Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
Iraq!
Iraq has become one of the defining subjects of our time, like Bosnia, Vietnam or Suez. There are two questions, really. Was it right to go in like that? And, quite separately, what should we do about it now? See TGA's Guardian columns on the subject. |
 |
Debate - Page 3/3
brendan murphy, U.K.
Phil in Seattle
I think you're spending too much time on this website. Your tone is confrontational
and bullying, and you insult those who don't agree with you. A little
bit like the present government of your country, and the prime minister
of mine, in fact.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
"Ash" wrote: "You are quick to demonised
people that you feel offend the state of Israel but your racism towards
Palastinians appears to be quite sickening."
|
On the contrary, I'm not "racist" toward Arabs or Muslims. I
have no problem with peace-loving people whatsoever, regardless of what
religion they choose to worship or choose to not worship. I do, however,
have a major problem with people who glorify suicide and homicide. I have
a major problem with people who commit terrorist acts against helpless,
innocent, unarmed civilians. I have a major problem with people who bomb
school buses full of innocent kids, who bomb pizza parlours and murder
18-year old girls, who murder elderly people at prayer, who slaughter
familieswho were in the middle of celebrating a Bar Mitzvah. I have a
big problem with those people. And no amount of attempts at justifying
such behavior is ever going to succeed in disguising the fact that the
people who commit such heinous, horrific acts are not "heroes",
they are Mass Murderers. And the last time I looked, the majority of people
committing those heinous acts were, and still are, Palestinians or other,
fellow Arabs and/or Muslims. There is no difference between the Murderers
who bomb public markets in Israel, and the Murderers who slaughtered nearly
3,000 innocents at the World Trade Center in New York City.
|
"Ash" wrote: "Your narrow minded view of Arab-Israeli history
is factually incorrect. Israel was actually built on land stolen from
the indigenous Arab population."
|
Rubbish and Lies, as usual. Israel was never "built on land stolen
from the indigenous Arab population". If you had bothered to read
the history of the Middle East, you would have learned that Jews ARE the
indigenous people. They've been there longer than anyone -- before the
birth of Jesus (who, incidentally, was born a Jew and who celebrated Passover
before his death), before the birth of Mohammad, before the very existence
of either Christianity or Islam. And they never left. They have always
been there. At the time of Israel's founding, the area had a substantial
Jewish population -- perhaps even an outright majority.
|
It is your own claims that are ludicrously incorrect. Your racism against
Jews and against Israel in particular is what is Sickening. When you can
understand once and for all that Israel's existence is not a "temporary
abherration" to be "remedied" by its destruction, perhaps
then we will have something to talk about. Until then, you need to spend
some time learning the realities of the history of the Middle East, and
not simply and mindlessly mouth your hateful anti-Israel propaganda and
Lies. THIS JEWISH STATE STAYS PUT. Deal with it.
|
"Ash" wrote: "As for democracy, America has always historically
put self interest before human rights. This is evident in Latin America,
the Middle east and Asia". We're putting Democracy at the top of
the list now. And Iraq will have a democratically elected government --
which, incidentally, is how the Iraqi people appear to want it. Israel
already has a democratically elected government. And they'll keep it,
too. Israel is here to stay. The sooner you and the Arabs realize and
accept that Fact, the sooner there can be real and constructive steps
toward peace.
|
Ash wrote: "I do wish you start detaching myth from reality and stop
indoctrinating us about your view of Middle Eastern history."
|
I suggest that you stop mindlessly spreading propaganda and anti-Israel
Lies, and start learning the facts and reality of the Middle East. I'm
going to keep right on speaking the truth about the origins of the Middle
East conflict. It's not my "views" I am speaking, it's the Facts.
I'm not going to stop, either. If you have a problem with that, kindly
go somewhere else.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "That´s one of the main
problems of the Iraq war: the US, including its administration, just didn´t
understand the fact that they were dealing with a completely foreign culture.
They still have trouble understanding that."
|
Please explain what you feel is so "completely foreign" about
Iraq's culture that we supposedly cannot understand it. Iraq has long
been a predominantly Sunni Muslim country with a great deal of experience
in interaction with the rest of the Arab world and with Europe. They (Iraqis)
are religious and Muslim, but generally not fanatically so. That's what
made them different during the 1980s from the Iranians, who really were
fanatics. Millions of Iraqis braved terrorist threats and went to the
polls to elect their first democratic government in generations. This
strongly indicates that Iraqis are not so "completely foreign"
a culture that they cannot or do not wish to adopt democracy and peacefully
choose their own government in ways that are the best 'fit' for their
culture.
|
For years, even decades, Western liberal apologists for dictatorship have
patiently promulgated the baffle-gab notion that Muslim, Arab and/or Third
World nations are "too culturally different from Western capitalist
consumerist societies", that "their customs and traditions are
antithetical to our 'supposedly superior' democratic ideals", that
we "have no right to ask Third World, Arab or Muslim nations to adopt
democracy or impose Western democratic systems upon" these countries
and that we "shouldn't try to do so". Such notions are infuriating,
untruthful and reek of pandering to cultural racism.
|
At best, such attitudes serve to further entrench dictatorships in the
Third World by promoting the false idea that "cultural differences"
render it "impossible" for people in the Third World to ever
actually want or aspire to the same or similar democratic processes that
we in Western countries take for granted.... a notion which Iraqi citizens
have already died to discredit, having braved terrorist attacks while
endeavoring to register to vote.
|
At worst, such notions are belittling, and insult Third World countries
by suggesting implicitly that Third World countries and people are "too
backward" to "appreciate, understandor administer" democracy,
and that "nothing better" than Dictatorship can therefore "ever
be expected of" Third World countries.
Susan Starke, USA
To Mr. Bastian:
There will be no military draft in the US unless there is another 9-11-type
attack on US soil. The bill would never get through Congress.
I am sorry that I did not mention the French contribution to Gulf War
I. I would never characterize any volunteer military in the service of
a democracy as "perfidious, cowardly bad guys."
Yes, it is true that Americans frequently do not understand authoritarian,
collectivist, or corrupt cultures. They have no feel for such places.
Michel Bastian, France
To Mr. Bastian:
> There will be no military draft in the US unless there is another
9-11-type attack on US soil. The bill would never get through Congress.
Don´t know, that would depend on what kind of war we are talking
about. Given that congress is firmly in republican hands right now, I
wouldn´t rule it out.
> I am sorry that I did not mention the French contribution to Gulf
War I. I would never characterize any volunteer military in the service
of a democracy as "perfidious, cowardly bad guys."
Thank you.
> Yes, it is true that Americans frequently do not understand authoritarian,
collectivist, or corrupt cultures. They have no feel for such places.
That´s not what I meant. I meant that Iraq has a culture that´s
completely different from our western democratic culture. They don´t
have the same concept of government and they have a completely different
set of basic values. So it won´t do to simply "transplant"
western values, ideas, democratic principles and ways of life there. The
Bush administration doesn´t seem to realise that.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Please explain what you feel is so "completely foreign"
about Iraq's culture that we supposedly cannot understand it.
You´re forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) that many of these
people (even many of those that went to vote) do not think the way a westerner
thinks. They´ve been a predominantly muslim culture since the middle-ages
and in many ways they didn´t change. They refuse basic concepts
of our democratic societies out of mostly religious reasons that they
have lived with for hundreds of years (even if they´re not all as
extreme as some of the Iranians). Many of them don´t agree that
a person should be free because they think that freedom is dangerous and
humans are bound to make the wrong choices given half a chance. In their
eyes, god is the only one that has the right to make decisions for them,
and mullahs are the mouthpieces of god. They don´t want democracy.
They want to be ruled by religious leaders.
Also, there are a thousand little things, cultural things that the americans
don´t get because nobody told them (and frankly, the Bush administration
doesn´t make sufficient efforts to change that). It´s a bit
like cats and dogs: cats dislike dogs because a dog that wants to play
will growl, wag its tail and lower its ears. To a cat, that means danger
because a cat growling, wagging its tail and lowering its ears only does
so when threatened and about to attack. The dog on the other hand thinks
everything is ok, since the cat is growling, wagging its tail and lowering
its ears. It´s when the cat strikes that the dog is completely surprised
by the attack, because it only wanted to play.
Now I know the analogy is a bit crude, but essentially, that´s what´s
happening between many Iraqis and the Americans at the moment.
> For years, even decades, Western liberal apologists for dictatorship
have patiently promulgated the baffle-gab notion that Muslim, Arab and/or
Third World nations are "too culturally different from Western capitalist
consumerist societies", that "their customs and traditions are
antithetical to our 'supposedly superior' democratic ideals", that
we "have no right to ask Third World, Arab or Muslim nations to adopt
democracy or impose Western democratic systems upon" these countries
and that we "shouldn't try to do so". Such notions are infuriating,
untruthful and reek of pandering to cultural racism.
Is that so? Well the problem with trying to impose democracy on someone
is that the act itself is already antidemocratic. How are the Iraqis to
be convinced that democracy is a better system if they are being forced
into it at gunpoint? Worse, what are they to make of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo
Bay etc.? How do you think they will react if they see the americans don´t
even practise what they preach?
