Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

BWhite · 2004-11-17 19:53:41

Shaun, who killed Maraget Hassan? Which group? Which sub-group? Is every group that opposes the US presence in Iraq responsible for her death?

Is John Kerry responsible for her death?

A great many Iraqis share a common outrage at her murder yet also strongly desire that American troops leave sooner rather than later.

Outrage at Hassan's murder therefore "stay the Bush course" is a NOT logically mandated conclusion.

Please build bridges rather than seeking to batter your political opponents into singing "Hail, Bush" at risk of being tarred (by you) as a lover of terror.

= = =

And who is sweeping Sudan under the rug? The current US administration.

= = =

Bottom line, al Qaeda wants the US in Iraq and it wants the war to be US vs Islam.

My outrage is at Rumsfeld for not sending enough soldiers to establish security and protect the Margaret Hassans of Iraq.

Palomar · 2004-11-17 20:00:54

And who is sweeping Sudan under the rug? The current US administration.

*The UN.

--

As for Margaret Hassan: Sure, she'd probably still be alive if we hadn't invaded Iraq. But does that excuse her slayers? She did a lot of humanitarian and charity work over there. She married an Iraqi. She wasn't an American.

No gratitude from her murderers. How sad, in more ways than one.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-11-17 20:09:12

As for Margaret Hassan: Sure, she'd probably still be alive if we hadn't invaded Iraq. But does that excuse her slayers? She did a lot of humanitarian and charity work over there. She married an Iraqi. She wasn't an American.
No gratitude from her murderers. How sad, in more ways than one.
--Cindy

I believe she would be alive if we had sent 250,000 - 300,000 soldiers like General Shineski called for; and if Paul Bremer had not FUBAR-ed the first 12 months of the occupation playing economics professor.

But no, Rumsfeld had an ideological point to win.

Her murderers are NOT Iraqis, they are foreigners who very much desire to see Iraq remain in chaos. And we went in too weakly to stop them. Therefore they are very grateful for the opportunity to slaughter this woman.

= = =

Go back and read MY posts from before the invasion. Right here at NewMars. I said whacking Saddam's army would be easy.

Building a safe stable Iraq would be hard. Round #2 would require far more investment of troops and money than GWB and his Administration believed.

Hate to say it, but go into the archives. Folks, I told you so.

= = =

Shaun and Cindy - - I am tired of calls to FIGHT the war on terror. I want to WIN the war on terror.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-17 20:42:29

Thanks, Cindy, for registering your opinion in favour of the substance of my post.

Bill, this is bigger than Bush v. Kerry.
Bill, I'm not a Bush fan.
Bill, if you want to WIN the war against terrorism, you have to control media who deliberately and malevolently present the Coalition efforts in Iraq in the worst possible light. Even through your Democratic Party 'Blue Haze', even through your undisguised and blinding hatred for President Bush, I'm confident your innate intelligence must surely enable you to see and understand this point.

Again I say it; we're in Iraq now. You and I are both ostensibly in agreement that the job needs to be finished and finished well. All I did was to point out something in the behaviour of the press which should concern you as much as it does me.

Your somewhat emotional attack on me for it leads me to think your stated position and your actual position may in fact be two different things.

I could be quite wrong but I don't know what else to think, old pal. ???

BWhite · 2004-11-17 21:05:07

Thanks, Cindy, for registering your opinion in favour of the substance of my post.
Bill, this is bigger than Bush v. Kerry.
Bill, I'm not a Bush fan.
Bill, if you want to WIN the war against terrorism, you have to control media who deliberately and malevolently present the Coalition efforts in Iraq in the worst possible light. Even through your Democratic Party 'Blue Haze', even through your undisguised and blinding hatred for President Bush, I'm confident your innate intelligence must surely enable you to see and understand this point.
Again I say it; we're in Iraq now. You and I are both ostensibly in agreement that the job needs to be finished and finished well. All I did was to point out something in the behaviour of the press which should concern you as much as it does me.
Your somewhat emotional attack on me for it leads me to think your stated position and your actual position may in fact be two different things.
I could be quite wrong but I don't know what else to think, old pal. ???

Actually Shaun, I see it the other way around. ???

I feel that I cannot question our strategy without you atacking me as being unpatriotic, or an appeaser of terrorists and that unless I blindly support Bush policy I share responsibility for Hassan's murder.

