FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Iraq - Over 1m dead, terror normalised, 100s killed weekly
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Stratehy Of Tension, Fake Terror, 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Annie
9/11 Truth Organiser
9/11 Truth Organiser


Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 830
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 pm    Post subject: Iraq - Over 1m dead, terror normalised, 100s killed weekly Reply with quote

Hi all

Have you seen this website? A useful round-up of what's happening in Iraq:

iraqfocus@riseup.net

Regards

Annie

_________________
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the website address

http://www.iraqoccupationfocus.org.uk/

A few too many gatekeepers (Tony Benn, the Gorgeous One, Milan Rai) for my taste but definately worth being aware of. Current supporters

Jewish Socialists' Group
Radical Activist Network
Red Pepper magazine
War on Want

Jeremy Corbyn MP
George Galloway MP
Jean Lambert MEP
Caroline Lucas MEP
John Mcdonnell MP

Diran Adebayo
Nadje Al-Ali
Tariq Ali
Tony Benn
Gabriel Carlyle
Munir Chalabi
Ken Coates
Liz Davies
Jeremy Dear
Tim Gopsill
Suresh Grover
Jeremy Hardy
Ewa Jasiewicz
Imran Khan
James Kelman
Mike Marqusee
Geoff Martin
Andy Newman
Lou Plummer
Milan Rai
Sami Ramadani
Asad Rehman
Mark Seddon
Greg Tucker
Hilary Wainwright
Martin Wicks
Haifa Zangana
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ravenmoon
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 410
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:09 pm    Post subject: Iraq - Over 1 Million Killed Since U.S. Led Invasion Reply with quote

Quote:
The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on the only scientifically valid study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html


I wonder what the average iraqi thinks of freedom & democracy Rolling Eyes

_________________
"The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Probably the same as the rest of us!! We're still waiting Sad
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
WyldeChylde
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Location: Cardiff, Wales

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just had a quick look at that, and that figure's just an estimate Confused Can imagine the real figure's not far off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
eogz
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262

PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately your average Brit just doesn't feel Iraqi Men Women and Children are white enough to care about.

I tell people these figures and they shrug their soldiers, we are a nation of desensitized couldn't give a *!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:28 am    Post subject: Call to Moderators Reply with quote

A Call to the Moderators

Would a moderator please change the heading on this thread to:

Iraq: Over 1 Million Killed Since U.S. and British Invasion

An economy of truth is a lie: A lie of omission.

_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ravenmoon
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 410
Location: Sheffield

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
An economy of truth is a lie: A lie of omission.


I don't think the title is a lie, our leaders might have gone along with it like the lapdogs they are, but it was US led invasion alright.

_________________
"The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:25 am    Post subject: Re-Writing History - So Soon? Reply with quote

Re-Writing History – So Soon?

Why is it that so few contributors on this site are willing to admit their mistakes, or that they might be wrong, on certain issues?
ravenmoon wrote:
I don't think the title is a lie, our leaders might have gone along with it like the lapdogs they are, but it was US led invasion alright.

Are you attempting to re-write history, as well? ‘Great’ Britain colluded with the United States to keep Iraq under pressure with sanctions and the bombing of the no-fly zones since the end of Dessert Storm. During this period, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, most of them children, suffered and died because medical supplies were either not delivered or they passed their use-by date while officials worked out whether or not some of the medicines could be used in the manufacture of weapons. Some of these medicines may have given relief to children dying of the effects of exposure to the depleted uranium weaponry used by G.B. and the U.S. Then there are the birth defects caused by DU….

Have you also forgotten the infamous Downing Street Memo? Blair and his cabinet—with Jack Straw waving the banner on Israel’s behalf—were also complicit with the United States in their fabrication of Saddam’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities. Yet Britain’s Labour Government had every excuse to pull out of the coalition, following the biggest anti-war rallies that Britain had ever witnessed.

But, as you well know, Blair and Straw did not play the more-than-legitimate Public Opinion Card, instead, they led Britain, hand-in-bloody-hand with the United States, into the illegal and appallingly devastating invasion of Iraq.

Yet you can write, rather ungrammatically:
ravenmoon wrote:
…but it was US led invasion alright.

Will you admit you are wrong, now?

_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eogz wrote:
Unfortunately your average Brit just doesn't feel Iraqi Men Women and Children are white enough to care about.

I tell people these figures and they shrug their soldiers, we are a nation of desensitized couldn't give a *!


this is false. there were loads of brits against the iraq war, but they were ignored, and those in two minds were lied to about the reasons for going, which would of swayed their feelings.

also do you think the mainstream media inform the average brit on the truth of the matter? its one thing not caring when knowing and a totally other thing not knowing inorder to care. the people are being told there is progress, and the destruction and negitive aspects are played down or ignored by the media.

the mainstream is the manipulater and barrier on every subject, if the british people knew the truth of the matter im sure it would be a differant story, and the media know this, which is why they ignore or spin everything to give people a differant impression.

your correct brits aint asking enough questions etc, but it aint because they don't care, its simply because they don't know all the facts or have been given a false impression of how bad things are etc.

infact im slightly offened by the comment, it suggests the average brit only cares when its a white person.

and you cannot judge the people on a few losers you actually asked when they rely on the mainstream for their news, you say one million they think well it was'nt on the news.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:18 am    Post subject: Re: Call to Moderators Reply with quote

Anthony Lawson wrote:
A Call to the Moderators

Would a moderator please change the heading on this thread to:

Iraq: Over 1 Million Killed Since U.S. and British Invasion

An economy of truth is a lie: A lie of omission.


Ravenmoon can call his threads what the hell he likes as far as I'm concerned: the important thing is that it gets read

I wouldnt presume to insult the intelligence of the membership by assuming they don't know that british forces are caught up in this damnable escapade!

Find something IMPORTANT to focus on Anthony

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Louise
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 280

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tell you what i woudn't like to get involved with ANY war with the USA.

Not only do you have to watch out for the so called "enemy", but you have to watch your back as well, you might get hit by friendly fire.

