaders trying to start a war in our name. Being against starting a war does not mean you are a "pacifist." I have no problem with using violence to defend or retaliate against those who initiate force against me or my country. But I am not aware of any act of war or terror that has been initiated against America from Iraqi soil. If that changes, I will change, but in the meantime, it’s wrong to start a war. Starting a war is not good for the economy. In general, war is bad for business. A few sectors make big profits, especially in the short term. But in the long term, it is business and its customers who must pay the war bill, and the employees of business who must go off and fight the war. War markets can make capital hard to raise. And the free market depends on free trade. People tend not to make good trading partners once you’ve killed them in a war. And look at what the rumor of war has already done to gasoline prices! What about the Iraqi people? I am personally very skeptical of any notion that our president is motivated to start a war to free someone else. Furthermore, any government actively engaged in reducing the freedom of its own people does not have the credibility to wage a war of liberation. (Joseph Knight of Flora Vista, is state chairman of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico and a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the war.)
Response:
Question:
The forces are gathering but I oppose them. It is my opinion that Bush serve out his remaining years as the unelected president and then retire. What the Democrats need is unity and responsiveness from those affected by Bush’s decisions the most. We need a strong domestic president again who will take us in the direction that Clinton did. If Gore does not run I would not be opposed to the forces that would gather to reelect former President Clinton. There has been a huge effort to "STEM" Bush’s war on Iraq. We do not want a world of terror, fear, and American Imperialsm. We want our domestic freedoms and our economic health back. But the death of Bush by natural forces is not the way. I know the Raven BlackBanes of the world would be all too willing to comply with the White Bird’s wishes because this council believes that the only way to secure peace is to bring the forces of the gods down. There is another way. We can continue to point out just how much we oppose everything that Bush is doing and organize now a collective message and elect Democrats in all the houses and in the presidency. We can then start to take back the Judicial branch. This is my opinion and I invite argument and discussion on the matter. I do not feel Bush has to die for us to recover from his evil works. We just need to continue to oppose war and his domestic cuts. The entire world is backing up the peace movement and the anti-terrorist movement at the same time. This is a time for individuals and not armies. This is a time to share knowledge and love through the internet not weapons of mass destruction. This is the Age of Aquarius not the age of Saturn. So be it. Let the red dragon known as Shiva and Jorgemund sleep for now. You know that the red dragon can be a source for new energy which can create a greater peace. It does not have to be the source for the end of the world. Let’s continue talking. Talesin, Cat, and others are correct. What you have seen here on alt.religion.wicca is just a microcosm of what will happen in the world. I believe that we will all live and learn to love. The world will come together in the bed room. He, he. I wish this to be so and it shall be so. I would hope that it would be so. Do not cast against unelected Bush. Let him serve out his term and continue to make a fool out of himself so that not only the world will ignore him, the American people will too.
Response:
<snip Go read the Constitution, you idiot and write this again — Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft ™ "From small things. . . comes great power" http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft (c) 2003 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
Response:
Question:
redguard wrote: > UNITE TO FIGHT THE WARMAKERS > Unable to contend with the historic and constitutional right of the > people to control their own government and the direction of their > country, the Bush Administration has now launched an assault on the > anti-war movement.
Sooo true and rightly so. Its time to move on those that think that 9-11 was the thing to do. I want you to think about what happens when someone takes a shot at America. Too much for you to think about??? Well just look at the pictures as what takes place in the next couple of weeks. I want you to think about someone Patting you on the head strongly as it all takes place and how what you have said has changed—- Nothing. Harv
Response:
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:54:44 GMT, Tonyjeffs <iraq[remove]@tonyjeffs.com> wrote: >True enough.It didn’t take a rally to influence you.
He – Bush – didn’t influence me at all. I knew of this problem long before it became mainstream. The price of liberty being eternal vigilance, I am eternally vigilant. Martin Aquinas Borders…Language,..Culture…QUICK! Support the troops. Islam is not the religion of peace we are told it is Islam’s history is one of brutal conquest Islam is involved in 20 of 22 wars today Islam [much of it] is currently preaching hatred and terrorism against Christians Islam must undergo a reformation, as it is not compatable with the western nation state, or be asked to leave
Response:
Martin <oh_brother_where_art_t…@yahoo.com> wrote in news:uj3f6v8ee2i9quc5b5fvn65laavn518s7l@4ax.com: > That’s right. He doesn’t need to. The facts speak for themselves. He > doesn’t need to rally the mindless and dazzle them with bullshit.