> At best, such attitudes serve to further entrench dictatorships in
the Third World by promoting the false idea that "cultural differences"
render it "impossible" for people in the Third World to ever
actually want or aspire to the same or similar democratic processes that
we in Western countries take for granted.... a notion which Iraqi citizens
have already died to discredit, having braved terrorist attacks while
endeavoring to register to vote.
No Phil, these attitudes do not imply that it´s impossible for those
countries to want or aspire to democratic processes. They imply that it
is entirely possible, but that "wanting democracy" is not the
same as "being forced into democracy".
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
WOOD: RESCUE SHOWS (IRAQ) POLICY IS WORKING
www.cnn.com
Mike, London
Phil Karasick wrote:
"...objectives were and are irrelevent, results are what matter.
The stated objectives of the invasion of Nazi Germany were to overthrow
Adolph Hitler and end the Second World War successfully on Allied terms
-- not save the remnants of Europe's Jews from the Holocaust. So what
-- they were saved from the Holocaust anyway."
|
The stated objectives of the Nazi invasions of it's neighbours were to
provide living space for the German people, to create a new empire and
reverse perceived injustices of the Treaty of Versailles. The Holocaust
was a result- not an objective of the Nazis.
|
That example aside- I'm sure you don't seriously think your leaders have
no obligation to provide prior justifications for invading a country.
Unless you are happy to live in a dictatorship.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Brendan Murphy in U.K. wrote: "I think you're spending
too much time on this website".
|
I think it's entirely my decision as to how I choose to spend my time,
thanks. But thanks for sharing.
|
Brendan Murphy in U.K. wrote: "Your tone is confrontational and bullying,
and you insult those who don't agree with you."
|
I regard my 'tone' as being direct and forthright, thanks. And I insult
the argument (because they deserve insulting), not the individual.
|
Brendan Murphy in U.K. wrote: "....A little bit like the present
government of your country, and the prime minister of mine, in fact."
|
You're more than welcome to your opinion. However, given that both the
current President of my country and the current Prime Minister of your
country both won their re-election contests decisively, it appears to
me that you're in the "unhappy and losing minority" category.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "You´re forgetting (or
deliberately ignoring) that many of these people (even many of those that
went to vote) do not think the way a westerner thinks."
|
Oh, so you personally went to Iraq and interviewed them yourself and independently
determined that, huh? No? Then how would you have the sligtest idea how
"many of these people (even many of those that went to vote)"
think? You don't. You don't have any factual knowledge on which to base
your statement. What you have, rather, is an "assumption".
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "They´ve been a predominantly Muslim
culture since the middle-ages and in many ways they didn´t change."
|
So what? What does that have to do with anything?
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "They refuse basic concepts of our democratic
societies out of mostly religious reasons that they have lived with for
hundreds of years (even if they´re not all as extreme as some of
the Iranians)".
|
Again, kindly present "proof" of your statements, or else please
acknowledge that what you are promoting is not "facts" but rather
simply "assumptions".
|
The most basic concept of our democratic societies is the concept of "one
man, one vote" and of deciding who should govern through use of democratic
delections. More than 14 million Iraqi people registered to vote in their
first election since Saddam Hussein was toppled from power. Of those,
an estimated 8 million people ˜ 60 percent of eligible voters ˜
braved violence and calls for a boycott to vote in Iraq. The Iraqi people
clearly "get" the basic concept of democracy. Your claim that
Iraqis "refuse basic concepts of our democratic societies" is
therefore shown to be unfounded, with roughly 8 million individual Iraqi
examples that directly contradict your statement.
|
For further, direct evidence of this, see the following:
|
"Women in black abayas whispered prayers at the sound of a nearby
explosion as they waited to vote at one Baghdad polling station. But the
mood for many was upbeat: Civilians and policemen danced with joy at one
of the five polling stations where photographers were allowed, and some
streets were packed with voters walking shoulder-to-shoulder to vote.
The elderly made their way, hobbling on canes or riding wheelchairs; one
elderly woman was pushed along on a wooden cart, another man carried a
disabled 80-year-old on his back.
|
"This is democracy," said Karfia Abbasi, holding up a thumb
stained with purple ink to prove she had voted.
|
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145825,00.html
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Many of them don´t agree that a person
should be free because they think that freedom is dangerous and humans
are bound to make the wrong choices given half a chance. In their eyes,
God is the only one that has the right to make decisions for them, and
mullahs are the mouthpieces of God."
|
Again, please provide Evidence to explain what qualifies you to presume
to "know" what "many of them" agree or do not agree
on, and what entitles you to presume to authoritatively define what "many
of them" do or do not believe.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "They don´t want democracy."
|
On the contrary, they clearly do want democracy. That's why roughly 14
million Iraqis registered to vote. Roughly 8 million Iraqis individually
chose to go to the polls and directly refute your statement by voting
in democratic elections to choose their leader. I think your statement
has been pretty decisively shown to be factually incorrect and merely
an "assumption" on your part. (Perhaps it was wishful thinking
on your part).
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "They want to be ruled by religious leaders."
|
No, they do not. They may choose to vote for political parties that are
religious or religious-leaning, but they clearly want to choose their
own political leaders. The Iraqi Shi'ite Ayatolluh Sistani and the mullahs
declared that voting is a religious duty. But they did not "tell"
Iraqi voters specifically who to vote for, or "direct" them
to vote for a particular political party.
|
Kindly stop presuming to "tell" the Iraqi people what they "want".
They have clearly shown that they are quite capable of figuring that out
by themselves.
|
Also, unless you have been recently elected to the Iraqi Parliament, kindly
stop presuming to "tell" this board what the Iraqi people supposedly
"want". They haven't elected you as their official spokesperson
or mouthpiece.
|
They haven't elected me, either. However, the very fact that they so proudly
and overwhelmingly participated in their first democratic elections, validates
my statements.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I had previously written: For years, even decades, Western
liberal apologists for dictatorship have patiently promulgated the baffle-gab
notion that Muslim, Arab and/or Third World nations are "too culturally
different from Western capitalist consumerist societies", that "their
customs and traditions are antithetical to our 'supposedly superior' democratic
ideals", that we "have no right to ask Third World, Arab or
Muslim nations to adopt democracy or impose Western democratic systems
upon" these countries and that we "shouldn't try to do so".
Such notions are infuriating, untruthful and reek of pandering to cultural
racism.
|
Michel Bastian responded: "Is that so?"
|
Yes, Michel. Yes, it is. It is So.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Well the problem with trying to impose democracy
on someone is that the act itself is already antidemocratic."
|
Well, I am sure you would have personally preferred to wait until the
Iraqi people were so at the end of their proverbial rope under Saddam's
horrific rule that they "rose up, revolted and threw out Saddam"
on their own. I'm sure that's the only situation in which you would have
(probably grudgingly) acknowledged that the Iraqi people really, actually
weren't "happy little Dictator-loving loyal servants of Saddam".
|
Of course, such an "uprising" would have had no chance at all
of succeeding. (It's been tried before). And, of course, such an "uprising"
would quite obviously have resulted in a mass bloodbath, since it was
Saddam's forces (a minority within Iraq's population) who held control
of all the Soviet-made T-55 and T-72 tanks, the artillery pieces, the
heavy machine guns, the attack helicopters, the secret police, the levers
of power in Iraq and the instruments of torture.
|
And, of course, if such an uprising were attempted and then predictably
failed and resulted in a bloodbath, I am sure you would then "conclude"
that this "actually meant that Saddam had the support of most of
the people, else he would have been deposed". (The Fact that in a
Dictatorship, the bloodthirsty gun-toting minority are the ones who make
and impose "the Rules" on the Majority, is something that you
appear to have some difficulty wrapping your mind around).
|
And, I am sure, of course (well, perhaps not "of course".. maybe
"I think it more than likely") that if the Iraqi people (rather
sensibly) declined to commit mass suicide by engaging in an uprising that
had no chance of success, you would then "therefore conclude"
that this meant that the Iraq people "were quite happy living under
their Dictator's rule", that they "didn't want and really don't
want Democracy", that they "actually like their Dictator"
and that "therefore we shouldn't presume to interfere" by giving
them the opportunity to choose someone else for their leader, because
the Iraqi people "would do it themselves if they really wanted to".
|
Well, let's hear your answer, Michel. Am I correct?
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "How are the Iraqis to be convinced
that democracy is a better system if they are being forced into it at
gunpoint?".
|
Since democracy was never "imposed upon them at gunpoint" in
the first place, your question is meaningless. No one "forced"
the Iraqis at gunpoint to go to the polls and choose whom to vote for.