Its bigger than Bush v Kerry, its also about how Israel gets itself out of its own West Bank nightmare and how we all can extricate ourselves from a cycle of violence before it becomes the USA versus all Islam requiring that we level the entire midle east.

Some on the Right would be quite content to nuke 500 million Muslims and be done with it. Before you question my true motives, state your position on that option.

Ramping up our rage over Maraget Hassan brings us one step closely to saying F' it! Just nuke the lot of them. Is that your secret objective?

= = =

Yes the Arab press is going ballistic over the Marine killing the prisoner. Yes, that is outrageous.

That death is not comparable to Hassan's murder. At worst, the Marine made a mistake. A terrible foolish mistake perhaps, but not murder. Yet are we to be held to the same standard as murderers?

But leave that be. The Arab media is outraged about the Marine shooting the prisoner. Rightly or wringly, they are.

That outrage proves to me we are LOSING the psy-ops battle. We can win every combat operation and lose the war IF we alienate all Muslims. Is that unfair? Yup. Sure is. Buts its the reality and fairness is irrelevant.

I am outraged that no one pays attention to our LOSING the psy-ops battle and instead the Right seeks to ramp up anger at nameless "terrorists" as a reason to bulldoze more of Iraq.

Terror takes two to tango. If we overreact (or if the average Iraqi believes we are overreacting whether we are or not) the terrorist wins.

My solution? More troops and more rebuildig money. Go back in the posts. I called for a trillion dollar budget to rebuild Iraq and 500,000 troops to create stability. Anger won;t stop the next Hassan murder.

Stability will and we haven't the resources on the ground to do that.

The Mosul police defected in masse earlier this week. THAT story is far more important that Hassan's murder or the Marine shooting the prisoner.

Lets talk about WHY the Mosul police defected. That would be a wortywhile conversation.

BWhite · 2004-11-17 21:19:46

More calmly now. :;):

If the United States cannot protect people like Margaret Hassan from being kidnapped in broad daylight in Baghdad, that means we are losing the battle to provide the security that is needed to allow the rebuilding of Iraq.

When was the Saddam regime removed? How long ago?

Fallajuh should have been cleaned out six months ago or even earlier. Sadr should be in custody.

Playing "Emperor's News Clothes" and demanding that the press say "all is well" won't help the situation.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-17 22:02:59

The trouble with the media portrail of the solder and that of the shot prisoner is that they see this person as Iraqi first and not as an insurgent , terrorist that was not asked by the remaining Iraqi people to wage war on the American troops that are there.

The Iraqi people instead do not seem to be upset by this action of the insurgents at all, or of there actions it would seem. And worst of all it seems that Iraqi are now attacking those Iraqi that want change as if a new civil war has started within this nation.

DonPanic · 2004-11-17 22:42:13

LO
I think that all arguments about the number of troops needed to create democracy by means of weapons are wrong, Bill.
Shaun, you're out of any common sense saying medias are dominated by so-called leftists when they are obviously dominated by Fox and conservative actionnaires.
Sorry, to tell you that frenches have been more aware of the results of a war at Arabs than american or australian citizens, this is no wargame.
We had Algeria liberation war that we wan, military speaking, we crushed algerian resistance and lost that war in algerian hearts and minds and in the eyes of the french and world opinion.
You have the example of Israel overwhelming military power facing the palestinian terrorist groups. That's an ugly war.
Frankly, your arguments look like ignorant people's who started playing chess arguing on a Kasparov-Anan game.
Problem wasn't iraki military weakness. A US expeditionnary corps can win at almost any country army opposition.
The crazy idea was to accuse Saddam with false evidences of collaboration with talibans or Bin Laden's terrorists.
The mad thing was to ignore that if Saddam's regime was standing without a strong resistance, that was the result of agreements between moderate Shite clans and the Sunnis.
The stupid action was an humiliating invasion of their country, even to Saddam's opponents eyes.
Now, it's not a lie to say that 90% of Irakis hate the US troops and that if iraki eyes were guns, we should hide deep.
The overwhelming challenge is to create a democratic state in an ethnically divided country where an ethnical group is numerically so dominant and so leaning for an islamic mollarchy.
In brief, the aim should have been to replace Saddam team by a another respecting rights of people, whith the same structure, without killing one Iraki, but that doesn't feed all american trusts which are interested in a long juicy war at any price, the highest being the best.
US was ready for a war, political preparation for that war have been a total failure in Irak as well as in world opinion.
For the present, I've no solution, even not any idea of what should be done, that's quite despairating to see the carnage.
I don't remember how things were managed after Pandora opened the box
Now, if it's possible to organize elections in Irak, a real representative assembly will tell US troops to leave, and the result will be unpleasant, far from democracy

BWhite · 2004-11-17 23:07:03

LO
I think that all arguments about the number of troops needed to create democracy by means of weapons are wrong, Bill.