I feel so sorry for all those innocent people who have died because of this war.

But i feel so helpless as well, what can i do about it?.

If i felt i could make some sort of significant difference and change things for the good i'd do it of course.

_________________
One sure way for evil to prevail, is for the good to do nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:23 am    Post subject: News Flash: Invading a Sovereign Nation is not Important Reply with quote

News Flash: Invading a Sovereign Nation is not Important

John White wrote:
Ravenmoon can call his threads what the hell he likes as far as I'm concerned: the important thing is that it gets read

I wouldnt presume to insult the intelligence of the membership by assuming they don't know that british forces are caught up in this damnable escapade!

Find something IMPORTANT to focus on Anthony

John,
I do focus on what I believe to be important issues. One of those is the lack of accuracy in many headlines on this site, as well as within the body of many posts, where misleading statements are made, that, when they go uncorrected, must give the impression to outsiders that this website is just as sloppy and meaningless as the ones which discuss such earth-shattering issues as what Britney Spears or Paris Hilton have been getting up to.

Now you, an esteemed moderator, are not only defending a grossly misleading headline, you are getting into the historical-revisionism act by asserting that British forces are ‘caught up in this damnable escapade.’ That sounds like an innocent bystander being swept along by a crowd of marauding football hooligans.

Are you practising headline writing for the BBC?

Britain invaded Iraq; it didn’t get ‘caught up’ in anything, and you should be ashamed of yourself for assisting in playing down the despicable role your nation has played, just as I am ashamed of the role that Australia played.

Describing the invasion of Iraq as a ‘damnable escapade’ is a gross understatement. It was a premeditated, murderous, illegal and unnecessary attack against a member of the United Nations which has cost the lives of over one million men women and children; almost the entire infrastructure of its larger cities and the dispersal or destruction of its historical heritage. Its repercussions will echo down the ages, and its people will remember Britain’s role in the destruction of the lives of their loved ones and their country, forever.

That is the reality of what you choose to call a ‘damnable escapade.’

_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes mate, and having a tizzy over a thread title is disprportionate

Do you wish to infer that either Ravenmoon or myself are unable to comprehend the sheer horror of what's been going on since 9/11?

If so, I can assure you I can find some choice words in response

I certainly understand your feelings but seeking catharsis like this is looking in the wrong place, and frankly gives the impression that your having trouble handling it: again, I can certainly understand, but again, its my POV thats a misapplication of your energies

Go find some blog or forum of the mind enslaved and go tell them about it! At least there you'll find some punters deserving of a verbal toungue lashing

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:01 pm    Post subject: Missing out GB’s Involvement is still An Economy of Truth Reply with quote

Missing out GB’s Involvement is still An Economy of Truth

John White wrote:
Do you wish to infer that either Ravenmoon or myself are unable to comprehend the sheer horror of what's been going on since 9/11?

Did I say anything like that? Of course I am not inferring any such thing. I am pointing out that you both seem reluctant to correctly assign the blame for the invasion of Iraq, and the devastation it has caused, by purposely avoiding to mention the name of one of the major aggressors in the event: Great Britain.

Having said that, I have to say that I found your description of such a bloody war—a ‘damnable escapade’—rather odd. It put me in mind of phrases such as: ‘A jolly poor show.’

Missing out Britain as a major culprit puts me in mind of the Machiavellian methods of successive British administrations, with the help of the Foreign Office and Big Oil, in playing down their role in the undermining of foreign governments—Iran is a prime example—since the end of World War II.

To learn more of how they went about it, read: ‘Web of Deceit’, by Mark Curtis, which deals with what has been kept from the British public, as well as from the rest of the world, since 1945. The methodology is not unlike that which you appear to condone, because it often begins by denying, or under-reporting any involvement in major events.

_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AFP - Iraq PM calls emergency summit
August 13, 2007 04:25am
Article from: Agence France-Presse
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22234600-23109,00.html
PRIME Minister Nuri al-Maliki overnight called on senior leaders in Iraq's bitterly divided communities to hold crisis talks this week in an effort to save his fraying national unity government.

His latest attempt to bring the leaders of the warring communites under one roof came at a time when the American military declared that five more of its troops battling to bring security to war-torn Iraq had been killed.

"I have invited major political leaders to a meeting to discuss substantial matters," Mr Maliki said in a televised speech.

"Tomorrow or the day after tomorrow could be the first meeting for these leaders to discuss the political program and important strategic problems," the embattled Shiite prime minister said.

Seventeen ministerial posts in his government are empty or filled by members boycotting cabinet meetings amid protests by many parties, especially the main Sunni Arab bloc, at Mr Maliki's faltering program of national reconciliation.

Hopes that his so-called unity coalition can be saved now depend on the senior leadership of the rival parties cutting a new power-sharing deal that can convince the bitter Sunni minority to return to the fold.

Mr Maliki, President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, and Vice-President Adel Abdel Mahdi, another Shiite, are expected to attend the crisis summit.

Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, the senior Sunni Arab in the government and a critic of Mr Maliki's alleged sectarian bias whose presence would be considered crucial, has not yet made it explicitly clear whether he will attend.

But the main Sunni bloc, the National Concord Front to which Mr Hashemi belongs, agreed to participate in the summit, despite its decision to walk out of the government.

"It (the summit) is not just a wish of the government but a wish of all the political parties, and has nothing to do with the Front's withdrawal," said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the Front.

"We will participate in the meeting and discuss various issues, including those related to security and dealing with the militia."

The Front withdrew from Mr Maliki's government on August 1, effectively ending any claim by the Shiite-dominated coalition to be one of national unity.

The bloc has accused the government of failing to rein in Shiite militias accused of killing Sunni Arabs in the brutal Iraqi sectarian strife.

Since the US-led invasion of March 2003, Iraq has plunged into an abyss of overlapping civil conflicts that have divided its rival religious and ethnic communities, and left tens of thousands of civilians dead.

Washington has warned Iraq's leaders to work harder on unity, concerned that the political stalemate could torpedo efforts to reconcile the warring factions and undermine the work of 155,000 American troops to end the conflict.