On the contrary, it was the Terrorist insurgents who tried to prevent
the Iraqi people from going to the polls and exercising their newfound
right to Vote.
|
Setting up a democratic basis for Iraqi society does not equate to "telling
the Iraqis who to vote for". It merely establishes the undergirding
democratic framework that will allow the Iraqi people to decide for themselves
who to vote for. In fact, were he not in jail and facing trial for crimes
against humanity, Saddam Hussein himself could probably have run for office
as a candidate.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "No Phil, these attitudes do not imply that
it´s impossible for those countries to want or aspire to democratic
processes. They imply that it is entirely possible, but that "wanting
democracy" is not the same as "being forced into democracy"."
|
That's precisely the problem, Michel. That's why those ideas and attitudes
are so terribly, tragically wrong. You see, Michel, "Wanting democracy"
IS THE SAME AS "being given democracy via a military overthrow of
the existing regime", when the existing regime is a tyrannical dictatorship
that does not allow its citizens to "want" or "choose"
democracy of their own volition.
|
That's precisely why the attitudes of Western liberal apologists for Third
World dictatorships are so criminally immoral and wrong. That's why those
in the West who have patiently promulgated the baffle-gab notion that
Muslim, Arab and/or Third World nations are "too culturally different
from Western capitalist consumerist societies", who claim that "their
customs and traditions are antithetical to our 'supposedly superior' democratic
ideals", that we "have no right to ask Third World, Arab or
Muslim nations to adopt democracy or impose Western democratic systems
upon" these countries and that we "shouldn't try to do so",
are so horrifically wrong. They are promoting nothing less than pandering
to cultural racism.
|
You see, Michel, you claim that "these attitudes do not imply that
it´s impossible for those countries to want or aspire to democratic
processes", that "They imply that it is entirely possible, but
that 'wanting democracy' is not the same as 'being forced into democracy'
".
|
The tragic mistake is that such attitudes, and the people promulgating
them, fail (or actually refuse) to draw any distinction between "citizens
happily Endorsing life under a Dictator", and "citizens reluctantly
declining to commit mass suicide by launching doomed uprisings against
a Dictatorship that has both the Means and the Will to genocidally slaughter
its opponents".
|
As I have said before: had it been left up to "a broad front of public
opinion", Saddam Hussein would still be cheerfully banging one of
his many mistresses, shuttling between one of his 57 or so Presidential
Palaces, looting the U.N. "Oil-For-Palaces" program and having
his opponents murdered. He would still be in power. And that's not acceptable.
Not acceptable at all.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Americans skeptical about claims on insurgents.
|
Most support staying in Iraq, though, poll finds.
|
As President Bush prepares to address the nation about Iraq tonight, a
new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that most Americans do not believe
the administration's claims that impressive gains are being made against
the insurgency, but a clear majority is willing to keep U.S. forces there
for an extended time to stabilize the country.
|
The survey found that only one in eight Americans currently favors an
immediate pullout of U.S. forces, while a solid majority continues to
agree with Bush that the United States must remain in Iraq until civil
order is restored -- a goal that most of those surveyed acknowledge is,
at best, several years away.
|
Amid broad skepticism about Bush's credibility and whether the war was
worth the cost, there were some encouraging signs for the president. A
narrow majority -- 52 percent -- currently believe that the war has contributed
to the long-term security of the United States, a five-point increase
from earlier this month.
|
Despite public misgivings about elements of the policy, there remains
an underlying reservoir of support for the war and continued unwillingness
by the public to abandon Iraqis to their fate. Despite the almost daily
suicide bombings and mounting casualty rates, a majority of Americans
-- 53 percent -- now say they are optimistic about the situation in Iraq,
up seven points from December.
|
There were other findings suggesting that negatives views of the conflict
are easing somewhat. Currently 51 percent believe that the war has contributed
to the long-term stability of the Middle East, up nine points from a year
ago. And the proportion who said the conflict damaged the United States'
image with the rest of the world fell to 67 percent, down nine points
since last June.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "The stated objectives of the
Nazi invasions of it's neighbours were to provide living space for the
German people, to create a new empire and reverse perceived injustices
of the Treaty of Versailles."
|
I'm not sure I understand what the point is that you were trying to make.
The stated objectives of the Allied liberation of Europe were to defeat
the Nazis, overthrow Adolph Hitler, destroy the Nazi regime and end the
Second World War successfully on Allied terms. The fact that we also saved
thousands of Jews and political opponents of the Nazis from the gas chambers
was an added bonus. And, as I mentioned, results -- not reasons, not motives
-- are what matter.
|
Of the Nazi objectives which you mentioned, the first two were not used
by the Nazis to publicly justify their actions, because they were the
hidden, actual objectives as defined by Hitler in "Mein Kampf"
. The third one -- to "reverse perceived injustices of the Treaty
of Versailles" -- was never an actual objective, merely an excuse
used for public consumption to illicit sympathy for the Nazis' actions
from gullible foreigners.
|
Mike in London wrote: "The Holocaust was a result- not an objective
of the Nazis."
|
False. The Holocaust was an Objective that was nearly realized. Whether
directly and/or publicly stated or not, the Holocaust was always the ultimate
objective of the Nazis. It was always the objective of the Nazis to eliminate
all Jews from the European continent, and in fact was stated as such in
"Mein Kampf".
|
The Holocaust was not an "event", but rather a highly detailed
and complex "process" that was years in the making. Long before
the Second World War began, the preparation-work for the Holocaust was
already being done. The first concentration camp (Dachau near Munich)
was opened in March 1933, less than two months after Hitler first came
to power. With each year and each new restriction on Jews (1933 - Jews
excluded from the arts & from owning land; 1934 - Jews banned from
the legal profession and from having health insurance; 1935 - German Jews
stripped of their citizenship), the Nazis moved further along in their
carefully planned process of reducing Jews and other opponents to "un-persons"
who could be "disposed of". The crematoriums of Auschwitz were
merely the final step in the process.
|
Here are some resources that can help you to understand the process that
was the Holocaust:
|
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html#camps
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/education/timeline/
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/bltimeline3.htm
|
|
The detailed planning of the Nazis' organized annihilation of European
Jews was begun at what would become known as the Wannsee Conference, on
January 20, 1942. Here are some resources to help you understand the horrifying,
mind-numbing, mechanical, dumanising process of genocide that became known
as "the banality of evil".
|
http://auschwitz.dk/Wannsee.htm
http://www.wsg-hist.uni-linz.ac.at/Auschwitz/HTML/Wannsee.html#top
http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/wannsee.htm
|
I think what disturbs me most about your comments, Mike, is not what you
"don't know", but rather what you "think" you know
that simply isn't true.
Mike, London
To Phil Karasick:
We were arguing over whether it is important for a government to fully
state it's reasons and motives for war beforehand. I say it is, you say
it is irrelevant and only the results of said war matter. My point in
giving the example of the Nazis was that the murder of Jews was not the
STATED aim of the invasions undertaken by Hitler: the point being that
Hitler undertook the various invasions under several justifications, and
the Holocaust was a result. For instance, Russia was invaded under a publicised
doctrine of pre-emptive attack against the Red Army- the murder of Jews
was not the justification given to the German people.
I can‚t be bothered to get into a potentially endless argument about
how Hitler represented his motives for invasion, as you would argue 2+2=5
if I said it was 4, and really it is irrelevant to the discussion we were
having- let‚s just agree to differ- it‚s all in the history
books anyway.
It was rather irritating when you said:
„I think what disturbs me most about your comments, Mike, is not
what you don't know", but rather what you "think" you know
that simply isn't true.‰
All the facts are all readily available- I studied the rise to power of
Hitler extensively whilst in education, and since your comment I thought
I might brush up on them. Unsurprisingly, I found the facts have not changed
in the years since I studied European history at university. It‚s
easy Phil: just look them up.
Incidentally, I‚ve just realised there seem to be hundreds of websites
comparing Hitler to Bush. I think that‚s going a bit far, but the
implementation of rhetoric in pursuit of power is an art that doesn‚t
change much.
http://www.antiwar.com/article.php?articleid=1490
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0901-03.htm
http://www.georgewbush.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t2136.html
|
You wrote to Michel of the Iraqis:
„the very fact that they so proudly and overwhelmingly participated
in their first democratic elections, validates my statements.‰
Either that or they are keen to get the invaders the hell out of their
country so they can begin to rebuild it.
By the way, there were elections in Iraq under Saddam- it‚s just
that their choice of who to vote for was severely limited by the imposition
of those in power- just like it was after Saddam, under the USA.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
I guess I need to reconsider my view of the French. It
turns out that not only have the French been the U.S.'s most reliable
partner in the War On Terrorism, THEY'VE ALSO BEEN HOLDING TERROR SUSPECTS
INDEFINITELY, JUST LIKE WE DO AT GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
|
Congratulations, Michel Bastian. I salute the French for their wisdom
in agreeing with us that terror suspects must be incarcerated indefinitely
and not released, 'legal rights' notwithstanding.
|
HELP FROM FRANCE KEY IN COVERT OPERATIONS
|
PARIS'S SHADOWY 'ALLIANCE BASE' AIDS U.S. IN TERROR FIGHT
|
PARIS - When Christian Ganczarski, a German convert to Islam, boarded
an Air France flight from Riyadh on June 3, 2003, he knew only that the
Saudi government had put him under house arrest for an expired pilgrim
visa and had given his family one-way tickets back to Germany, with a
change of planes in Paris.
|
He had no idea that he was being secretly escorted by an undercover officer
sitting behind him, or that a senior CIA officer was waiting at the end
of the jetway as French authorities gently separated him from his family
and swept Ganczarski into French custody, WHERE HE REMAINS TODAY ON SUSPICION
OF ASSOCIATING WITH TERRORISTS. (*In plain English, Michel Bastian, this
means that the terrorist suspect has been held in custody continuously
for more than two years, without being either charged or released*).
|
Ganczarski is among the most important European al Qaeda figures alive,
according to U.S. and French law enforcement and intelligence officials.