Today? Yes absolutely I agree.

18 months ago? Send 300,000 soldiers to remove Saddam.

No looting. Secure 100% of shoulder fired SAM missiles. Secure 100% of Iraqi explosives. Not 95% and claim "Job well done."

Awe and intimidate and then give the keys of Iraq to al-Sistani and return every soldier to America saying mission accomplished AFTER last US soldier returns home.

= = =

Today? I agree with you DomPanic.

FUBAR with little hope for recovery. Still al-Sistani is the most credible and respected leader the Iraqi people have. Give him the keys to the country, not our puppets.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-11-17 23:35:44

LO
I think that all arguments about the number of troops needed to create democracy by means of weapons are wrong, Bill.
Shaun, you're out of any common sense saying medias are dominated by so-called leftists when they are obviously dominated by Fox and conservative actionnaires.
Sorry, to tell you that frenches have been more aware of the results of a war at Arabs than american or australian citizens, this is no wargame.
We had Algeria liberation war that we wan, military speaking, we crushed algerian resistance and lost that war in algerian hearts and minds and in the eyes of the french and world opinion.
You have the example of Israel overwhelming military power facing the palestinian terrorist groups. That's an ugly war.
Frankly, your arguments look like ignorant people's who started playing chess arguing on a Kasparov-Anan game.
Problem wasn't iraki military weakness. A US expeditionnary corps can win at almost any country army opposition.
The crazy idea was to accuse Saddam with false evidences of collaboration with talibans or Bin Laden's terrorists.
The mad thing was to ignore that if Saddam's regime was standing without a strong resistance, that was the result of agreements between moderate Shite clans and the Sunnis.
The stupid action was an humiliating invasion of their country, even to Saddam's opponents eyes.
Now, it's not a lie to say that 90% of Irakis hate the US troops and that if iraki eyes were guns, we should hide deep.
The overwhelming challenge is to create a democratic state in an ethnically divided country where an ethnical group is numerically so dominant and so leaning for an islamic mollarchy.
In brief, the aim should have been to replace Saddam team by a another respecting rights of people, whith the same structure, without killing one Iraki, but that doesn't feed all american trusts which are interested in a long juicy war at any price, the highest being the best.
US was ready for a war, political preparation for that war have been a total failure in Irak as well as in world opinion.
For the present, I've no solution, even not any idea of what should be done, that's quite despairating to see the carnage.
I don't remember how things were managed after Pandora opened the box
Now, if it's possible to organize elections in Irak, a real representative assembly will tell US troops to leave, and the result will be unpleasant, far from democracy

interesting point

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-11-17 23:41:52

More calmly now. :;):
If the United States cannot protect people like Margaret Hassan from being kidnapped in broad daylight in Baghdad, that means we are losing the battle to provide the security that is needed to allow the rebuilding of Iraq.
When was the Saddam regime removed? How long ago?
Fallajuh should have been cleaned out six months ago or even earlier. Sadr should be in custody.

-------------

very disturbing reports and much discussion online
QUOTE
Still can't believe these issues became the main part of the election while

Quote:
..Stuff like the rising debts in the USA, the mess in Iraq, the jobless rates , medicare costs , bin Ladens terror and N Korea getting Nuclear weapons was ignored as a real issue in politics and the election..

Before you any of you ask I don't need stem-cells to sure mu in-grown toe-nail, I'm not part of the gay fanclub and I don't like Janet Jackson or need to get an abortion
So what's the big deal with stem cells used for medical research ? People like Christopher Reeve and Mrs. Reagan have spoken against the presidents position, people like them very
publicly supported research. Education is clearly associated with opinions on stem cell research with many people from university thinking it is the correct path to take however some evangelicals are strongly against stem cells because of issues of morality while they would strongly support the invasion of iraq, as one person said Stem cell hypocrisy - what about the infertility technique that causes unused embryos to be destroyed or IVF procedures - It is these excess embryos which are frozen and destroyed/discarded. . an election on Morality while many are tortured in Camp X-ray and thousnads are bombed in Iraq
such hypocrisy !!