True enough.It didn’t take a rally to influence you. Tony
Response:
Greg Butterfield wrote: > Redbaiting and the movement > Divide and conquer isn’t working > By Deirdre Griswold
I really enjoy reading the mental squirming of people that are beginning to realize that the foam that comes from their mouth has no weight, from their mouth moves no one but the people that think the same way. Do you hear those bagpipes? Freedom is on the march and we are going to kick your ass. Believe me when I say that Saddam can hear them and so can old Ben L. hiding in some cave or behind someone’s skirt. Write this down somewhere. What you have said may means something to people that do not know how live in a free world,,,who do not know what a free market place can do,,,,,,,. I want you to watch as we kick the hooooley shit out of someone that has thumbed his nose at the UN and the world for 12 years. Go ahead,,,, go out in the street and wave your red flag. Gather up those young little minds full of mush and parade up and down the streets where you live. It changes nothing. Your words change nothing. Freedom for the people of Iraq is going to happen soon and you changed nothing. Harv
Response:
On 5 Mar 2003 16:19:19 -0800, theredgu…@hotmail.com (redguard) wrote: >On January 18 half a million people marched in Washington, D.C. in a >true democratic expression of their opposition to an illegal and >immoral war of aggression being driven by a tiny few who hold the >reigns of military and economic might.
Absolute crap and propaganda by someone who is likely an anarchist. Half a million people did not march in Washington. And listening to interviews with the marchers, most have jobs asking "do you want fries with that?" >Another 200,000 marched in San Francisco.
A documentable lie. A company that specializes in crowd estimation took aerial photos of the crowd and literally sampled areas by counting heads. The march in SF was estimated to be 40,000. A lot of people attended rallies for the Bolsheviks and for Hitler. Lot of good those people did for the course of history. Martin Aquinas Borders…Language,..Culture…QUICK! Support the troops. Islam is not the religion of peace we are told it is Islam’s history is one of brutal conquest Islam is involved in 20 of 22 wars today Islam [much of it] is currently preaching hatred and terrorism against Christians Islam must undergo a reformation, as it is not compatable with the western nation state, or be asked to leave
Response:
Martin <oh_brother_where_art_t…@yahoo.com> wrote in news:lntd6vc5hsih7vpdivdcjdbbsdnholii0b@4ax.com: > A lot of people attended rallies for the Bolsheviks and for Hitler.
In contrast, Bush doesn’t hold such public rallies, but he isn’t a natural public speaker. Tony
Response:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:23:57 GMT, Tonyjeffs <iraq[remove]@tonyjeffs.com> wrote: >In contrast, Bush doesn’t hold such public rallie
That’s right. He doesn’t need to. The facts speak for themselves. He doesn’t need to rally the mindless and dazzle them with bullshit. Martin Aquinas Borders…Language,..Culture…QUICK! Support the troops. Islam is not the religion of peace we are told it is Islam’s history is one of brutal conquest Islam is involved in 20 of 22 wars today Islam [much of it] is currently preaching hatred and terrorism against Christians Islam must undergo a reformation, as it is not compatable with the western nation state, or be asked to leave
Response:
Redbaiting and the movement Divide and conquer isn’t working By Deirdre Griswold There has been a new flurry of broadcasts and articles in the leading media outlets of the capitalist establishment trying to divide and weaken the burgeoning anti-war movement. They are happening at the very moment that it is taking on enormous momentum and becoming a factor that even the Bush administration has to take into consideration, as it moves ahead with its criminal plans to attack Iraq. The attacks are directed at the ANSWER coalition especially, which has organized the biggest anti-war protests since the Vietnam movement. ANSWER, which is made up of many very active groups in the areas of international solidarity and social justice, is being slandered as nothing but a "front" for Workers World Party. This denies the fact that many progressive currents with different political outlooks can come together on a principled basis–against the war, for instance–while maintaining their independence and integrity. It is just a repeat of the old tactic of redbaiting that was used to break up the progressive movement and a lot of unions in the 1950s. Workers World itself is being misrepresented as "Stalinist" and caricatured as mindless supporters of dictators around the world. What seems to bother the pundits most is Workers World’s refusal to give any credence to the U.S. imperialist government’s claim that its interventions around the world are aimed at spreading democracy and development, or at least at overthrowing bloody and dangerous dictatorships. Workers World does not agree with all the political positions of every regime whose sovereignty and resources are under attack by imperialism. But it knows that an imperialist takeover is never the solution; that