The operation that ensnared him was put together at a top secret center
in Paris, code-named Alliance Base, that was set up by the CIA and French
intelligence services in 2002, according to U.S. and European intelligence
sources. Its existence has not been previously disclosed.
|
Funded largely by the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, Alliance Base analyzes
the transnational movement of terrorist suspects and develops operations
to catch or spy on them.
|
Alliance Base demonstrates how most counterterrorism operations actually
take place: through secretive alliances between the CIA and other countries'
intelligence services. This is not the work of large army formations,
or even small special forces teams, but of handfuls of U.S. intelligence
case officers working with handfuls of foreign operatives, often in tentative
arrangements.
|
Such joint intelligence work has been responsible for identifying, tracking
and capturing or killing the vast majority of committed jihadists who
have been targeted outside Iraq and Afghanistan since the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks, according to terrorism experts.
|
The CIA declined to comment on Alliance Base, as did a spokesman for the
French Embassy in Washington.
|
Most French officials and other intelligence veterans would talk about
the partnership only if their names were withheld because the specifics
are classified and the politics are sensitive. John E. McLaughlin, the
former acting CIA director who retired recently after a 32-year career,
described the relationship between the CIA and its French counterparts
as "one of the best in the world. What they are willing to contribute
is extraordinarily valuable."
|
The rarely discussed Langley-Paris connection also belies the public portrayal
of acrimony between the two countries that erupted over the invasion of
Iraq. Within the Bush administration, the discord was amplified by Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has claimed the lead role in the administration's
"global war on terrorism" and has sought to give the military
more of a part in it.
|
But even as Rumsfeld was criticizing France in early 2003 for not doing
its share in fighting terrorism, his U.S. Special Operations Command was
finalizing a secret arrangement to put 200 French special forces under
U.S. command in Afghanistan. Beginning in July 2003, its commanders have
worked side by side there with U.S. commanders and CIA and National Security
Agency representatives.
|
Alliance Base, headed by a French general assigned to France's equivalent
of the CIA ˜ the General Directorate for External Security (DGSE)
˜ was described by six U.S. and foreign intelligence specialists
with involvement in its activities. The base is unique in the world because
it is multinational and actually plans operations instead of sharing information
among countries, they said. It has case officers from Britain, France,
Germany, Canada, Australia and the United States.
|
The Ganczarski operation was one of at least 12 major cases the base worked
on during its first years, according to one person familiar with its operations.
|
"It's really an effort to come up with innovative ideas and deal
with some of the cooperation issues," said one CIA officer familiar
with the base. "I don't know of anything like it."
|
Factions within the intelligence services of several countries opposed
a multinational approach, according to current and former U.S. and European
government officials who described its inception. The CIA's Counterterrorist
Center did not want to lose control over all counterterrorism operations;
the British service did not want to dilute its unique ties to Washington;
Germany was not keen to become involved in more operations.
|
And no country wanted to be perceived as taking direction from the CIA,
whose practice of extraordinary renditions ˜ secretly apprehending
suspected terrorists and transferring them to other countries without
any judicial review ˜ has become highly controversial in Europe.
In Italy, 13 alleged CIA operatives are accused of kidnapping a radical
Egyptian cleric off the streets of Milan in 2003.
|
To play down the U.S. role, the center's working language is French, sources
said. The base selects its cases carefully, chooses a lead country for
each operation, and that country's service runs the operation.
|
The base also provides a way for German case officers to read information
from their own country's law enforcement authorities, sources said. German
law bars criminal authorities from sharing certain information directly
with their intelligence agencies.
|
French law, by contrast, encourages intelligence sharing among its police
and security services. In fact, since the Napoleonic Code was adopted
in 1804, French magistrates have had broad powers over civil society.
Today, magistrates in the French Justice Department's anti-terrorism unit
have authority to detain people suspected of "conspiracy in relation
to terrorism" while evidence is gathered against them.
|
The top anti-terrorism magistrate, Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, has said
that in the past decade, he has ordered the arrests of more than 500 suspects,
some with the help of U.S. authorities. "I have good connections
with the CIA and FBI," Bruguiere said in a recent interview.
|
In France, which has a Muslim population reaching 8 percent ˜ the
largest in Europe ˜ U.S. and French terrorism experts are desperate
to take terrorist-group recruiters and new recruits off the streets, and
have been willing to put their own anti-terrorism laws into the service
of allies to lure suspects such as Ganczarski from abroad.
|
"Yes, without a doubt there are some cases where we participate that
way," one senior French intelligence official said.
|
France sent its interrogators to Guantanamo Bay to gather evidence that
could be used in French court against the French detainees the United
States was holding there. France is the only one of six European nations
that continues to imprison detainees returned to it from the U.S. military
facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
|
The broader cooperation between the United States and French plays to
the strengths of each side, according to current and former French and
U.S. officials. The CIA brings money from its classified and ever-growing
"foreign liaison" account ˜ it has paid to transport some
of France's suspects from abroad into Paris for legal imprisonment ˜
and its global eavesdropping capabilities and worldwide intelligence service
ties. France brings its harsh laws, surveillance of radical Muslim groups
and their networks in Arab states and its intelligence links to its former
colonies.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
>Since democracy was never "imposed upon them at gunpoint"
in the first place, your question is meaningless. No one "forced"
the Iraqis at gunpoint to go to the polls and choose whom to vote for.
On the contrary, it was the Terrorist insurgents who tried to prevent
the Iraqi people from going to the polls and exercising their newfound
right to Vote.
So invading their country, setting up a provisional government nobody
elected and implying that there´ll be elections "or else"
is not forcing them? Or do you think they´ll be allowed to change
their mode of government just like they please? What if they do the same
thing as in Iran and elect a radical muslim who wants to set up a god
state? Are the US going to tolerate that? I should think not.
> Setting up a democratic basis for Iraqi society does not equate to
"telling the Iraqis who to vote for". It merely establishes
the undergirding democratic framework that will allow the Iraqi people
to decide for themselves who to vote for. In fact, were he not in jail
and facing trial for crimes against humanity, Saddam Hussein himself could
probably have run for office as a candidate.
Yeah, but what if the Iraqis had wanted to reject that democratic framework?
That´s what I mean: they didn´t have the option to. The democratic
system, as good and proper as it may be, was forced upon them, and that
inevitably builds resentment against the US and, consequently, against
the concept of democracy itself.
> That's precisely the problem, Michel. That's why those ideas and
attitudes are so terribly, tragically wrong. You see, Michel, "Wanting
democracy" IS THE SAME AS "being given democracy via a military
overthrow of the existing regime", when the existing regime is a
tyrannical dictatorship that does not allow its citizens to "want"
or "choose" democracy of their own volition.
Yes, but that´s not what happened. The Iraqis didn´t get invaded
and then given a choice of whether to accept democracy or build their
own system. Basically the Bush administration said: you´re going
to have a democracy, whether you want it or not. That act in itself is
anti-democratic because it preempts the right of the Iraqi people to choose
their own system of government.
> That's precisely why the attitudes of Western liberal apologists
for Third World dictatorships are so criminally immoral and wrong. That's
why those in the West who have patiently promulgated the baffle-gab notion
that Muslim, Arab and/or Third World nations are "too culturally
different from Western capitalist consumerist societies", who claim
that "their customs and traditions are antithetical to our 'supposedly
superior' democratic ideals", that we "have no right to ask
Third World, Arab or Muslim nations to adopt democracy or impose Western
democratic systems upon" these countries and that we "shouldn't
try to do so", are so horrifically wrong. They are promoting nothing
less than pandering to cultural racism.
What the heck is "cultural racism", Phil? And we do not have
a right to impose democracy on anybody, not because "their customs
and traditions" are so great, but because the act itself is antithetical
to everything that democracy stands for. What happened in Iraq is that
a bloody dictator got ousted. Fine, I applaud that. But if Bush had really
been democratic, he would have had to leave it at that. The Iraqis themselves
would have had to decide what kind of state they want. That´s not
what Bush did because that´s something he could not do. He couldn´t
take the risk that some radical mullah or other turned Iraq into another
Iran, because that would have touched american and european security interests
indeed (by giving the islamic fanatics new breeding grounds). So he had
to be antidemocratic about it. He couldn´t do it any other way.
That´s exactly my point: this whole grand scheme of "bringing
the light of democracy to Iraq" by military means was doomed to failure
right from the start. The only thing that Bush (and the rest of us) can
hope for now is that he gets lucky and that the situation stabilizes all
by itself in the next few years. However, considering the fact that the
insurgency is getting stronger every day and the Bush administration is
insisting on the stupidity that is Abu Ghraib, Guantamo Bay etc., that´s
unfortunately less and less likely.
John, USA
This war has thus far been a massive strategic
failure. Aside from the debate about whether or not we should have started
it, I see a multitude of ways it could have been fought better. For those
who support this war: start holding the Bush Administration accountable
for it's failures, and then perhaps we might see progress.
It's a shame to see so many Iraqi war supporters spending so much time
fighting with those who do not agree, and never will agree, with this
war. These supporters need to take a step back and refocus their energy.
Their arguments are honed, their criticisms sharp, and yet they do nothing.
I say to them: build a bridge in Iraq, teach english in Afghanistan; do
something positive for your country instead of further strengthening certain
stereotypes about us; listen to the world and the world will listen to
you.
For those who claim the Iraqi elections signal a watershed peace for the
country: South Vietnam had elections in 1968 and the turnout was well-over
80%. In a striking coincidence we lost that war and killed an awful lot
of civilians in the process.