Shiite parties are suspicious of Sunni leaders whose minority sect dominated political power under executed former dictator Saddam Hussein and accuse them of supporting violent insurgent groups.

Sunni leaders accuse the Shiite parties of ties with powerful neighbour Iran and condemn their alleged complicity with Shiite militias.

As the latest political moves unfolded, the US military said five more of its troops had been killed in fighting around Baghdad, four of whom died when a house rigged with explosives blew up south of the Iraqi capital.

The soldiers were all killed yesterday and belonged to Task Force Marne, which was deployed in the southern belt of Baghdad four months ago as part of the new US counter-insurgency troop "surge".

US military spokesman Sergeant First Class Craig Zentkovich said four of the soldiers were killed "due to a house rigged or booby-trapped with explosives" after the troops entered the property during a clearing operation.

"There was more than one explosion," said Sgt Zentkovich, but said the number of blasts was unclear in what could have been evidence of a sophisticated trap.

The fifth soldier was killed by small arms fire while on foot patrol south-east of the capital, the military said.

At least 29 American soldiers have now died in Iraq this month, and the latest deaths took US losses in the country since the 2003 invasion to 3684, according to an AFP count based on Pentagon figures.

Also overnight, six policemen in the Shiite-dominated police force, a soldier and a woman, were killed in random attacks across northern Iraq, local commanders said.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daily news feed from Iraq - A detailed account of how the Iraqi people are fighting back day by day. Unfortunately the only way the Iraqi people have left to resist this ilegal occupation - due to the western media censorship - is to kill as many of the occupying soldiers as possible. Much to the delight of the racist, bloodthirsty Zionists and NeoCons.
http://www.albasrah.net/pages/mod.php?header=res1&mod=gis&rep=rep

http://www.albasrah.net/index.php

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
eogz
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marky 54, I hope you are right.

I work with lots of people who choose to believe what they are told as opposed to looking into things a little bit.

When it comes to generalising public opinion the media, controlled or not dictate most public opinion.

Sorry if I offended you, but I do feel that unless victims in the world are white, as am I, the general population breathes a sigh of relief and stops worrying about the massive scale of death and suffering out there. Unfortunately ignorance in this age of information and internet access is no excuse.

I could be wrong about what I said, I am often wrong when emotive, but in some ways I fear not.

Sorry if this is off the thread people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:08 pm    Post subject: Still a Dishonest Headline Reply with quote

Still a Dishonest Headline

TonyGosling wrote:
Daily news feed from Iraq - A detailed account of how the Iraqi people are fighting back day by day. Unfortunately the only way the Iraqi people have left to resist this ilegal occupation - due to the western media censorship - is to kill as many of the occupying soldiers as possible. Much to the delight of the racist, bloodthirsty Zionists and NeoCons.
http://www.albasrah.net/pages/mod.php?header=res1&mod=gis&rep=rep

http://www.albasrah.net/index.php


Tony,
Your posts here clearly indicate that you are concerned about what is happening in Iraq, as every decent person must be. I am also still concerned that this forum is hosting a dishonest headline:


Iraq: Over 1 Million Killed Since U.S. Invasion


The headline should, of course, read:

Iraq: Over 1 Million Killed Since U.S. and British Invasion

My attempt to draw attention to this was met with what I felt to be disdain, from both the headline writer and John White, who have both chosen to drop out of the discussion.

You once changed a headline of mine, because you thought it could be 'punchier.' Would you please change the one on this topic, for the more important reason that the current one is a half truth, and therefore dishonest, and as Prole has recently written:

If the Truth is your end then it must be your means.

_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem Andrew isnt the headline title or what it should or should not be:

Its your unfounded and disturbingly paranoid inferences that there is a covert agenda at play amongst the site admin by NOT altering everything posted by other people to some kind of "authorised" tune, that apparently only you are qualified (dunno how) to call

I maintain your making a berk out of yourself, and I don't mind saying that I am less inclined to alter a thread title on your behalf the more you continue to do so, as it appears to me to be pandering to hysteria

Again: you seem to be unable to credit basic intelligence and common sense to the other members of the forum

Quote:
(re tony) You once changed a headline of mine, because you thought it could be 'punchier.' Would you please change the one on this topic, for the more important reason that the current one is a half truth, and therefore dishonest, and as Prole has recently written:


Its true that Tony has indulged in a little title re-writing in the past, and it always generates a storm of PM protests when he does so... which just goes to show site admin can never win either way

I tell you what Anthony: why don't you just fill in the "missing" words where this site is obviously trying to cover up the fact that British troops are over in Iraq (sarc) yourself, and get back to focusing on something that actually matters

I'm sure you can find lots if you try!

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:44 am    Post subject: Inaccuracies Reply with quote

Inaccuracies

John White wrote:
The problem Andrew isnt the headline title or what it should or should not be:

Its your unfounded and disturbingly paranoid inferences that there is a covert agenda at play amongst the site admin by NOT altering everything posted by other people to some kind of "authorised" tune, that apparently only you are qualified (dunno how) to call

Well, that’s a good start, isn’t it? You don’t even know to whom you are replying, which shows how well you check what you write, before you post it..

You are also prone to exaggeration. Had you bothered to re-read your diatribe, before posting it, you would have noticed that my name is Anthony, not Andrew, and that in the 200 odd posts I have made, I have only requested that what I thought to be inaccurate headings be altered, twice; before this one. The others also had to do with what I felt to be gross inaccuracies. (One was a definite libel, against the Naudet brothers. It was never changed, either.)

I am not a psychiatrist, as I doubt you are, but I would suggest that you are closer to being paranoid that I am, because you have made such an issue out of what could have been handled in quite a different manner. You must know that the headline is dishonest, but now you infer that I am asking for a change to suit an "authorised" tune, that apparently I am only qualified to call.

To follow your metaphor: ‘The Truth’ is the ‘tune’ which I am trying to ‘call’, and I happen to believe that any honest person is qualified to call it. If you think otherwise, then you are unfit to be a moderator for a website which started off with the word ‘Truth’ in its title.