the installation of a neocolonial puppet regime, no matter how disguised and sanitized, is the death of self-determination and any genuine democracy for the people. It is up to the people of these countries, not the interventionist empire builders, to determine what kind of government they want and who should be their leaders. Those who are attacking WW have distorted this position, equating it with ideological servility to all the policies of the regimes and parties in question. Nothing could be further from the truth. Workers World has always had an independent, critical approach to the world struggle based on its understanding of revolutionary working class politics. Here are some examples of the media coverage. A column by Michael Kelly, dripping with venom and called "March ing with Stalinists," appeared in the Jan. 22 Washington Post. It actually was a right-wing attack on a New York Times editorial about the huge Jan. 18 anti-war mobilizations, called "A Stirring in the Nation." Kelly was furious at the Times for not having redbaited the ANSWER coalition, the organizer of the protests, and for not dissing Workers World Party in the editorial. The Times was quick to seek forgiveness. It responded with an article by Lynette Clemetson on Jan. 24 called "Some War Protesters Uneasy with Others," in which she described Workers World as a "radical Socialist group with roots in the Stalin-era Soviet Union." (Not true.) This article was very tricky because it pretended to be in sympathy with the anti-war movement, which it presented as being diminished by radicals in positions of leadership, especially from Workers World Party. In order to argue this point, it had to lie about the size of the Jan. 18 protests in Washington and San Francisco, saying that "tens of thousands" attended. This is off by a factor of 10. Even the San Francisco police now admit the protest there was at least 150,000, and estimates of the crowd in Washington range up to half a million. In fact, the International ANSWER coalition has organized what even these newspapers admit are the largest demonstrations to date against the Iraq war and the biggest anti-war protests since Vietnam. It has done so by addressing all the issues related to the Iraq war–such as U.S. aggression in other parts of the world, racism at home, and imperialist militarism’s disastrous economic effects on the workers here. The Times, pretending to speak in the name of others in the movement, says this diminishes the anti-war forces, who only want to focus on Iraq. But the newspaper has to lie about the numbers to make this argument. Fortunately, many people both inside and outside of the ANSWER coalition have made public statements rejecting the redbaiting and the attempts to divide the movement. The Times and the Washington Post, of course, do not speak for the movement. They have always been tribunes for the ruling establishment in this country. And this establishment has, until now, given the war its full endorsement. That could change as the anti-war movement around the world grows more powerful and the economic situation at home worsens, especially if the war drags on. But for now there’s no question that these powerful interests want to divide and weaken the movement, not help it along by offering friendly advice on tactics. It is interesting that a number of these attacks ridicule the reading of messages from Mumia Abu-Jamal at the protests. Mumia is reviled here, by the police especially, but he is recognized in the rest of the world as a U.S. political prisoner as well as an eloquent voice against the war from the Black community. Despite the endless, foaming-at-the-mouth propaganda, the majority in this new movement are not going to bed at night worrying about Korea or Iraq or Cuba or Grenada or any other country ringed by U.S. nukes and troops. No, they are worried about George Bush and his power-drunk associates. They are worried about the Weapons of Mass Destruction of the Pentagon, and the dangerous propensities of this capitalist superpower as the economy worldwide begins to contract. – END – Reprinted from the Feb. 6, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper (Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: w…@wwpublish.com. Subscribe wwnews…@wwpublish.com. Unsubscribe wwnews-…@wwpublish.com. Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
Response:
On 4 Mar 2003 10:31:34 -0800, gr…@wwpublish.com (Greg Butterfield) wrote: >What seems to bother the pundits most is Workers World’s refusal to >give any credence to the U.S. imperialist government’s claim
Looks like we found yet another extraordinarily biased writer. Just let them write or speak long enough and their vernacular exposes their agenda. Martin Aquinas Borders…Language,..Culture…QUICK! Support the troops. Islam is not the religion of peace we are told it is Islam’s history is one of brutal conquest Islam is involved in 20 of 22 wars today Islam [much of it] is currently preaching hatred and terrorism against Christians Islam must undergo a reformation, as it is not compatable with the western nation state, or be asked to leave
Response:
UNITE TO FIGHT THE WARMAKERS Unable to contend with the historic and constitutional right of the people to control their own government and the direction of their country, the Bush Administration has now launched an assault on the anti-war movement. As the clock ticks down and the administration rushes to wage war against Iraq, it is starting another war here at home against the people of the United States. On January 18 half a million people marched in Washington, D.C. in a true democratic expression of their opposition to an illegal and immoral war of aggression being driven by a tiny few who hold the reigns of military and economic might. Another 200,000 marched in San Francisco. Around the world people in over 35 countries held solidarity demonstrations. Now we are all mobilizing for the February 15/16 mass actions against the war that have been initiated by the European peace movement. The people of conscience who are taking to the streets represent the sentiments of so many millions more. This is a powerful rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to drag us all into war and global conflagration. On January 28, ten days after the historic January 18 march, the Free Congress Foundation, the Center for Security Policy and other ultra-right wing members of the U.S. political establishment, including former officials of the Heritage Foundation and the Reagan administration, began promoting the creation of a new version of the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate not only the organizers but the demonstrators themselves who came to Washington to protest Bush’s march to war. On January 30, the New York Daily News published the Bush administration’s latest smear — a purportedly leaked intelligence report from his Homeland Security department claiming that "Iraqi spies" came to the U.S. from Canada to carry out the anti-war demonstrations. This first act for Bush’s Homeland Security department — which had officially opened a mere six days earlier — speaks volumes about what Bush’s view of "homeland security" is: using the power of the government to lie, to discredit, to disrupt and to try to shut down the opposition of the people of the U.S. to his program of violent domination and empire. The Center for Security Policy is a group funded by arms manufacturers and big business who are being given the U.S. taxpayer’s money looted from programs that would otherwise fund education, healthcare and jobs in America. The Free Congress Foundation is a haven for extremists so out of step with social justice that they pay staff members who have written that we in the U.S. might be better off if the confederacy had won the civil war, who advocate that the racist Trent Lott should have remained in his leadership position, who push anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and who spoke at a neo-Nazi conference last summer. These groups both work with and are received by the Bush Administration. We call on all people of conscience to rally together and defend our movement for justice and peace. The red-baiting and demonization of certain leading anti-war organizations has one purpose — to weaken the whole peace movement. PURPOSE OF RED-BAITING: TO STOP COLLECTIVE ACTION AND SILENCE DISSENT These efforts are the apex of a repugnant red-baiting campaign against the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition because of its role as a principal organizer of the mass grassroots movement of opposition to war throughout the United States. It is not only A.N.S.W.E.R. that is the target of these attacks. The Not In Our Name Project (NION) and others who have been organizing for peace have also been subject to virulent red-baiting. The point of the associational red-baiting and smear campaign is to warn all of us who are coming out into the streets, many who have found public voice for the first time and are empowered by the strength of their actions, that what we think we experienced is tainted, that we are dupes of some hidden hand and should go back inside. These are the identical mechanisms that were used by the government to try to destroy the labor movement of the thirties and forties and the civil rights and anti-war movements of the fifties, sixties and seventies. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was labeled a "communist sympathizer.") All of us who have been involved with the Coalition have been subjected to an intensive associational red-baiting attack that emanates from pro-war supporters. It often gets carried by others who claim to be from the progressive community but who unfortunately are more focused on engaging in sectarian factionalization than, on the eve of war, stopping a needless slaughter. Fortunately, the thousands of people organizing around the country to stop this war drive have been rejecting these efforts, as is evidenced from the success of the mobilizations and the outpouring of support received by A.N.S.W.E.R. at the grassroots level. THE JANUARY 18 DEMONSTRATION AND THE RED-BAITING TACTICS The demonstrations have been supported by, organized by, and attended by persons from all walks of life. For January 18, hundreds of thousands of people traveled all night by bus and car from communities around the country with their children, their