The Iraqi elections was a good sign. So too, the recent focus on transfering
power and re-building infrastructure in the country. I only ask two things:
will the focus continue? and, what on earth took so long?
I do not place too much trust in polls, and from what I see, there is
an increased feeling of patience running thin in America.
Though I never supported the US decision to go into Iraq, I feel it would
be an even greater humanitarian and strategic mistake to pull out now.
What I would suggest is that at least the semblance of competency is restored
by the American people demanding the removal of certain higher-ups responsible
for our warplan (Rumsfeld, Cheney et al), or (more preferable in my opnion)
impeach Bush and bring in a president who can commit the resources and
get the job done.
I think the Bush Administration has been given quite enough time to show
their skills, and they have woefully underperformed.
It is miraculously easy to start a war, the real test is in winning one.
I am born and raised American, and I do love my country a great deal.
The damage 9-11 (and the subsequent crisis of the west) has done to my
perspective of humanity has been nearly irreparable. I have therefore
given my life to the defence of this country, and to make it a place of
integrity, introspection, and wisdom. Respect, I feel, is essential to
this process: America respecting the international community and the international
community respecting America.
This case is made hard by the tendency of humans to lack understanding
and be selfish. In this way it isn't a problem with America or China or
France or Israel, but of humankind in general. And in particular, it has
been rendered remarkably indefensible by America's lack of patience in
entering Iraq, our lack of action once we were inside, and certain shameful
debacles like Abu Graib.
America must not lose its tremendous will and desire to change the world
for the better, but we must also not lose sight of what that change is
for. It requires the opening of our perceptions, the task of understanding
other cultures and countries, and the desire for compromise.
I hope Americans and the rest of the world's citizens learn to embrace
the plurality of peoples and opinions, and come to know the true meaning
of liberty, transparency and freedom. I hope too, that more people read
Free World. It's a tremendous book with a tremendous vision.
We are all on this rock together.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
The Anticipated Attack
|
Don't blame Iraq for the bombings.
|
By Christopher Hitchens
|
My son flew in from London at the weekend, and we were discussing, as
we have several times before, why it hadn't happened yet. "It"
was the jihadist attack on the city, for which the British security forces
have been braced ever since the bombings in Madrid. When the telephone
rang in the small hours of this morning, I was pretty sure it was the
call I had been waiting for. And as I snapped on the TV I could see, from
the drawn expression and halting speech of Tony Blair, that he was reacting
not so much with shock as from a sense of inevitability.
|
Perhaps this partly explains the stoicism and insouciance of those Brits
interviewed on the streets, all of whom seemed to know that a certain
sang-froid was expected of them. The concrete barriers around the Houses
of Parliament have been up for some time. There are estimated to be over
4 million surveillance cameras in the United Kingdom today, but of course
it had to be the Underground˜"the tube"˜and the good
old symbolic red London bus. Timed for the rush hour, and at transit stations
that serve outlying and East London neighborhoods, the bombs are nearly
certain to have killed a number of British Muslims. None of this, of course,
has stopped George Galloway and his ilk from rushing to the microphone
and demanding that the British people be removed "from harm's way"
by an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. (Since the Islamists also demand
a withdrawal from Afghanistan, it surprises me that he doesn't oblige
them in this way as well, but perhaps that will come in time.)
|
Looking for possible timings or pretexts, one of course comes up against
the meeting of the G8 powers in Edinburgh and perhaps the imminent British
spot in the rotating chair of the European Union. (It can't have been
the Olympic announcement on such short notice, but the contrast with the
happy, multiethnic crowds in Trafalgar Square yesterday could hardly be
starker, and it certainly wasn't enough to get the murderers to call it
off.) Another possibility is the impending trial of Abu Hamza al Mazri,
a one-eyed and hook-handed mullah who isn't as nice as he looks and who
preaches Bin-Ladenism from a shabby mosque in North London. He is currently
awaiting extradition to the United States, and his supporters might have
wanted to make a loving gesture in his favor.
|
This would mean that the cell or gang was homegrown, rather than smuggled
in from North Africa or elsewhere. Or it could mean coordination between
the two. In any event, there are two considerations here. The first is
Britain's role as a leading member of the "Coalition" in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The second is its role as a host to a large and growing
Muslim minority. The first British citizens to be killed in Afghanistan
were fighting for the Taliban, which is proof in itself that the Iraq
war is not the original motivating force. Last year, two British Muslims
pulled off a suicide attack at an Israeli beach resort. In many British
cities, there are now demands for sexual segregation in schools and for
separate sharia courts to try Muslim defendants. The electoral strength
of Muslims is great enough to encourage pandering from all three parties:
The most egregious pandering of all has come from Blair himself, who has
promised legislation that would outlaw any speech that could be construed
as offensive to Islam. Since most British Muslims are of Asian descent,
a faint sense exists that criticism of their religion is somehow racist:
In practice this weak-mindedness leads to the extension of an antiquated
law on blasphemy that ought long ago to have been repealed but is now
to cover the wounded feelings of Muslims as well as Christians.
|
During the last election the Conservatives, who have chosen to go soft
on the Iraq war, mutated their lost hawkishness into a campaign against
"illegal immigrants" and "bogus asylum seekers"˜easy
code words for an enemy within. So, there is another form of pandering
at work as well. In the main, though, London is a highly successful and
thriving melting pot, and I would be very much surprised as well as appalled
if there were any vengeance pursued against individual Muslims or mosques.
|
Older Londoners are of course raised on memories of the Nazi blitzkrieg,
and a younger generation remembers living through a long campaign of bombings
by the Provisional IRA. This latest challenge is far more insidious, however,
because the ambitions of the killers are non-negotiable, and because their
methods so exactly match their aims. It will be easy in the short term
for Blair to rally national and international support, as always happens
in moments such as this, but over time these gestural moments lose their
force and become subject to diminishing returns. If, as one must suspect,
these bombs are only the first, then Britain will start to undergo the
same tensions˜between a retreat to insularity and clannishness of
the sort recently seen in France and Holland, and the self-segregation
of the Muslim minority in both those countries˜that will start to
infect other European countries as well. It is ludicrous to try and reduce
this to Iraq. Europe is steadily becoming a part of the civil war that
is roiling the Islamic world, and it will require all our cultural ingenuity
to ensure that the criminals who shattered London's peace at rush hour
this morning are not the ones who dictate the pace and rhythm of events
from now on.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
text: Michel Bastian wrote (of the Iraqi people): "They refuse basic
concepts of our democratic societies (*like, voting).... They don´t
want democracy. They want to be ruled by religious leaders."
|
Yup, we see the same facts and the same picture but somehow you manage
to completely ignore the facts to suit your view of the world. There are
facts and there is opinion, Michel. Opinions can vary, facts can´t.
|
Out of the roughly 14 million Iraqis who were eligible to vote in their
country's first elections since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, roughly
8 million defied boycott calls and threats of terrorist violence, and
went to polling places to democratically choose their elected government.
That's called a FACT, Michel.
|
Your claims that Iraqis "don't want democracy" are not "facts".
They are merely your OPINION.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Sorry, I forgot I was talking to the king
of prejudice."
|
Moi? Mais non. I'm not the one who claimed that "mad cow disease
was Britain's sole contribution to European agriculture", who said
that "We can't trust people who have such bad food" or that
"only Finland had worse food in Europe". That was your Fearless
Leader, Jacques Chirac.
|
Surprisingly enough, some of the English press were actually sympathetic
and understanding. The Daily Telegraph said Chirac's bad temper was understandable,
after French voters overwhelmingly rejected a new constitution for the
European Union.
|
"After all, he has just been kicked in the teeth by his own people's
resounding 'non' to his dreams of a European superstate," the Telegraph
commented in an editorial.
|
As for me, I'm not at all surprised about the little Kerfuffle-In-A-Crepe-Suzette.
It's par for the course. No matter how many times Chirac tries to insist
that "we are all Europeans, dwelling in a Common European Home",
he just can't seem to pass up any opportunity to prove to the world that
the French are still... well.... French.
jacob, poland
phil,
do you have a website of your own? i have actually learnt a great deal
from your arguments and through following them up elsewhere. I assure
you i'm not being sarcastic
alex, miami/usa
to the seattle dude
stop being such an apologist for imperialism and zionism.every one on
earth know very well that the invasion of iraq was not only illegal and
immoral but an attempt by a racist regime that is trying to impose it,s
agenda all over the world and especially in the middle east.
Dubya,s agenda has already been flushed down the toilette and the ranting
and barking by zionists like you are not going to help.
