You represent a radical element in western liberalism that is attempting to take over the liberal movement and destroy it with kind of biased view against the West that you espouse.

My view is certainly biased in favor of the truth but i do aim to get it even closer. Currently it doesn't look good for western imperialism but perhaps perhaps the Vietnamese will still go 'communist' , the Cubans and Mexicans invade Florida and Texas, the USSR use it's massive nuclear arsenal to lay waste to the US, while shooting down the vast majority of American ICBMs, and the like. Yes, in this crazy world we have to watch the 'evildoers' because their just devious enough to want to kill us but not apparently devious enough to exploit the west as it has exploited the East. I suppose it's a different 'stupider' type of 'deviousness' as only lesser beings can possess. Imperialist voters logic in action.

This is why GW won over Kerry, it became clear that Kerry has a disdain for the U.S. and the West similar to your own.

George Bush lost to Kerry and Gore and had to steal both elections by perpetrating rather large frauds. I can't say that i think Kerry would have done much different ( Obama isn't) but i am trying to stay on topic.

Yours is the hate filled agenda, supporting the assassination of people for speaking their minds, supporting terrorism.

Don't know them so don't hate them. What i do know is that the imperialist ( not Theo ) are definitely for assassination so perhaps we should return the favor occasionally; we do after all have the numbers to sustain reprisals in kind. Since the whole killing thing tends to result in factions that just seem to kill each other other and not those in power who exploit us all i am certainly for putting off the assassinations and the like until a far larger proportion of western society have figured out what is being done to them and in their name trough their resources.

I consistently come here to speak out against violence like terrorism and honor killings, and stand up for those who act in their own defense. People do have a right to defend themselves against those, like Hamas, who swear to destroy them

And i have always been left with the distinct impression that these things are only problematic for you if they are being done by the societies that are squirming under the boot of foreign oppressors. Why is it that you seem to be so desperately interest in making apologies for the invaders( who have created the political and societal free for all in Iraq and across much of the world) and occupiers by blaming all the problems normally associated with war on those being invaded and suffering the most?

People most certainly have the right to defend themselves but apparently this is only when they are Westerners ( including Israeli's; funnily?) and thus deserving of status enough to get their deaths covered in the western media? Why do you think so much less of those Iraqi's, Afghans and others who stand up to act in self defense of their countries or just families? Why are you , a apparent racist, so quick to point fingers when anyone suggests that westerns might , and the case of Theo ,did, face retribution for what their governments are doing in the Middle east and elsewhere?

Striking to say the least.

Stellar

quote]Originally posted by poet1b
Maybe I was out of line to state that I don't think you care about the truth at all, maybe.

Maybe i don't think your anywhere close to convinced , in that paranoid seeming mind of you, that i am not in fact 'anti american' ( whatever that means to you) and somehow hell bent on destroying the bastion of 'freedom'? Maybe we would both be much better off we we stropped trying to discover or assume each others motives and instead focus on what is in fact being said?

Saddam did not work For the U.S. up until the first Gulf War.

I am wrong to say that he 'worked for' the U.S national security state as the relationship is obviously much more complex than that. The U.S national security state interests at mostly coincided with SH's when he took over the Baath party and slowly worked towards expelling or killing all those progressives who wanted reform and a truly democratic process. With the failure of the US NSS in Iran it shifted much of it's operation over the Iraq and in so doing helped to encourage SH to invade Iran thus keeping the entire middle east destabilized and Iran occupied and subverted for more than a decade. This led to the large scale disruption in both societies once again furthering US aims of keeping progressive ( 'leftist') movements very much suppressed. Up until the reorganization of the USSR SH were a useful ally/puppet but clearly not following the imperial script closely enough hence rapid escalation to war over the little dictatorship that is Kuwait. At the initiation of the gulf war i think it became clear to SH that his usefulness had mostly expired and that he had no more free pass to continue making Iraq a beacon of economic and social reform in the middle east. Perhaps had he read recent history he could have discovered that setting a alternative example is a very, very bad idea in this corporate capitalist dominated world?

Saddam might have worked with factions within the U.S., the very same people who later betrayed him, but Saddam also worked with the Soviets, and anyone else who furthered his agenda.

More throwaway claims that i would like to see you prove. Who did SH 'conspire' with and to what ends other than national independence? Would you perhaps like to discuss why Cuba, Vietnam, Korea and so many other nations turned to the USSR AFTER the US national security state essentially told them that their democratic and economic redistribution( which means giving back to the poor what had previously been stolen from them) policies were simply not acceptable? Perhaps you want to investigate how hard Castro and Ho Chi Minh tried to cooperate with the United States of America before eventually turning to the USSR for protection in this hostile capitalist controlled world?

Saddam was a mad man, that is clear, and if you don't see it, I feel sorry for you.

I don't see how SH was a mad man and i doubt i could as i can't even begin to comprehend how a truly mad person can so effectively control the people that are required to make a modern nation function. If you wish to suggest that he was completely immoral , a racist ( killing Kurds, other minorities) , imperialist for attacking Iran and Kuwait or possessed other qualities that made him a less than 'nice' human being i could understand but but definition 'mad' isn't close.

If the Muslim extremist would stop murdering people in order to further their radical agenda in Iraq

Actually it's either sectarian violence ( religious/ethnic factions) or the resistance movements fighting against either those who cooperate with the occupiers or with the occupation troops directly. I don't think it's useful or accurate to believe that the violence in Iraq is based on 'muslim' extremism when things were pretty quite under SH despite the generous use of violence on the side of state police/army units. I am quite confident that the recent invasion had everything to do with the breakdown of law and order and the resulting free for all that is ongoing despite the deaths of so many.. Again I don't hear any talk of Christian extremist when bombs go off in Northern Ireland despite the fact that it is as much a issue there as in Iraq. Until people such as yourself can begin to understand that Muslims are people too ( not the only people who kill over religion or foreign troops who occupy them) i have a hard time seeing your response in anything but racist imperialist term ai, it's all 'their' fault.