John White wrote:
I maintain your making a berk out of yourself…


You can maintain anything you like, and in return—assuming you know what you have just called me, in Cockney rhyming slang—I maintain that you will never be a fit person to moderate anything, until you learn to moderate your own language.

Don't bother to reply, I will no longer be contributing to this site, but I wish well to those who still feel that the truth matters, above all else.

Unfortunately, John, I cannot now think of you as being one of that number, but, despite your insults (maybe your Malvern Hills water is contaminated, or something), I wish you well, nonetheless.

_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew, Anthony, whatever, I'm a busy fellow and bored with your moaning on this thread as it is

YES YOU DID infer this site is "protecting" and "covering up" something

Just get over yourself

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Technically speaking, a lot of other nations were in the 'coalition of the willing' as well - for example, I notice there is no mention of Spain or the Phillipines who also played their minor role. In fact, unless the thread title lists every single country in the COTW and John White changes 'damnable escapade' to 'Unspeakable horror without precedent the very mention of which causes me to weep blood' I will never even think about this site again let alone post on it. Or I may just scream and scream until I am sick. So there.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:09 am    Post subject: Re: Inaccuracies Reply with quote

These exchanges should be on PMs rather than here on the board
IMHO the headline wording is a trivial matter but I'll try and make a bit of peace by slightly changing it and hope that doesn't cause a masive ruccus Question

This is not to imply ANY wrongdoing at all by John who's a wonderful and longsuffering moderator on here and deserves a bit more respect for a few mild offhand commets.

Please do whatever you can to stick to a mature discussion of the issues - as about a hundred people a day are being murdered by the effing Coalition of Willing Nazis' in Iraq.

cheeze

Tony

Anthony Lawson wrote:
despite your insults (maybe your Malvern Hills water is contaminated, or something), I wish you well, nonetheless.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:28 pm    Post subject: Make good your claim Reply with quote

Make good your claim.

John White wrote:
Andrew, Anthony, whatever, I'm a busy fellow and bored with your moaning on this thread as it is

YES YOU DID infer this site is "protecting" and "covering up" something

Just get over yourself


First of all: Do you mean this site or this topic?

Whichever you mean: Show me the passages in question, so that I am given the opportunity to reply to solid accusations, rather than vague innuendo.

_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:12 am    Post subject: Tony Bliar: I wanted war. Reply with quote

Quote:
Tony Blair: ‘I wanted war – it was the right thing to do’

From The Times
November 17, 2007

Philip Webster

Tony Blair has admitted for the first time that he ignored the pleas of his aides and ministers to deter President Bush from waging war on Iraq because he believed that America was doing the right thing. And he has acknowledged that he turned down a last-ditch offer from Mr Bush to pull Britain out of the conflict.

He has also revealed that he wishes he had published the full reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) instead of the infamous September dossier about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction that so damaged him, and was almost certainly one of the factors that contributed to him leaving office sooner than he wanted.

In frank remarks in a BBC documentary, Mr Blair confirmed openly the belief of many of his closest supporters that he never used his position as America’s strongest ally to try to force Mr Bush down the diplomatic rather than the military route.

It was never a “bargaining chip” for him and he was never looking for a way out, he told David Aaronovitch, of The Times, in interviews for The Blair Years. “It was what I believed in, and I still do believe it,” he said.
Related Links

The documentary contains clear evidence that many of those around Mr Blair, including Sir David Manning, his foreign policy adviser, Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador at the UN, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary at the time, and even Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, had huge reservations about the rush to war.Mr Blair said: “In my view, if it wasn’t clear that the whole nature of the way Saddam was dealing with this issue had changed, I was in favour of military action.”

The programme reveals that the key meeting at which Mr Bush learnt that he had Mr Blair on side took place at Camp David in September 2002 – six months before hostilities began. In return for promising Mr Blair that he would try to help get a second resolution at the UN, he also won Mr Blair’s pledge that if he got “stuck” in the UN, war would be the only way out. Mr Blair later suggested that Mr Bush tried for a second resolution as a “favour” to him.

The programme also reveals that just before the key Commons vote on war Mr Bush telephoned Mr Blair and offered him a way out. Mr Blair explained why he had declined the offer: “He was always very cognisant of the difficulty I had. He was determined we should not end up with the regime change being in Britain and he was saying to me, ‘Look I understand this is very difficult and America can do this militarily on its own and if you want to stick out of it, stick out of it’, and I was equally emphatic we should not do that.”


You can have your say here

For example:

Quote:
Thank goodness for Tony Blair. May Britain continue to have such leaders of moral integrity and purpose.

Rosie Smyth, Canterbury,

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.


Last edited by Mark Gobell on Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:36 am; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
On Gardening Leave


Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Tony Blair: The war? I believed in it, I believed in it then, I believe in it now

From The Times
November 17, 2007

Tony Blair tells our correspondent that his only regret is that he didn’t set out his position on confronting Iraq clearly enough

David Aaronovitch

Months ago, when I knew I would be interviewing Tony Blair for a series of programmes on BBC One, I would ask friends, politicians and other journalists what questions they most wanted put to the former Prime Minister. Reduced to its essentials, the answer would almost invariably be the same one, “Why, really, did you go to war in Iraq?” Today this, as far as I can tell, is what happened.

When Tony Blair became Leader of the Opposition in 1994, he — like Margaret Thatcher — knew little about foreign policy. What he did have was a series of instincts about how the Major Government and the international community had handled affairs in Bosnia, and he wasn’t impressed. Ever the anti-fatalist, once in office he was inclined to see such problems as requiring a solution. And passing across his desk in autumn 1997 were a series of intelligence reports concerning the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and his weapons of mass destruction. “We cannot let him get away with it,” he told Paddy Ashdown that November.