It is amazing that people like you refer to the holocaust and the suffering
of european jewery and yet use and abuse this terrible and shameful crime
against humanity as a tool to demonize and villify the palestinian people
who are the victims of the new nazis of our time named zionists.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "My point in giving
the example of the Nazis was that the murder of Jews was not the STATED
aim of the invasions undertaken by Hitler: the point being that Hitler
undertook the various invasions under several justifications, and the
Holocaust was a result."
|
And once again, you chose to deliberately ignore the facts presented,
because they conflicted with your world view.
|
The murder of the Jews of Europe WAS one of the STATED AIMS listed in
"Mein Kampff". The Holocaust was not the 'result' of the various
invasions which Hitler undertook. The Holocaust was not the 'result' of
the Second World War having started. The Holocaust was the result of Hitler's
desire to cause the Holocaust to happen, his insane zeal to eliminate
all Jews from Europe (as envisioned and explained in elaborate detail
in "Mein Kampff"), and the detailed and thorough planning which
Hitler and his understudies undertook in order to make the Holocaust a
reality.
|
Mike in London wrote: "All the facts are all readily available- I
studied the rise to power of Hitler extensively whilst in education, and
since your comment I thought I might brush up on them. Unsurprisingly,
I found the facts have not changed in the years since I studied European
history at university. It∫s easy Phil: just look them up."
|
I did just that, Mike. I also posted the sources of my information. Please
go look them up yourself.
|
Mike in London wrote: "
Incidentally, I∫ve just realised there seem to be hundreds of websites
comparing Hitler to Bush."
|
Yes, that's the usual desperation tactic of last resort of leftists everywhere
when they're defeated at the polls -- accuse their political opponent(s)
of allegedly being "Nazis" or "fascists". That's the
wonder of the Internet, anyone can post anything accusing anyone of anything.
|
It's a very old tactic, too. They made the same accusations (smear campaigns)
against Pres. Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, and pretty much for the same
reasons, too. He drove the European Left absolutely insane, because he
had the gall to actually stand up and oppose Marxism-Leninism head-on,
and because no matter how much they hated him and his policies, he wouldn't
bend. They campaigned against him, thinking no one would ever vote for
him, and instead he won by a landslide. And they hated him for it.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "By the way, there
were elections in Iraq under Saddam- it∫s just that their choice
of who to vote for was severely limited by the imposition of those in
power- just like it was after Saddam, under the USA."
|
Perhaps your definition of "limited" needs to be looked at and
expanded, Mike. In the Iraqi elections held on 30 January 2005, roughly
120 separate and distinct political parties participated in an election
to elect candidates for the new national assembly. Each party presented
a list of candidates with at least 12 names and no more than 275. One-third
of the candidates on the list had to be women.
|
All Iraqis 18 years of age or older on Jan. 1, 2005, were allowed to vote,
an estimated 12 million people. Because the election was on such a tight
schedule, a proper census of the country's estimated 26 million people
could not be conducted.
|
Instead, the electoral roll was based on lists the Saddam Hussein regime
used for the UN "Oil for Food" program. Iraqis holding a valid
ration card from this program were eligible to vote.
|
As well, Iraqi citizens in 14 countries were allowed to vote in ballots
authorized by Iraqi election officials, including an estimated 25,000
eligible voters in Canada.
|
The Canadian voters list was compiled from Jan. 17-25 at five voting stations
across the country: three in Toronto and one each in Ottawa and Calgary.
Voters had to register in person and return to the station for the vote
between Jan. 28 and 30.
|
Now, Mike, does that sound like "their choice of who to vote for
was severely limited by the imposition of those in power"? It sure
doesn't sound that way to me. And the U.S. had nothing to say about who
those political partiesand/or candidates were. That was entirely up to
the Iraqi people.
|
I would be very interested in seeing any documentation you could provide
concerning any elections that were allowed to take place during Saddam's
rule. What is quite clear and apparent is that whatever elections took
place in Iraq during Saddam's murderous rule, did not allow for the possibility
of any actual leader other than Saddam and/or members of Saddam's Tikriti
tribe. Thus any elections that took place during Saddam's reign were only
tolerated so long as the results of those elections were inconsequential
and did not pose any true threat to Saddam's rule. For this reason, Iraqis
who could have posed a true alternative to Saddam's rule had a tendency
to "disappear".
|
Here are some resources that can help you to better understand the wonderful
reality that was the Iraqi elections.
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/election_faq.html
|
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/419B4412-839C-4926-A599-22C99D4E8509.htm
|
http://iraqelect.com/
|
http://www.mapsofworld.com/elections/iraq-elections-2005.html
|
|
Here are some resources to help you to better understand Saddam's ruthless
rise to power, and the murderous nature of the regime he created:
|
http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/iraq/iraq19.html
|
http://www.iraqitruthproject.com/
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "So invading their
country, setting up a provisional government nobody elected and implying
that there´ll be elections "or else" is not forcing them?"
|
That's correct. It is NOT 'forcing them'. It is ALLOWING them the chance
to choose their own representative government. It's no different than
when we Liberated Germany from the Nazis and Liberated Japan from the
Japanese military imperialists. After overthrowing the ruling dictatorship,
we set up a temporary and provisional government to coordinate the enormous
task of rebuilding the country. The provisional government was set up
precisely because there needed to be some form of national interim political
authority to govern the country and fill the power vacuum in the wake
of the collapse of the previous ruling regime. And the provisional government
was intended to be a temporary, interim body precisely so that the transition
to home rule could occur as soon as possible and feasible.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Or do you think they´ll be allowed to
change their mode of government just like they please?"
|
Of course they will be allowed to change their mode of government, if
they decide that's what they want to do. The only caveat will be that
any change to their form of government will be decided by the Iraqi people
themselves in a democratic manner. It won't be decided by a ruthless and
murderous minority going "WHAAAAA!! We want 'our' Dictator back,
WHAAAAA!! We don't want give up power, WHAAAAA!! You better give us back
'our' Dictator and accept being Ruled by us, or WE'LL KILL you! WHAAAA!!!".
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "What if they do the same thing as in Iran
and elect a radical muslim who wants to set up a god state? Are the US
going to tolerate that? I should think not."
|
Of course we would tolerate it. It's a decision for the Iraqi people themselves
to make. But I personally doubt that we'll ever have to worry about that
possibility. And my reason for feeling this way is that even the mullahs
are generally being pragmatic and reasonable. The Sunni imams and mullahs
are starting to realize that they're a minority in Iraqi society, and
they won't be able to shoot, kidnap or car-bomb their way back into power.
If the Shi'ites ever decide to stop holding back, if they decide to attack
the Sunnis in retaliation for Sunni attacks on them, the Sunnis' position
could quickly become very unhealthy, because they're a minority. And the
Shi'ite mullahs (like Grand Ayatolluh Ali Sistani) are realizing, very
sagely and wisely, that being the new ruling majority in Iraq cannot mean
running roughshod over the minorities or launching retribution attacks
against the Sunnis... not unless they want to ignite a civil war.
|
So, the Iraqi Shi'ites and the Iraqi Sunnis are starting to learn how
to do things like... negotiate... compromise... reach a consensus... share.
There's a wonderful name for this process, Michel. It's called Democracy.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "Yeah, but what
if the Iraqis had wanted to reject that democratic framework? The democratic
system, as good and proper as it may be, was forced upon them, and that
inevitably builds resentment against the US and, consequently, against
the concept of democracy itself."
|
"Reject that democratic framework" in favor of what? "All
Power to the Supreme Soviet"? "Glory to God and Power to the
Mullahs"? There's no indication or evidence that the majority of
Iraqis wanted to reject that democratic framework. The only group (a minority
group) that rejected the democratic framework was the Sunni Muslim community.
And the reason they rejected it was plainly obvious -- they had been the
priveleged and ruling minority when Saddam Hussein was in power, and they
brutalized all the other groups in Iraq when they still could. Of course
they were resentful, they didn't want to get kicked out of power. They
would have been resentful of any change that took away their unearned
power and undeserved priveleges.
|
Michel Bastian wrote: "Yes, but that´s not what happened. The
Iraqis didn´t get invaded and then given a choice of whether to
accept democracy or build their own system. Basically the Bush administration
said: you´re going to have a democracy, whether you want it or not.
That act in itself is anti-democratic because it preempts the right of
the Iraqi people to choose their own system of government."
|
Iraq does not have any former monarchy to restore to power. The Iraqi
Communist Party is tiny, has been repressed for decades and can only benefit
from democracy. Of course the Iraqis can always be asked to choose between
democracy and some variation of Islam-ocracy. The Shi'ites will close
ranks among themselves and vote for an Ayatolluh, the Sunnis will try
to reimpose Saddam Hussein upon everyone else, and the Kurds, Turkmen
and all the other Iraqi minorities will be left to twist in the wind.
Then the civil war can start.
|
The Iraqi people did have and do have the right to choose their own system
of government, and they exercised that choice. They had the opportunity
to choose from political parties representing a variety of visions of
what form Iraq's government could become, including Islamic fundamentalist
parties. They can still choose to change their own system of government
as soon as their government is far enough along to be able to stand on
its own and has the capability to exercise full sovereignty.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian wrote: "What the heck
is 'cultural racism', Phil?"
|
Here are some places for you to look for the answer to that question.
|
"The Theory of Cultural Racism"
http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/theory/blaut.htm
|
Today's world is rapidly and increasingly becoming interlinked through
such things as jet travel, the rise of the Internet, and the increasing
prevalence and use of a common language (English) among other factors.
|
In such an increasingly interconnected world, the assertion that certain
specific groups, countries or cultures (Muslims, for example) are somehow
"unable" or "incapable" of understanding or accepting
basic democratic concepts (voting; peaceful democratic transition of power,
etc.) smacks highly of cultural racism, in my opinion. It basically insinuates
or asserts that the designated group is too "culturally backward",
"stuck in the 11th century", etc. to be "capable of understanding
democratic concepts". And that's belittling and insulting. It implies
that "nothing more than a crude dictatorship can be expected of 'such
people' ".
|
And THAT is cultural racism.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Mike in London wrote: "All the facts
are all readily available- I studied the rise to power of Hitler extensively
whilst in education, and since your comment I thought I might brush up
on them. Unsurprisingly, I found the facts have not changed in the years
since I studied European history at university. It∫s easy Phil:
just look them up."
|
I did look them up, Mike. That's how I found the extensive documentation
of how many of Hitler's followers were believers in the occult and mysticism.