I've no objection to homosexuals, I wonder why people make it such a big issue, I mean seriously why should we care whether people are gay or not? Then there was Tennessee county where a teacher was famously tried in 1925 for teaching evolution in the Scopes "Monkey Trial" was this time trying to outlaw homosexuality. Remember the chaos at Rhea County where Commissioner J.C. Fugate introduced the measure during a commissioners meeting . "We need to keep them out of here," Fugate said of homosexuals, telling the Associated Press he was reacting to recent headlines featuring same-sex marriages. Before the Bush/Kerry election Voters had said the issue of gay marriage will be a very important factor for them, and it looks like Bush got a lot of votes from Tennessee county, Separation of Church & State is OUT..An election decided on stem cell paranoia and targeting the liberties of gay people

On Abortion - I don't think anyone their right mind is pro-Abortion, people are pro-choice and pro-choise for women. If a womman is ill, or she is raped or incest occurs or there are many other factors such as this involved then I think she should have the right to choose...nobody is really on a pro-Abortion election stance they are pro-choice
Janet Jackson's boob - it happened ! big deal ! Yes indeed it was a big deal for Powell's Son at the FCC and Faux news
Real issues in this election were ignored, the rising cost of fuel , heating and oil, the crisis in Iraq and the missing WMDs in Iraq, the unemployment rates - there have been more jobs lost than in any four years in the US since the Great Depression and sadly a new record with some of the worst deficits ever. Another import new item has surfaced the most wicked and biggest SOBof our times, Osama bin Ldean, is indeed very much alive and well and videotaping in his own personal blockbuster studio again! The Iranians have not agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, the IAEA says there are still doubts concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions including the nature of work on advanced centrifuges and plutonium separation experiments that were kept secret from the agency there are many in Washington who feel Iran is trying to get hold of more weapons such as Nuclear bombs. There a nuclear crisis with North Korea their statements have been often cryptic in the past but sometimes quiet clear...with N.Korea basically saying at times in the past " come on USA, come get us you son-of-bushes, we've got Nukes and we're going to build more" . With North Korea threatening to bolster its atomic arsenal .
In the USA there have been rising costs of medicare, the wages haven't gone far in the past while, there has been much corruption like Enron and Halliburton and Worldcom, and the US pension system is under threat...however most of these important issues were ignored in preference of concerns of religious ethics and morality...
Neo Cons and Rightwing evangelicals are happy with GW now, their religious version of the world may be pushed through the Senate, the Whithouse and Congress. The real issues of the election were ignored and stem cells and the gay community became a target fo the Bush / Cheney ( Mr Apartheid ) campaign. We know where the Bush camp stands on gays with Laura Bush saying gay marriages are "a very, very shocking issue" there is a sectarian push for control of the whitehouse and the Bush moves to stop Stem Cell Research calls into question the administration's commitment to science and
breakthrough medicines
As one of the key people who helped the people of the United States come together and move forward, the founder of the Democratic-Republican Party once said-
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson

What do you think ??

Playing "Emperor's News Clothes" and demanding that the press say "all is well" won't help the situation.
things are quiet bad now

Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia

from Harper's Magazine

It was only after I had been in Baghdad for a month that I found what I was looking for. I had traveled to Iraq a year after the war began, at the height of what should have been a construction boom, but after weeks of searching I had not seen a single piece of heavy machinery apart from tanks and humvees. Then I saw it: a construction crane. It was big and yellow and impressive, and when I caught a glimpse of it around a corner in a busy shopping district I thought that I was finally about to witness some of the reconstruction I had heard so much about. But as I got closer I noticed that the crane was not actually rebuilding anything—not one of the bombed-out government buildings that still lay in rubble all over the city, nor one of the many power lines that remained in twisted heaps even as the heat of summer was starting to bear down. No, the crane was hoisting a giant billboard to the top of a three-story building. SUNBULAH: HONEY 100% NATURAL, made in Saudi Arabia.
Seeing the sign, I couldn’t help but think about something Senator John McCain had said back in October. Iraq, he said, is “a huge pot of honey that’s attracting a lot of flies.” The flies McCain was referring to were the Halliburtons and Bechtels, as well as the venture capitalists who flocked to Iraq in the path cleared by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and laser-guided bombs. The honey that drew them was not just no-bid contracts and Iraq’s famed oil wealth but the myriad investment opportunities offered by a country that had just been cracked wide open.....
.... But Bremer’s economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq’s corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein’s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.