Although military force short of invasion was used several times against Iraq in the following years, the first killing ground was to be the Serbian province of Kosovo in 1999. When a campaign of airstrikes against Milosevic’s Serbia seemed to be getting nowhere, Blair began to agitate for Nato to threaten the use of ground troops and eventually persuaded a very reluctant Bill Clinton to agree to such a line. Two days later Milosevic backed down. The lesson that Blair took from this, he told me, was that the credible and united threat to use force could succeed where all else failed. In fact he didn’t believe that Clinton would have carried out the threat.

As the Kosovo crisis developed, Blair had delivered a major foreign policy speech in Chicago that spring. This address outlined a doctrine of liberal interventionism, arguing that there were circumstances when, though its interests were not directly threatened, the international community might intervene in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. The speech singled out two major villains: Milosevic and Saddam. One critic of Blair’s foreign policy activism was — I was reminded by a senior Blair aide — then an academic at Stamford, Condoleezza Rice.
The past decade a disaster?

Both the election of David Cameron as party leader and everything that he has done since then are a tribute to Mr Blair

In early 2001 Blair found himself having to form a relationship with a new and Republican President. From the start he and Bush got on personally. “A decent guy,” Bush said to me about Blair. “He’s grounded, he loves his family, he’s got good priorities.

“To me it’s just easier to deal with a person who believes in some basic fundamentals.”

It was 9/11 that created the political bond. “The moment I saw what was unfolding and realised the scale of it,” Blair told me, “I felt a really deep sense of mission.” It was clear to him immediately, he said, what it was he had to do. With Bush showing, in those early days, a restraint and a focus that hadn’t been expected of him, Blair toured the world helping to put together a coalition for action. By Christmas 2001 the Taleban were defeated and Bin Laden was on the run. Now, the question was, what came next? The American answer, by early 2002, was Saddam. Our man at the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, was, he told me, very surprised because he couldn’t see the relevance of Iraq to 9/11. What had changed, Greenstock thought, was the calculus of opportunity — Bush could now get support for action against Iraq that would previously have been opposed by the American people.

In London, Tony Blair was thinking about Iraq in a slightly different way. To him, according to Sir David Manning, his foreign policy adviser, it was the calculus of risk that had altered with the attack on America.

The nightmare was the confluence of WMD with terrorism; nuclear programmes were believed to be up and running in Libya, Iran and North Korea, and Saddam’s continued defiance of UN resolutions seemed to confirm intelligence reports of continuing WMD capacity. Worse, the existing sanctions regime against Iraq was crumbling. “What you could get away with before 9/11,” explained David Manning, “was no longer acceptable.”

From early on, Tony Blair operated with an implied hierarchy of options over Iraq. The worst, in his view, was that Saddam should be permitted to continue in his defiance. The best was that the international community, acting through the UN, should threaten action sufficiently convincingly to get Saddam to back down completely. Then, as happened with Milosevic, Saddam might well be forced from power. In between these poles were other possibilities, ranging from an internationally agreed plan to force Saddam to comply, to the much less welcome possibility of unilateral military action undertaken by an isolated United States.

In April 2002 Blair travelled to the Bush family ranch in Crawford, Texas. Did he at this point, secretly agree (as many believe), I asked him, to an invasion of Iraq? “It is complete rubbish that when I went to see President Bush I said, ‘Right, OK, I’m up for it’.” replied Blair. “What’s more, he was not of that view at that time.” Blair instead suggested that, if British support were to be forthcoming for any action against Saddam, two things needed to be done. The first was that the diplomatic route through the United Nations should be used, and the second that the process towards peace in the Middle East should be restarted. “If we wanted that broad coalition, for the Arab and Muslim world this was absolutely in the soul of their being.” Blair told me that he specifically put to Bush that if Saddam complied fully with UN resolutions, then they’d have “to take yes for an answer”. Sir David Manning recalls that Bush told Blair that if Saddam accepted international obligations, then they would effectively have “crated the guy”. With intrusive inspection, and UN administration of humanitarian aid, says Manning, Iraq “would have been a different country”.

Even so, there is a division in Blair’s foreign policy team about what it was that the Americans really heard. Did they take more notice of the promise of British support than they did of the British conditions? According to Greenstock, “the second part came over less strongly than the first”. And though Bush, according to Alastair Campbell, had an understanding of the British position, “Cheney and Rumsfeld were in a somewhat different place”. In fact the Administration as a whole had little time for the UN.

By summer 2002 Tony Blair had embarked on his long, hazardous journey between what Jonathan Powell described as the “clashing pillars” of US impatience and the international community’s desire to avoid conflict, or as Greenstock put it: “Tony Blair began to do the splits.” In early September 2002 Blair met Bush at Camp David. Blair’s emphasis was on getting a resolution through the Security Council which would put pressure on Saddam. “I think he was a little concerned,” George Bush told me, “as to whether or not I reconsidered how important it was to utilise the United Nations as a way to rally support and I sure didn’t think it wasn’t, but I also assured him that sometimes you get stuck in the United Nations to no end.”

There was still hope. That November, in the peak moment for Blair’s strategy, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 demanding Saddam’s readmission of weapons inspectors and a regime of compliance. But it was clear very early that France, at any rate, had a different idea of what action 1441 entailed.Chirac was partly animated by a contempt for George Bush and partly by the fear of a Shia Iraq and a civil war. Sir Stephen Wall recalls that after meetings with Chirac, Tony “would kind of roll his eyes and say, poor old Jacques, he doesn’t get it, does he?”

The UN inspectors, under Hans Blix, went into Iraq between December 2002 and February 2003. In essence, they reported two things: first that they couldn’t find any hard WMD and second that Saddam wasn’t fully complying. In response the Americans became more belligerent and the French and Russians, in particular, became more obdurate. As the pillars clashed, the best Blair options of united international action began to fall apart. According to Greenstock, “it became more important to the French, Germans and Russians to stop the superpowers taking unilateral action than to deal with Saddam’s defiance of the UN Security Council”. And the Americans didn’t help. In early 2003, with troops moving to the Gulf, Britain pushed for a second UN resolution to agree action against Saddam. This time even Colin Powell, the one dove in the hawk-cote, didn’t support him. Blair now lent on his relationship with Bush. “Tony needed it,” Bush told me, “I can remember him asking me to make phone calls, which I did, but it was all in an effort to help our friends and allies to eventually accomplish a mission that we had all come to the conclusion needed to be done.” Blair agrees with this perception. “There was a certain amount of resistance to the November resolution (in Washington) and there was big resistance to the second resolution. But . . . I was very insistent with the President that we had to try for it, and in the end he was prepared to try for it.” But, I asked, didn’t Bush do it to oblige you. “Yes,” replied Blair, “I think he did.”