Since those beliefs are directly contradictory to and diametrically opposed
to organized religion (particularly Christianity), it should be a simple
enough matter for you to understand that these Nazis could not believe
in the occult and mysticism and yet still claim to call themselves "Christians".
|
I presented the documentation of this to you at least once already, but
apparently you chose to ignore that, because it contradicted what you
wish to believe and the "point" which you are clumsily trying
to make.
|
Since you chose to overlook that evidence the last time around, I will
present it to you again here, complete with quotes from high-ranking Nazis.
These direct quotes amply demonstrate that the Nazis considered themselves
to be "anything BUT" Christians.
|
NAZI MYSTICISM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Esoteric Hitlerism)
|
Nazi mysticism is a term used to describe a quasi-religious undercurrent
of Nazism; it denotes the combination of Nazism with occultism, esotericism,
cryptohistory, and/or the paranormal.
|
In some cases it ascribes a religious significance to the person of Adolf
Hitler and his doctrine.
|
Modern examples include Ariosophy, Armanism, Theozoology, Armanenorden,
Artgemeinschaft, and Esoteric Hitlerism.
|
Other related modern theories involve Hitler having escaped to the Antarctic,
where he joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race, with whom
he now travels inside UFOs underground, generally beneath the South Pole
or throughout the center of the hollow earth, but sometimes to a Nazi
moon base as well. (See Miguel Serrano, below.)
|
"The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian;
he views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch
of the Jewish race."
- Joseph Goebbels, in his diary, December 28, 1939.
|
"Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by
the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society."
- Hitler, 1941
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Hitlerism
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
>Oh, so you personally went to Iraq and interviewed them yourself and
independently determined that, huh? No? Then how would you have the sligtest
idea how "many of these people (even many of those that went to vote)"
think? You don't. You don't have any factual knowledge on which to base
your statement. What you have, rather, is an "assumption".
Well, I have an assumption based on information I got from a lot of different
sources (several newspapers, military strategy websites, books and articles
by middle-east scholars etc.). You, on the other hand, seem to get your
assumptions (because I´m pretty sure you haven´t interviewed
any Iraqis personally either) straight from the White House website.
|
>Michel Bastian wrote: "They´ve been a predominantly Muslim
culture since the middle-ages and in many ways they didn´t change."
|
>So what? What does that have to do with anything?
Well, everything, actually, which is what everybody else has been trying
to explain to Bush since the beginning of this sorry affair.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "They refuse basic concepts of our democratic
societies out of mostly religious reasons that they have lived with for
hundreds of years (even if they´re not all as extreme as some of
the Iranians)".
|
> Again, kindly present "proof" of your statements, or else
please acknowledge that what you are promoting is not "facts"
but rather simply "assumptions".
Well, since you seem to take the elections as "proof" for your
assumptions, I´ll take the insurrection as "proof" for
mine.
> The most basic concept of our democratic societies is the concept
of "one man, one vote" and of deciding who should govern through
use of democratic delections. More than 14 million Iraqi people registered
to vote in their first election since Saddam Hussein was toppled from
power. Of those, an estimated 8 million people - 60 percent of eligible
voters - braved violence and calls for a boycott to vote in Iraq. The
Iraqi people clearly "get" the basic concept of democracy. Your
claim that Iraqis "refuse basic concepts of our democratic societies"
is therefore shown to be unfounded, with roughly 8 million individual
Iraqi examples that directly contradict your statement.
I didn´t say or imply that all Iraqis are unfit for democracy somehow.
I´m just saying that a lot of them (not the majority, hopefully,
though nobody can really verify this) just cannot grasp the concept. I´m
saying that it´ll take a long, long time until it catches on in
Iraq, if ever. > Michel Bastian wrote: "Many of them don´t
agree that a person should be free because they think that freedom is
dangerous and humans are bound to make the wrong choices given half a
chance. In their eyes, God is the only one that has the right to make
decisions for them, and mullahs are the mouthpieces of God."
|
> Again, please provide Evidence to explain what qualifies you to presume
to "know" what "many of them" agree or do not agree
on, and what entitles you to presume to authoritatively define what "many
of them" do or do not believe.
Well, my evidence is mostly things going "boom" all the time
in the streets of Baghdad.> Michel Bastian wrote: "They don´t
want democracy."
|
> On the contrary, they clearly do want democracy. That's why roughly
14 million Iraqis registered to vote. Roughly 8 million Iraqis individually
chose to go to the polls and directly refute your statement by voting
in democratic elections to choose their leader. I think your statement
has been pretty decisively shown to be factually incorrect and merely
an "assumption" on your part. (Perhaps it was wishful thinking
on your part).
Nope, wishful thinking on my part is my (unfounded) hope that the situation
in Iraq will steady down in time. I hope it will, but I don´t believe
it will. Don´t assume that I´m just saying that to gloat.
I´m saying that because we need to face the facts if we ever want
to get out of this nightmare. Bush´s mantra of "mission accomplished"
will not do in this respect. The americans will have to adapt to the Iraqi
way of thinking in order to move things along there. >Michel Bastian
wrote: "They want to be ruled by religious leaders."
|
>No, they do not. They may choose to vote for political parties that
are religious or religious-leaning, but they clearly want to choose their
own political leaders. The Iraqi Shi'ite Ayatolluh Sistani and the mullahs
declared that voting is a religious duty. But they did not "tell"
Iraqi voters specifically who to vote for, or "direct" them
to vote for a particular political party.
Like I said, Phil: read my posts before replying. I didn´t say or
imply that all Iraqis want to be ruled by religious leaders. I´m
just saying that many of them (especially the older generations) want
that because they haven´t known anything else since the day they
were born.
> Kindly stop presuming to "tell" the Iraqi people what they
"want". They have clearly shown that they are quite capable
of figuring that out by themselves.
Yes, that´s quite true, and I´m not telling the Iraqis anything.
I´m just argueing that the Bush administration should open their
eyes to the realities of Iraq.
> Also, unless you have been recently elected to the Iraqi Parliament,
kindly stop presuming to "tell" this board what the Iraqi people
supposedly "want". They haven't elected you as their official
spokesperson or mouthpiece.
Polemics, Phil. Uninteresting and irrelevant. > They haven't elected
me, either. However, the very fact that they so proudly and overwhelmingly
participated in their first democratic elections, validates my statements.
Like I said: elections vs. insurrection.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> I guess I need to reconsider my view of the French.
It turns out that not only have the French been the U.S.'s most reliable
partner in the War On Terrorism, THEY'VE ALSO BEEN HOLDING TERROR SUSPECTS
INDEFINITELY, JUST LIKE WE DO AT GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
No, they haven´t. It has nothing to do with what´s being done
at Guantanamo. I´ll explain a few paragraphs onwards.
> Congratulations, Michel Bastian. I salute the French for their wisdom
in agreeing with us that terror suspects must be incarcerated indefinitely
and not released, 'legal rights' notwithstanding.
They definitely don´t agree to that. What they have done is to successfully
demonstrate how you can wage a war on terror without breaking the law.
> HELP FROM FRANCE KEY IN COVERT OPERATIONS
|
> PARIS'S SHADOWY 'ALLIANCE BASE' AIDS U.S. IN TERROR > FIGHT
|
> PARIS - When Christian Ganczarski, a German convert to Islam, boarded
an Air France flight from Riyadh on June 3, 2003, he knew only that the
Saudi government had put him under house arrest for an expired pilgrim
visa and had given his family one-way tickets back to Germany, with a
change of planes in Paris.
|
> He had no idea that he was being secretly escorted by an undercover
officer sitting behind him, or that a senior CIA officer was waiting at
the end of the jetway as French authorities gently separated him from
his family and swept Ganczarski into French custody, WHERE HE REMAINS
TODAY ON SUSPICION OF ASSOCIATING WITH TERRORISTS. (*In plain English,
Michel Bastian, this means that the terrorist suspect has been held in
custody continuously for more than two years, without being either charged
or released*).
No, Phil, in plain english it means that the suspect has been held in
custody continuously for the duration of the ongoing investigation, as
ordered by a proper instruction judge, according to the proper procedural
statutes of french penal law. It also means that, during the investigation,
the suspect has the same rights as any other suspect and when the investigation
will be finished, he´ll be put before a proper non-military court
and also be given the same procedural rights as any other suspect. Not
quite the same as in Guantanamo. People like Bruguière (who is
actually a "juge d´instruction", which is more like an
american DA than a judge), the spanish judge Garzón or the german
federal attorney general Kai Nehm have shown that you can use legal means
and still get results. You don´t have to resort to torture and illegal
imprisonment.
> Ganczarski is among the most important European al Qaeda figures
alive, according to U.S. and French law enforcement and intelligence officials.
<....>
> French law, by contrast, encourages intelligence sharing among its
police and security services. In fact, since the Napoleonic Code was adopted
in 1804, French magistrates have had broad powers over civil society.