It's the "Walmart paradigm". Iraq is being strip-mined. The money is not going back into the country for rebuilding, it's going to American mega corps. Not only that, Iraq is being given huge loans from other countries that there's no way in hell they will be able to pay back because all their profit is going to private companies that don't give a sh%t about Iraq

QUOTE

GW

He was reelected because USA is a very, very religious country.

In the past the USA was the country with opportunities. The land with freedom. The land with human rights. The land that all europeans looked forward to.

Today USA is going backwards. It is being more and more religious.
George W. Bush want to stop stem cell research because this can help people who are handicapped, to walk again. But hey, isn't it a good thing handicapped people can walk again? No, not if you are for George W. Bush. Then it is definetly not good. Becuase if God has decided you should not walk, mankind should never try to make it better. If God has decided that you have to be poor and live a terrible life, nobody should change that. It is God's will.

Any republican president isn't actually a president. They are infact the opposite of what they call themselves... you see... "Republican" means someone that is against monarchy. Monarchy is ruled by a king. A king is someonoe with a great power and working for God.

George W. Bush is not the president of the United States. He is the King of the United States. He is working for God.

The number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site has shot up six-fold as Americans flirt with the idea of abandoning their homeland after President George W. Bush's win

"When we looked at the first day after the election, November 3, our Web site hit a new high, almost double the previous record high," immigration ministry spokeswoman Maria Iadinardi said on Friday.

On an average day some 20,000 people in the United States log onto the Web site, http://www.cic.gc.ca]www.cic.gc.ca -- a figure which rocketed to 115,016 on the Wednesday after the election. The number of U.S. visits settled down to 65,803 still well above the norm of 20,000.

Christianity reered it's head again, since values ranked at the top of most important issues, no one can claim that the evangelicals/fundies/conservative catholics are a vocal minority anymore. However congratulations to the Bush supporters, your guy won. the Democrats are now a vestige of a political party

And why are the anti-american members upset? Bush winning is actually a positive for you guys also. You can now rejoice that for at leas the next four years anti americanism, radicalism will become larger as people are forced into those categories. You get an america split in half, bush with the ability to now literally do anything he wants, North korea building nukes, and able to export them at will, China unhindered, and the mideast will now want to kill all americans since we have validated bush. What is negative for you? Most likely your country won't be invaded.

Tuesday 16 November 2004, 2:50 Makka Time, 23:50 GMT

television pool report by US network NBC has said that a US marine had shot dead an unarmed and wounded Iraqi prisoner in a mosque in Falluja.

The Iraqi was one of five wounded prisoners left in the mosque after US marines had fought their way in on Friday and Saturday. There was no immediate comment from the Pentagon on the report.

US forces launched an offensive one week ago on Falluja, and claim to have gained overall control of the city, although resistance fighters dispute this.

The pool report by NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said the mosque had been used by fighters to attack US forces, who stormed it and an adjacent building, killing 10 fighters and wounding five.

Sites said the wounded had been left in the mosque for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. No reason was given why that had not happened.

Images too graphic

A second group of marines entered the mosque on Saturday after reports it had been reoccupied. Footage from the embedded television crew showed the five still in the mosque, although several appeared to be already close to death, Sites said.

He said one marine noticed one of the prisoners was still breathing.

A marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's [expletive] faking he's dead. He faking he's [expletive] dead."

"The marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast," Sites said. No images of the shooting were shown in the footage provided to Reuters.

The report said the marine....

and on you can read more on this stroy online

DonPanic · 2004-11-17 23:54:55

LO

18 months ago? Send 300,000 soldiers to remove Saddam.
No looting. Secure 100% of shoulder fired SAM missiles. Secure 100% of Iraqi explosives. Not 95% and claim "Job well done."