“I don’t feel,” recalled Greenstock, “that the Americans ever really put their shoulders to the wheel, because they were saying ‘we’ve got to humour the Brits’.” And Sir Jeremy was aware of the impulsion to war, with Vice-President Cheney urging action at the beginning of February. “The Prime Minister was asking for many more weeks than that. The President came up with a compromise.” March.

In one last attempt to save the broad-based options, the British suggested a series of practical bench-marks against which Saddam’s compliance could be judged and then, if he was found wanting, united action could be taken. Kofi Annan was positive, Blix was sceptical, but no one else was much interested. Blair’s analysis of his predicament at this point is almost plaintive. “Coming into February, early March 2003,” he told me, “I was in a position which didn’t really have a constituency any more. The American system was . . . wanting to move this thing forward and . . . I think for the countries on the other side, they decided we’re going to draw a line in the sand.” When war came it was the “coalition of the willing”

Bush had phoned Blair two days earlier to tell him that Britain could stand aside if it meant saving Blair’s premiership. “I said rather than lose your Government,” Bush told me, “be passive, you know we’ll go without you if need be.” Blair refused. I asked him why. His answer was impassioned. “Because I think this is the most fundamental struggle of our time and there is only one place to be which is in the thick of it and trying to sort it out.” Some, including Colin Powell, have subsequently criticised Blair for never really facing Bush down. I put Powell’s words to Blair. “It wasn’t a bargaining chip for me,” he replied. “I wasn’t in a position where I was negotiating with him (Bush) in order to get him to do something different. In my view if it wasn’t clear that the whole nature of the way Saddam was dealing with this issue had changed I was in favour of military action. And, I am afraid, in one sense it is worse than people think in so far as my position is concerned. I believed in it. I believed in it then, I believe in it now.” But did he feel remorse about a war and an occupation that left 4,000 Americans dead, 150 British dead, 75,000 Iraqis dead by the most conservative estimate and more than 3 million refugees?

“There’d be something wrong with me if I didn’t, or an acute sense of responsibility which I . . . will have for the rest of my life,” Blair said. “But I can’t say what I don’t believe about this; whatever it began as, it is part of this wider struggle today and . . . if there’s anything I regret. . . it is . . . not having laid out for people in a clearer way what I saw as the profound nature of this struggle and the fact that it was going to go on for a generation.”

And for once his conclusion was, very uncharacteristically, gloomy. “The enemy that we are fighting I am afraid has learnt . . . that our stomach for this fight is limited and I believe they think they can wait us out. Our determination has got to match theirs and our will has got to be stronger than theirs and at the moment I think it is probably not.”

— The Blair Years begins on BBC One tomorrow at 10.15pm.

The road to war

April 1999 Blair makes major foreign policy speech in Chicago outlining a doctrine of liberal interventionism. Following his success over the Kosovo crisis, Blair said he believed that there may be circumstances where the international community may need to intervene, even though their interests were not directly threatened. His speech singles out Saddam for attention.

September 11 2001 The attacks on the World Trade Centre cement the bond between Blair and new US President George Bush. Blair says that as a result of 9/11 he “felt a really deep sense of mission”. British forces followed US troops into Afghanistan later that year.

Early 2002 After the Taleban’s defeat in Afghanistan, the Americans turn their attention to Saddam. Blair has to consider the options, from a diplomatic course via the UN to force Saddam to comply with inspections, to unilateral military action with US.

April 2002 Blair meets Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Blair tells the President that to gain British support against Saddam he needs to do two things – to take the diplomatic route through the UN, and to kick-start the peace process in the Middle East. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British Ambassador to the UN, says that to the Americans “the second part came over less strongly than the first”.

November 2002 The UN security council passes Resolution 1441 demanding readmission of weapons inspectors and a regime of compliance.

Early 2003 Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, says that although he can find no evidence of Iraqi WMD, Saddam is not complying with inspections. Britain pushes a second UN resolution to agree action against Saddam. Bush says: “Tony needed it.” The resolution eventually fails.

February 2003 Bush tells Blair that Britian can stand aside to save his premiership. Blair refuses. “This is the most fundamental struggle of our time,” he explains.

March 20th 2003 The Iraq war begins.


Have your say

For example:

Quote:
Also given that David Aaronovitch can still not admit that he is wrong to support the war, holds out little hope for this interview. I, for one, wont be watching because the very sight of Blair makes me ill.

K Gersen, London,


Two pathological, poisonous peas in the same festering, stinking pod.

_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A pathologically sick man.

Loved this comment:

Quote:
The ancient Athenians, during their brief experiment with democracy, had some customs that we might well consider adopting. For instance, magistates and other officials were appointed for fixed periods by vote of the entire electorate - and, at the end of their time in office, the same electorate voted on their performance and chose a suitable reward or punishment. A leader who had performed disastrously might even be sentenced to death. If we reintroduced that custom, it would do much to concentrate the minds of those running for office and help them stay on the straight and narrow while in power.

Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,


_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackbear
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 656
Location: up north

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:36 pm    Post subject: Iraq - Grandeur & Destruction Reply with quote

Iraq - Grandeur & Destruction. Part I
Layla Anwar, An Arab Woman Blues

December 15, 2007

Breakthrough & Nostalgia

When I say and repeat that you, Americans have destroyed everything in Iraq, I am met with scorn and anger.

Some of you are too simplistic and equate destruction with buildings in ruins.

Having a limited a vision, you can’t go beyond the material, the physical...

I reiterate, you Americans have destroyed everything in Iraq. And I mean EVERYTHING.