Today, magistrates in the French Justice Department's anti-terrorism unit
have authority to detain people suspected of "conspiracy in relation
to terrorism" while evidence is gathered against them.See what I
mean, Phil?> The top anti-terrorism magistrate, Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere,
has said that in the past decade, he has ordered the arrests of more than
500 suspects, some with the help of U.S. authorities. "I have good
connections with the CIA and FBI," Bruguiere said in a recent interview.
|
> In France, which has a Muslim population reaching 8 percent - the
largest in Europe - U.S. and French terrorism experts are desperate to
take terrorist-group recruiters and new recruits off the streets, and
have been willing to put their own anti-terrorism laws into the service
of allies to lure suspects such as Ganczarski from abroad.
|
> "Yes, without a doubt there are some cases where we participate
that way," one senior French intelligence official said.
|
> France sent its interrogators to Guantanamo Bay to gather evidence
that could be used in French court against the French detainees the United
States was holding there. France is the only one of six European nations
that continues to imprison detainees returned to it from the U.S. military
facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
|
> The broader cooperation between the United States and French plays
to the strengths of each side, according to current and former French
and U.S. officials. The CIA brings money from its classified and ever-growing
"foreign liaison" account - it has paid to transport some of
France's suspects from abroad into Paris for legal imprisonment - and
its global eavesdropping capabilities and worldwide intelligence service
ties. France brings its harsh laws, surveillance of radical Muslim groups
and their networks in Arab states and its intelligence links to its former
colonies.
Thanks, Phil, for an extremely interesting article (and I´m not
being sarcastic here). So much for "old Europe" not helping
in the war on terrorism. In fact, besides a radical change in european
and american foreign policy towards the third world (actively combatting
poverty, creating infrastructure etc.), this is the only way we are ever
going to win this war. Forget about grandstanding politicians starting
wars in the middle east. It´s international intelligence operations
like these that are going to bring Al Quaida to task. I´m pretty
sure Bin Laden is much more afraid of these kinds of operations than of
enormous armies invading the middle-east. And if we ever catch him in
person, it´s going to be thanks to these kinds of intelligence outfits.
Incidentally, cooperation between the american, british and "old"
european military and intelligence agencies is much more extensive than
you might think given the public rows between Schröder, Chirac, Blair
and Bush. As an example, have a look at this article: http://www.global-defence.com/2005/Utilities/news.php?cmd=View&id=759
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
text: Michel Bastian wrote (of the Iraqi people): "They refuse basic
concepts of our democratic societies (*like, voting).... They don´t
want democracy. They want to be ruled by religious leaders."
|
Yup, we see the same facts and the same picture but somehow you manage
to completely ignore the facts to suit your view of the world. There are
facts and there is opinion, Michel. Opinions can vary, facts can´t.
Oh, come on, Phil, surely you can do better than just repeat my posts.
> Out of the roughly 14 million Iraqis who were eligible to vote in
their country's first elections since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein,
roughly 8 million defied boycott calls and threats of terrorist violence,
and went to polling places to democratically choose their elected government.
That's called a FACT, Michel.
Your claims that Iraqis "don't want democracy" are not "facts".
They are merely your OPINION.
You want facts? I´ll give you facts: roughly 2.000 american servicemen
and -women dead in Iraq, most of them by insurgent attacks; bomb attacks
by iraqi insurgents almost every second day, mostly with between 20 to
50 victims; members of the iraqi provisional governments have been killed
by terrorist attacks and all members of the current iraqi administration
(yes Phil, the ones that were voted on in the last election) are under
constant threat of attacks by muslim militants; the number of insurgents
is massively increasing instead of decreasing as it should if Bush was
right, and I could go on for ages like that. Tell me about facts, Phil.
> Michel Bastian wrote: "Sorry, I forgot I was talking to the
king of prejudice."
|
> Moi? Mais non. I'm not the one who claimed that "mad cow disease
was Britain's sole contribution to European agriculture", who said
that "We can't trust people who have such bad food" or that
"only Finland had worse food in Europe". That was your Fearless
Leader, Jacques Chirac.
|
> Surprisingly enough, some of the English press were actually sympathetic
and understanding. The Daily Telegraph said Chirac's bad temper was understandable,
after French voters overwhelmingly rejected a new constitution for the
European Union.
|
> "After all, he has just been kicked in the teeth by his own
people's resounding 'non' to his dreams of a European superstate,"
the Telegraph commented in an editorial.
|
> As for me, I'm not at all surprised about the little Kerfuffle-In-A-Crepe-Suzette.
It's par for the course. No matter how many times Chirac tries to insist
that "we are all Europeans, dwelling in a Common European Home",
he just can't seem to pass up any opportunity to prove to the world that
the French are still... well.... French.
Tell you what, Phil. I won´t equate George W. Bush to all of America
and you won´t equate Jacques Chirac to the whole of France, would
that be ok? Sure this was a stupid and insulting thing to say (actually
I could have kicked him for that remark; he got quite a lot of flak from
the french press as well), but Chirac is not France.
Susan Starke, USA
To John, USA:
Your post was very thoughtful. I supported the Iraq war initially, unlike
you, and I probably have a more positive view of the competence of the
US military and government than you do. However, what discourages me is
the growing evidence that Americans are the only ones in the world who
believe in Jeffersonian democracy as an absolute value. I am beginining
to believe that there is no reason to spend American blood and treasure
to implant democracy outside of North America because there is no demand
for it elsewhere. I am not in favor of an immediate pullout in Iraq, but
I do not want to see America policing the place for the next fifty years.
It's not worth it. Europe was not worth it either.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Alex in Miami wrote: "to the seattle
dude:
stop being such an apologist for imperialism and zionism."
|
Dear Alex: Kindly go pound sand. I make no "apologies" whatsoever
for supporting Israel's unalienable Right To Exist as a nation. And I'm
proud that we Liberated Iraq. And I'm going to keep supporting our intervention
there. I'm not going to stop. If you have a problem with that, that's
"your, Individual" problem.
|
Alex in Miami wrote: "every one on earth know very well that the
invasion of iraq was not only illegal and immoral but an attempt by a
racist regime that is trying to impose it,s agenda all over the world
and especially in the middle east."
|
Rubbish. Typical left-wing anti-semitic anti-Israel BS and Lies, as usual.
Your rant is nothing more than the usual and thinly-disguised "Jews
control the American Government and want to Take Over The World"
Nazi-babble bilge that usually emanates from right-wing hate groups and
wingnuts like the KKK and Pat Buchanan. Congratulations for tacitly proving
true the very thing that leftist pigs like you have long denied: For all
your supposed "disagreements" with right-wingers, you lunatic
leftist pigs agree with the lunatic right-wing wingnuts on the issues
that really matter to you; namely, you despise Jews and Israel. Get this
through your head: THIS ISRAELI STATE STAYS EXACTLY WHERE IT IS, PERMANENTLY.
|
Alex in Miami wrote: "Dubya,s agenda has already been flushed down
the toilette and the ranting and barking by zionists like you are not
going to help."
|
Dubya's agenda is to successfully remake the Middle East by bringing Democracy
to a region infested with Dictatorships. And it's working. Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia, Afghanistan: all these nations are now beginning to allowing their
citizens to exercise Democracy in one form or another. We are Winning.
Funny, I don't see you making any protests against the numerous Dictatorships
in the Middle East that refuse to grant their people Freedom. Your comments
"only" seem to be directed against the Only country in the Middle
East that provides citizenship and voting rights to Christians, Jews and
Muslims alike: Israel. Gee, I "wonder" why.
|
Alex in Miami wrote: "It is amazing that people like you refer to
the holocaust and the suffering of european jewery and yet use and abuse
this terrible and shameful crime against humanity as a tool to demonize
and villify the palestinian people who are the victims of the new nazis
of our time named zionists."
|
It is amazing that people like you refer to the Holocaust and the suffering
of European Jewry and yet hurl the hateful and lying claim of "Nazi"
against a nation of concentration camp survivors, while hero-worshipping
the very same so-called "Palestinian" mass murderers who openly
sided with and supported the Nazis in their quest to exterminate all Jews
on Earth. The so-called "Palestinians"goal has never changed.
They don't want a Middle East peace settlement. They don't want a "two-state
solution". What they want is a Middle East in which Israel no longer
exists and in which Jews have been ethnically cleansed from THEIR LAND.
That's not acceptable, Alex. Not one little bit.
|
The Arabs supported the Nazis, Alex. They hoped the Nazis would win. They
wanted the Nazis to succeed in murdering all Jews on Earth, including
those in the Middle East. They sided with the Nazis against the British.
They volunteered in droves and fought for the Nazis because they supported
the Nazis' goal of wiping Jews from the face of the Earth.
|
If you (a) had a clue of what you were talking about, of course (b) you
would have known this already. But (a) you don't; and (b) you didn't.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8679662/site/newsweek/
Antti Vainio, Finland
To Phil in Seattle:Your president has found his best friend again:a bottle of Whiskey. His smartest advisor Karl is going to a jail (if he doesn't open his purse). Everybody around Bush is corrupted, we Europeans are not beating around it. Fuck you Phil, you had your chance and you blew it but we whiny Europeans said in the beginning:If you start a war have enough water and teabags. I don't feel good because I was right.