Not even, don't really agree, I insist on political preparation. If Us administration had recruited and trained Irakis before the attack to create a body of officers, then turned iraki army and police forces with $$$$$$$$ to the US side, they would have done the security job. The recruitment campaign should have started immediatly with all captured soldiers and policemen.
Or may be you're right if the additionnal task force was to bring and deal food and goods supply to Irakis, to prove US good will at populations. The military power engaged was largely enough for the military task.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-18 01:50:05

Hi Bill.
No, I don't wish to nuke 500 million Muslims.
I believe you called for 500,000 troops and a trillion dollar budget for Iraq because you knew they were impossible figures, not because you believed it was necessary.
The Arab media may be outraged about the marine shooting the terrorist but they're outraged about everything Western - on principle. They'll get over it.
What they're not outraged about is more revealing. They're not outraged about Sept. 11, Bali, Beslan, suicide bombings, beheadings, Yasser Arafat stealing hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) from the Palestinian people, Sharia-law stoning of women and their sexual mutilation ('circumcision').
The psy-ops war you say we're losing isn't being waged by us; it's being waged by them against us, with the support of large sections of the Western media. You know it and I know it. We in the West are guilty of everything while the Arab world is without sin, no matter what atrocities many of them may perpetrate. It may work for some people but it certainly doesn't work for me - but then I'm not into the 'Western Guilt Trip'.
No, I don't accuse you of complicity in Margaret Hassan's murder. Perhaps you feel some guilt for it, I don't know. That's your business, Bill - you brought it up, I didn't. All I said was to expect the 'marine-shoots-terrorist' affair to take precedence in the media over the pre-meditated murder of a Western woman. It's all part of the psy-ops thing.

DonPanic · 2004-11-18 05:22:29

LO

The Arab media may be outraged about the marine shooting the terrorist but they're enraged about everything Western - on principle. They'll get over it.
What they're not enraged about is more revealing. They're not enraged about Sept. 11, Bali, Beslan, suicide bombings, beheadings, Yasser Arafat stealing hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) from the Palestinian people, Sharia-law stoning of women and their sexual mutilation ('circumcision').

They have their own balance, as the number of Irakis killed by those who are supposed to bring them democracy.
They'll get over it ? how ? by rising more terrorists, terrific deal.
Palestinian are not so rich, is Arafat stole money, it's from European council help.
-Sexual mutilation of women is nor arab nor muslim, it's african. It happens in Mali, Niger, not in arab countries,
Check up your sources before saying anything false.
9/11, Bali and Beslan suicide bombing aren't iraki, so there wassn't a reason to retaliate at irakis.
Admitting retaliations on others than the real guilty peoples might lower you to somebody as miserable as the ones you condemn, and you wait for them to be mercyful ?
Your mixing up everything shows you are aware of nothing precise, so your arguments have only the weigh of hatred, my best enemy in the world. (Been defeated in last rugby test match )

Palomar · 2004-11-18 07:35:27

-Sexual mutilation of women is nor arab nor muslim, it's african. It happens in Mali, Niger, not in arab countries,
Check up your sources before saying anything false.

*Are you sure, DonPanic? The woman who wrote the true-life story Not Without My Daughter -- Betty Mahmoud -- said she had to manually pull her intrauterine device (birth control) out of herself (VERY painful) after her husband trapped she and her daughter in Iran because a woman found using birth control (at least at that time -- 1980s -- in Iran) could be killed for it.

That's mutilation in another form, if you ask me.

Shaun -- again, you make good points.

--Cindy

::edit:: DonPanic, I think you are missing Shaun's point when you said: "9/11, Bali and Beslan suicide bombing aren't iraki, so there wassn't a reason to retaliate at irakis."

Shaun was talking about the Arab media, not retaliation against Iraqis. Where's the outrage on the part of the *Arab media* for atrocities committed by Arabs (as in Sudan, for example)?

BWhite · 2004-11-18 08:18:19

LO
18 months ago? Send 300,000 soldiers to remove Saddam.
No looting. Secure 100% of shoulder fired SAM missiles. Secure 100% of Iraqi explosives. Not 95% and claim "Job well done."
Not even, don't really agree, I insist on political preparation. If Us administration had recruited and trained Irakis before the attack to create a body of officers, then turned iraki army and police forces with $$$$$$$$ to the US side, they would have done the security job. The recruitment campaign should have started immediatly with all captured soldiers and policemen.
Or may be you're right if the additionnal task force was to bring and deal food and goods supply to Irakis, to prove US good will at populations. The military power engaged was largely enough for the military task.

I agree with you. Before the war I posted many the same ideas right here and said removing Saddam was a mistake no matter how much the evil bastard "deserved" it.

But, if there was no avoiding war, to send in too few soldiers to assure security makes the situation worse.