Since 1958 until 2003, Iraq, its government and its people strove relentlessly to build a modern nation state.

The biggest developmental boom took place under the Baath regime and in particular under Saddam Hussein. Like it or not.

In 1972, the oil was nationalized. By 1982, illiteracy and preventable diseases were eradicated.

Education including higher education was free of charge. The government would disburse 5000 grants yearly for postgraduate studies abroad to England, Germany, Russia, France...

By 2003, Iraq accounted for 30’000 scientists. Yes, you read me right, 30’000 scientists. And when in 2003, Bush said that Iraqis were very educated people, he knew what he was talking about.

Now you understand why the targeting of academics, scientists and intellectuals was part of the American plan. It was actually no.1 on the agenda way before "sectarian warfare" broke out.

Since, over 600 scientists and academics have been murdered in cold blood, the rest have fled and many are reported missing...

University libraries and schools were booming with books and publications, the National library in Baghdad held the most ancient manuscripts ever to be found.

Iraqis were known to devour books, and Baghdad was a publishing center. Books would even be distributed free of charge to other Middle Eastern countries including some parts of Africa.

The Universities were equipped with the latest technology and labs. The student dorms were specially designed to accommodate the highest number of students – a lot of them came and studied and lived free of charge in Iraq. They came from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, Algeria, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, Sudan...

In the medical field, Iraq was considered the most developed nation -along with its educational system, in the whole of the Middle East . Both WHO and UNICEF stated that Iraq on these two fronts could be considered as having overcome "underdevelopment" and was ready to join the "developed world."

All specialists were sent abroad for post-doctorate research and for further specialization.

We had the most advanced hospitals, with the latest equipment, there were health dispensaries in every neighborhood. Medication was subsidized, and all you needed to do is pay a symbolic fee of 1 dinar. 1 Dinar for a medical visit and that was it.

Infrastructures were diligently built. Roads, highways, bridges, sewage system, electricity, telecommunications, industry, commercial buildings, hotels, agribusiness...All of these were built by Iraqis. Not some foreign labor, but Iraqis themselves.

In fact, Iraqis were the main asset. And the government under Saddam Hussein, invested heaps into the main riches of Iraq- its people.

Women were particularly favored during that time. We had equal rights, equal pay, 2 years maternity leave, we could divorce when we saw fit, no one would tell us how to dress, 70% of us were working women, we had access to schools, universities, education, government institutions...We could travel, drive, and run our own businesses...

Some of us were professors, others doctors, teachers, engineers, scientists, archeologists, financial managers, diplomats, judges, lawyers, artists, singers, writers, actresses...

We could walk the streets alone, during the day and night, we could go out, dress as we pleased (within reasonable limits), marry whom we wanted in a civil court if we had so wished...Polygamy was forbidden and domestic violence was punishable by law.

Our children had access to free schooling, free meals, free health care and were vaccinated free of charge. Iraq had the lowest child mortality rate in the whole of the Middle East. Our children went to good schools with heating, with desks and chairs, they had enough to eat, they had places to go to and play, they had parks and gardens, swings and playgrounds, they had a mother and a father and grew up into healthy adulthood...

Those who had lost their parents were either taken care of by the rest of the extended family and were given a governmental pay allocation for that or placed in orphanages that were subsidized and supervised by the government. And trust me that government was quite strict with any form of abuse if it ever happened.

The few gays we had, were tolerated and were not harassed or targeted and were not tortured or murdered in broad daylight.

Minorities like the Kurds had their own regional autonomy. Saddam Hussein built them universities and schools where they could teach and learn in their own language. They were allowed their own press in Kurdish, their culture- music, customs and their own style of dress. They were free to circulate in the whole of Iraq, attend universities and live anywhere they wished.

In fact a lot of them remained in Baghdad . They were allowed to be part of the government and were represented in it. We had Kurdish ministers and ambassadors.
And intermarriage between Kurds and Arabs was very common. Kurdish even became a compulsory secondary language in Baghdad’s high schools.

Other minorities like the Sabeans, the Yazidis and the Turkmen were allowed to form associations, practice their own religion, language or ethnic customs...And again, intermarriage was common.

Christians were protected, particularly protected. They were given posts in government. Had access to all the Iraqi institutions, owned their own businesses, were free to worship as they pleased, the government even had a special budget for the construction of churches. They were allowed Sunday off instead of the traditional Muslim Friday. They celebrated their religious holidays in all freedom, they were Iraqis before anything else...They were even free to have their own hospitals, schools, and pension homes.

The Shiites formed the bulk of the government employees and the army. They were considered as Iraqi citizens first and foremost, were allowed to worship in their own mosques and study in their own religious centers, they had access to education, housing, employment, higher studies, high governmental posts, ministerial posts, diplomatic posts...

They were allowed to marry anyone they pleased. And the fact is that the rate of intermarriage between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis is the highest in the Middle East compared to let’s say Bahrain, Kuwait, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia where Shiite minorities exist. There is not one Iraqi family which is not of mixed sects- Sunni/ Shia.

Iraq produced Shiite doctors, professors, scientists, artists, sportsmen...

Palestinians, and they used to call themselves Iraqi-Palestinians, numbered around 35'000 in total.

They were specially protected by Saddam Hussein and his government. They were given equal rights just like the Iraqis, were allowed to own their businesses, marry -marriage between Iraqis and Palestinians was common, had access to free schools, universities, grants, medical services just like any Iraqi.
Palestinians were considered the rightful owners of a just cause and they were fully and unconditionally supported -no matter the cost or the consequences. And that is the way to do it.

Culturally and artistically, Iraq was a truly booming place. Baghdad was known for its poets, writers, artists, musicians, painters, dancers...

And Saddam Hussein invested heavily in Iraqi art.

There was a special Institute for plastic arts, sculpture and ceramics... The Iraqi school of Art was known to be the most prominent in the Middle East and produced many famous names that were later emulated by other Arab artists.

Furthermore, to encourage both Iraqi and non Iraqi art, the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, established cultural offices supervised by its cutural attachés abroad.