Iraq could be a decent place to live right now.

Iraq used to be a decent country to live in that were utterly destroyed by two invasions, more than a decade of sanctions and now 6 years of occupation that has done practically nothing to rebuild the country's vital civilian infrastructure. Iraq's muslims did not and could not destroy the civilian infrastructure and even if they murdered each other for years they would still have had all the infrastructure in place that were so uttery destroyed by air bombardment and sanctions. If you can find a way to blame Iraqi's for being in this situation i would like to hear what you think about starving people in Sudan, the genocide of a minority tribe in Rwanda and all the people who still find themselves living in dictatorships who have open trade relations with the US national security state. So much for 'liberating' people when the trade partner can keep his people poor and generally working hard for western corporate profit?

U.S. troops would leave much more quickly, and Iraqis could get on with becoming a prosperous democracy.

Germans are not killing each other at all and the US still has troops there. South Koreans are not killing each other and the US still has troops there. The Japanese have not invaded anyone in half a century and the US still has troops there. In fact it's not hard to find peace loving people who live next to US bases that they just can't seem to get expelled no matter what their government does. Why do you still believe in this mythology that the US national security state will 'leave' Iraq if the violence stops? Why did you believe them when they said there were WOMD or ties to terrorism? Why can't you let history educate you about US national security state foreign policy directives? What have they ever had to do with keeping the peace if shooting someone or something turned a profit?

As the evidence shows, it is Muslim extremists who are doing most of the killing in Iraq.

The major killer in Iraq is a lack of clean water, sanitation and health care services. Since that death toll is so high i am not really concerned with who is shooting who or bombing what considering how significant the basic higher mortality rate is. Either way the sources we have discussed shows quite clearly that despite US popular propaganda to the contrary many tens of thousands of people have surely died as result of fighting both each other and the US forces. I think the higher end estimates are much more useful ( they were good enough when they were used to 'prove' that the Serbs had killed tens of thousands of people) and accurate considering the scale of this war but i am not fixated with the death toll be it 100 000 or 1 000 000.

What i find most distressing is that despite the invasion of and occupation of a foreign nation you are still somehow managing to believe that 'they' are to blame; the Nazi party would have really liked your type helping to spread this notion that 'they' will always be killing themselves with or without foreign intervention. It's this type of supremacist reasoning that makes me wonder why i should be cordial at all.

If wipedia provides its sources, than you should post those sources, being that wipedia is not the original source. Use wipedia as a search engine if you like, but you should link to the original source. I shouldn't have to chase down your sources.

I agree that you shouldn't have to 'chase' ( is citing wikipedia making it that difficult for you?) and would have had a much easier time of it if you actually did the research yourself instead of relying on hearsay and popular propaganda. Basically i will continue to site whatever sources i like ( secondary or otherwise) as long as i believe them to be accurate representations of the original fact sets. If you disagree with the analysis in the secondary or primary sources you should post the source material you are basing your disagreement on. If have come a long way past the half way mark to meet you and i am not coming any further.

The thing is, how can you expect any legitimacy when you post statements like this.

What a bigot you are. Do i ever talk about Christian US/western imperialism?

Here are quotes from you throwing around the imperialism claim left and right just in this very post where you claim not to do such a thing, and the previous post.

Agreed. I made the mistake of adding the slash when i meant to specify that i didn't discuss western imperialism in religious terms; i have not stated and don't believe modern western imperialism to be based on western religious beliefs and i have seen no evidence that Islam is responsible for the hostile actions/ imperialism ( Ottoman empire) of largely Muslim.

That's the distinction i tried to make and i don't think it should have been that hard to 'uncover' as the last section of my post makes clear.

Continued

The thing is, how can you expect any legitimacy when you post statements like this.

What a bigot you are. Do i ever talk about Christian US/western imperialism?

Here are quotes from you throwing around the imperialism claim left and right just in this very post where you claim not to do such a thing, and the previous post.

Agreed. I made the mistake of adding the slash when i meant to specify that i didn't discuss western imperialism in religious terms; i have not stated and don't believe modern western imperialism to be based on western religious beliefs and i have seen no evidence that Islam is responsible for the hostile actions/ imperialism ( Ottoman empire) of largely Muslim.

That's the distinction i tried to make and i don't think it should have been that hard to 'uncover' as the last section of my post makes clear.

How is it that everywhere around the world, where ever they go, even Sweden, Muslims wind up having to carryout terrorist murders because they are the victims?

Well they do not go around carrying out terrorist murders wherever they go; certainly not more so than Christians. Can we not rather ask why violence perpetrated by Christians are never discussed in religious terms in the western media? Why do you think it is that all the violence committed by Muslims are always seen as purely religious motivated? Where is your proof that they are in fact 'Muslims' other than media claims that they are? It's racial profiling at it's worse and i think it's revealing that this isn't as obvious to you as it is to me.

Somehow they always find a way to become the victims.]

Actually they don't as the media we watch surely condemns them as religious fanatics that obviously could not and did not commit violence for the same reason totally non religiously inspired reasons that Christians and other religious denominations normally does. This is the crux of the matter and how you can and have been propagandized to hate one group more than another for committing the very same offensives for supposed different motivations is very revealing of the imperial method of doing what you want in the world and then inventing racist excuses for consumption by your foot soldiers who are after all doing the dirty work they couldn't do unless they believed themselves to be so superior. It's a racist way of thinking ( other people are so widely differently motivated than myself) and if it wasn't so covertly inserted and commonplace perhaps we could get it banned from ATS.

Stellar

---

---