grandparents, their friends and neighbors, many attending their first demonstration and not knowing fully what to expect. Once arriving in the freezing cold of D.C. or the streets of San Francisco they met others from different backgrounds who shared a simple and heartfelt demand: that there be no war of aggression launched by the government of the U.S. on the people of Iraq. We have heard stories of the veteran from Pennsylvania who spent the day with the family from Alabama, the mother and her son from Mississippi who made new friends with the students from Wisconsin. We all listened as speakers representing veterans, labor and working people, youth and students, communities of faith, members of Congress, artists and writers, and fighters for social justice from different struggles all brought messages of solidarity in opposition to a war on Iraq. And then we all marched together. Those who seek to diminish and divide this growing movement often dishonestly claim that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a "front" group in order to diminish the Coalition and all the people from different backgrounds and organizations that are part of it, including on its Steering Committee, and who have their own honorable independent histories in the anti-war and social justice movements. The red-baiters have focused on singling out the presence of socialists and Marxists, in particular members of the Workers World Party (a socialist party in the U.S.), because some people in that party have been prominent in supporting the anti-war movement and the work of A.N.S.W.E.R. and their political positions have been routinely caricatured. Those who claim that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a "front" demonstrate their own racist and elitist perception of reality. Oddly invisible to them is the role of the various communities and organizations, including Arab Americans, African Americans, Korean Americans, Filipino Americans, Latinos, faith-based and solidarity groups who clearly have a central leadership role in organizing A.N.S.W.E.R. and carrying out the actions of the past year. That there are socialists or Marxists in the peace movement is neither a shock, nor a matter for repudiation. There are also Democrats, Republicans, Greens, anarchists, independents, and people with no party affiliation, and everyone is welcome. This is a united front of opposition that is becoming a big problem for the administration — hence the stepped up demonization and red-baiting, particularly after successful mass actions. WHAT IS "MAINSTREAM" AMERICA: THE POWER OF REAL DEMOCRACY While thousands of grassroots activists have worked tirelessly organizing their communities, holding teach-ins, handing out leaflets, putting up posters, and doing all the other necessary tasks to build a movement to stop Bush’s war against Iraq, it is sad that a few on the sidelines claiming to speak for the liberal and progressive community have so willingly been partners with the right wing and pro-war supporters in their efforts to disrupt the growing peace movement. Much of the red-baiting and disinformation campaign emanated first from the pages of the Nation magazine and its columnists, which is now approvingly cited by the new Joe McCarthys in the conservative establishment. Some writers who have done nothing to organize against the war — Todd Gitlin, Marc Cooper, Christopher Hitchens, David Corn and a few others — have been feverishly exposing "reds" in the anti-war movement and demanding purges for months. A handful of people who claim to be leaders of the peace movement have also supported these attacks and demurred that they are not red-baiting but only trying to look out for the best interests of the movement. They state that the anti-war movement must appeal to "mainstream America" and that A.N.S.W.E.R.’s leadership and organizing, despite the turnout of hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, is a barrier to reaching that "mainstream" America. They wrongly insist that A.N.S.W.E.R.’s linking issues of war, racism and economic justice — inclusion of the struggle against the death penalty, or presenting a taped anti-war message to the demonstration from political prisoner Mumia Abu Jamal, or supporting Palestinian self-determination — that this bringing together unity of different social justice struggles to oppose war on Iraq can only "limit" the anti-war movement. A.N.S.W.E.R. has mobilized the largest demonstrations against the Bush administration’s policies that have been filled not only by radical activists but by broad sections of the population reaching across ethnicities, races, genders, economic status and many political divides to include many who are participating for the first time in political protests. "Mainstream," … read more »
Response:
Reprinted with permission from NEWSMAX.com http://www.newsmax.com WASHINGTON: NewsMax.com has learned that preliminary inquiries are or soon will be under way on Capitol Hill exploring the possibility of investigating the link between communists and radical Islamic terrorists. Evidence mounts that this coalition orchestrated the recent appeasement demonstrations against President Bush
Next page
Previous page