I believe you called for 500,000 troops and a trillion dollar budget for Iraq because you knew they were impossible figures, not because you believed it was necessary.

Shaun, don't order a meal if you cannot pay the bill.

George Bush has attempted the most audacious program of nation-building the world has ever seen, on the cheap.

dickbill · 2004-11-18 08:18:22

The Arab media may be outraged about the marine shooting the terrorist but they're outraged about everything Western - on principle. They'll get over it.

I am not arab and I was outraged when I saw these pictures.
Those who claim to be the JUST, Truthfull cannot use the same methods of the terrorists.
Look Shaun, it's very simple. I put the occidental christian-derived values in the highest standarts. It's about compassion equality justice fraternity strengh and fairness. This is why our civilisation has been so succesfull in History.
When terrorist act like terrorist and kill an innocent woman, they just prove what they are : terrorists.

If you accept to use of the same methods as the terrorists, even locally, we have already fail and our values won't survive that.
America must find an issue to this conflict without using the same philosophy as the killers. Is it clear ?
No, the GI that pushed the trigger is not responsible. He is a vivctim as well as the guy that he killed. Those who sent him are much more responsible.
But ultimately, not even Bush is responsible, after all, he does nothing that he knows wouldn't be fully supported by the largest of the US population. This is the truth.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-18 08:22:18

DonPanic, I suppose I must make allowance for language difficulties - especially since your English is so much better than my French. - but it can be tiresome to go over the obvious!
However, if needs must.

When Bill writes about the Arab media, he writes of a group of people who know about events all over the world, not just in Iraq. But what upsets them depends very much on who is doing the upsetting. Get the point? O.K. Now go back to my last post and re-read it carefully. It contains a list of things which don't really upset the Arab media very much at all.
My contention is that much of the Western media have very similar selective sensibilities about what upsets them. We know what to expect from Arab media outlets but our journalists profess to be objective reporters - which they often are not.

They'll "get over it" because it's not genuine outrage, it's pure anti-Western political bluff and bluster. If they had any real sense of the outrageous, that list of things in my last post would drive them crazy .. but it doesn't.

Thankyou, DonPanic, for pointing out the glaringly obvious once more with regard to Yasser Arafat. We're all perfectly well aware that the Palestinian people aren't rich enough to be the target of large-scale theft. That's because Mr. Arafat intercepted their foreign aid money and put it in his bank account. He didn't steal from them directly - he didn't have to. He got their money before they ever saw it.

I never said female genital mutilation was an exclusively Arabic or Muslim practice but you don't tend to see nearly as much of it in Western countries as you do in Muslim countries.
For example, a little googling revealed that the percentage of Muslims in the following countries is about:-
Djibouti 94%
Sierra Leone 80%
Somalia 100%
Sudan (northern) 85%
It's estimated that 90% of the females in these places have been mutilated.
The percentage of Muslims in the next group is:-
Chad 85%
Egypt 94%
Gambia 87%
Guinea 95%
Guinea Bissau 80%
Mali 90%
Nigeria 75%
50% of the females in these countries are estimated to have been mutilated.
The Arab media, which became "outraged" at the torture of terrorist prisoners in Iraq by the brutal Americans (and I agree that episode was thoroughly reprehensible), most probably know about the tens of millions of Muslim women who have been subjected to this barbarity. If I know it, and I'm not even Muslim, wouldn't you think they would know it too?
Yet, strangely, this heinous practice, usually inflicted on girls too young to object, causes the arab media no outrage at all. Doesn't that water down the impact of Arab media outrage just a little bit? It does for me. Especially when you put it together with all the other little things on my list!
Am I getting through to you here? Are we absorbing any of this? (Have I checked up on enough facts for you yet?)

If you find my argument is still all mixed up and you think I am "aware of nothing precise", then I can only blame the language barrier once more and wish you Bon nuit.

clark · 2004-11-18 08:30:13

You know, i think it is like 60-70% of all males in the US (I have no relevant stats for the rest of the West) have their sexual organs mutilated at birth, or shortly afterwards.

Some do it for religious reasons.

Perspective is such a wonderful thing.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-18 08:34:34

Sorry Clark, it won't work.
Male circumcision and female genital mutilation bear no comparison. Go get a book or something and read up on the difference!

clark · 2004-11-18 08:42:20

Oh, fine, have it your way.

What you seem to misunderstand about the issue is that female circumcision is a cultural phenomenon. The Quoran does not support it the mutiliation of female genitals anymore than the Chrisitan Bible does.

Yet, what we see, is that female mutiliation occurs in Chrisitan communities and Muslim communities, and in just about any religious faith where the practice is a cultural phenomenon.

Do your own reading. :laugh:

Trying to pin this on the backward Muslim faith isn't going to work. The Arab media dosen't give a damn about it because it is a practice carried out by a sub-set of Muslims in predominantly Africa. How much air time does the issue get in western media about the chrisitian faiths that practice the same thing? Exactly, zero.

But i do enjoy your conspiracy theory about media being the fifth column. :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-11-18 08:46:34

*I have questions for Bill White, DonPanic and dickbill:

The Arab media biases don't bother you?

Or do you believe the Arab media has no biases?

Or do you think it's "okay"/doesn't matter if they have biases because Western journalism has its biases as well?

It's "okay" for the Arab media to be quiet [silence gives assent] about the genocide ocurring in Sudan (Arab Islamicists butchering helpless black African Sudanese)?

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-18 08:46:46

I can't believe you just wrote me that condescending moralistic lecture, Dickbill. Please read my post of Nov 17 2004, 19:41
I understand the ramifications of that marine's actions and they will have to be investigated. But my point was that there are other things much more worthy of your outrage, and the outrage of the press!

What's wrong with you people?
Hello .. hello .. am I getting through? :bars:

clark · 2004-11-18 08:48:52

Maybe, just supposing, there isn't anything wrong with us... that might mean... :hm:

clark · 2004-11-18 08:53:07

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) .... FGM originated in Africa. It was, and remains, a cultural, not a religious practice.
Among individuals and groups opposed to the mutilation, it is seen as a method of reducing the sexual response of women in order to make them less likely to become sexually active before marriage or to seek an extra-marital affair after marriage.

It is about control. It is a barbaric practice not founded in any religious text. It is cultural, like us putting a tree in our homes in the middle of December.

This mutilating operation is often associated mainly with the religion of Islam. This is incorrect. FGM is primarily a social practice, not a religious one. Female genital mutilation predated Islam. It originated in Africa and remains today a mainly African cultural practice. Some indicators of this are:
It is widely practiced in countries where the predominant religion is Christianity: Examples are Ethiopia and Kenya.
In multi-faith countries, it is often forced on girls whose families follow all faiths: Animism religions, Christianity, and Islam. For example, it is frequently practiced among both Muslims, Christians and Animists in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, and Sudan. 3
FGM was once practiced by Ethiopian Jews (a.k.a. Beta Isreal; formerly known by the derogatory term "Falashas"). 9, 16, 17,19 This practiced was apparently discontinued some time ago. A pediatrician who works in the Beta Israel community claims that they no do not practice FGM in Israel. Also, their daughters who were born in Ethiopia were not mutilated. 22
FGM has spread to countries in or near Africa (e.g. Egypt) which are Muslim. But FGM is rare or nonexistent in many other Muslim countries. Examples are Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. Also, It is not done in the Maghreb countries of Northwest Africa.
FGM is only occasionally found in Indonesia and other predominately Muslim countries in Asia.

South America saw population shifts from Africa during the slave trade. Egypt saw demographic shift as Africans from the suth migrated North. This all resulted from the movement of Muslims within the Caliph so many hundreds of years ago.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-11-17 19:53:41

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#52 2004-11-17 20:00:54

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#53 2004-11-17 20:09:12

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#54 2004-11-17 20:42:29

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#55 2004-11-17 21:05:07

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#56 2004-11-17 21:19:46

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#57 2004-11-17 22:02:59

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#58 2004-11-17 22:42:13

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#59 2004-11-17 23:07:03

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#60 2004-11-17 23:35:44

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#61 2004-11-17 23:41:52

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#62 2004-11-17 23:54:55

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#63 2004-11-18 01:50:05

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#64 2004-11-18 05:22:29

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#65 2004-11-18 07:35:27

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#66 2004-11-18 08:18:19

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#67 2004-11-18 08:18:22

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#68 2004-11-18 08:22:18

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#69 2004-11-18 08:30:13

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#70 2004-11-18 08:34:34

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#71 2004-11-18 08:42:20

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#72 2004-11-18 08:46:34

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#73 2004-11-18 08:46:46

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#74 2004-11-18 08:48:52

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#75 2004-11-18 08:53:07

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

Board footer