For instance you had an Iraqi cultural center in London, one in Paris and another one in Geneva.

These centers would promote Iraqi and non Iraqi artists, organize Iraqi dance festivals, Iraqi exhibitions of crafts and traditionally designed clothes, would invite traditional Iraqi musicians...

The aim was to bridge any cultural gaps between the Arab world/Iraq and the West. And all these activities were free of charge. The government paid for everything- every single activity and covered all the costs it entailed.

As some of you may know, Iraq is the land of the first civilizations known to humankind. The skeleton of the Alphabet started in Sumer with the first cuneiforms. Even cooking recipes were engraved on tablets. Techniques for civil construction, agricultural irrigation and also the preliminaries for urban planning - all took root in this ancient civilization. Epics, poetry, music, jurisprudence with Hammurabi’s over 700 codified rules, philosophy and metaphysics also took root in this land...

I don’t want to go into Mesopotamian history right now, but suffice to say, that Iraq counts for the highest number of archeological sites in the world covering thousands of years, and bearing witness to different epochs of history. From the Sumerians right through to the monotheistic prophets and beyond...

Before the sanction years and I will touch on the sanctions years in my next chapter, the government under Saddam Hussein spent millions of dollars in the restoration, preservation and protection of these sites that are considered part of the universal patrimonial heritage according to UNESCO’s definitions.

The hanging gardens of Babylon were even considered part of the 7 wonders of the world. Not anymore. They have been replaced by Petra in Jordan.

The Iraqi museum was home to thousands of priceless artifacts, numbered, classified and recorded...Experts in ancient history and archeology would spent unlimited hours excavating, restoring, preserving, protecting and teaching our Mesopotamian heritage that stretched all the way to the Abbasid Caliphate right into Modern Iraq.

Right up to the sanctions years and despite the Iran-Iraq war, one can safely say that the Iraqi state was a fully modern functioning independent entity. When I talk about state I am not only talking of governmental institutions.

There were these and there was the army, a modern strong capable army. But state also entails other aspects...

State entails other societal institutions, like universities, schools, hospitals, cultural bodies, associations...infrastructural systems, civic society and national and cultural identity.

The Iraqi State and its ideology overcame tribalism, sectarianism, ethnic chauvinism...And it was fully functional State without outside help. It was run by Iraqis for Iraqis.

I am absolutely convinced that, had Khomeinism not appeared on the scene, and Khomeinism was greatly helped to accede to power thanks to the West...

I am absolutely convinced had there not been this tumor called political Shiism, and Persianism. I am absolutely convinced that had Iraq not had such disgusting treacherous neighbors- Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait...

I am absolutely convinced had Iraq been truly allowed to continue on its developmental path without having to constantly ward off outside influences, it would have become a fully fledged Arab Democracy with its own specificity...

In fact Iraq had ALL the necessary prerequisites and ingredients to become so.

It had a strong government with a vision, it had institutions, it had eradicated illiteracy and had a highly educated population, it was developed in more ways than one...

And this, the West can never accept. Nor the West, nor the rest of the feudal backward Arab states, nor the criminal Israel and Iran.

And it is with the objective of destroying what the Iraqi government and in particular Saddam Hussein took great pains in building in only 3 decades, and 3 decades are not much in the history of a country, the Americans came to invade and occupy...

America’s objectives and the primary goal on its agenda was the erasing of the Iraqi identity because America understood that it was precisely that identity that proved to be America’s main stumbling block despite years of grotesque, criminal sanctions. Sanctions, previously unknown to contemporary mankind.

Not since the League of Nations, has anyone witnessed such a collective effort to destroy and steal the soul of a nation that tried to stand on its own two feet alone with its own resources.

And its resources were:
1) a hardworking, intelligent, educated people
2) its natural geography - a) the finest quality of crude oil gushing from the biggest, largely unexplored oil reserves in the world. b)sweet water flowing from two rivers. c) a fertile land and,

4) its deep, ancient, historical roots from which it drew pride and moral strength.

A deadly combination for the covetous, barbaric West and for their b****** criminal whore mistresses the Jewish State of Israel and Persian-Iran.

Here was an independent, progressive, modern, secular, strong, proud, Arab identity...that freed itself from the shackles of the Ottoman then British colonialism and on its way towards true economic, political, intellectual and moral independence...Here was a country who refused to be a lapdog, a slave that would bow down...And that was simply not acceptable.

And the breakthrough that started as a dream and took root in reality, was forbidden to further unfold...Not only was it forbidden to unfold, it had to be smashed, destroyed to pieces. It was in fact a must.

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m39229&hd=&size=1&l=e
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 6:04 pm    Post subject: The last excuse for the Iraq war is founded on a myth Reply with quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/25/foreignpolicy.iraq

Quote:
The last excuse for the Iraq war is founded on a myth

Seeing the second world war as a pure struggle to defeat an evil dictator has led us into foreign policy traps ever since

Peter Wilby The Guardian, Friday April 25 2008

Now it is clear that Saddam Hussein had no WMD, that al-Qaida has become stronger in Iraq, and that liberal democracy has failed to spread through the Middle East, one fallback justification for the Iraq invasion remains: it overthrew a murderous, fascist dictator.

Even if it went catastrophically wrong, runs the argument, the invasion had a good, liberal, humanitarian cause embedded in it. In that sense, as Tony Blair often suggested, it was like the second world war. Much of what the allies did between 1939 and 1945 - the blitz on German towns and cities, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - may have been morally questionable, but the ultimate war aim of overthrowing fascist regimes was irreproachable.

But was the second world war quite what we think it was? I have just read Human Smoke, by the American author Nicholson Baker. It has caused controversy in the US, and will probably be the most hotly debated book of the year when it reaches Britain next month.

Essentially, Baker puts the pacifist case against the second world war. I am not a pacifist and, therefore, do not accept it. The historical evidence that Baker adduces is selective and sometimes unreliable: for example, Hugh (later Viscount) Trenchard, the founder of the RAF, is frequently quoted as though he were a figure of some importance which, by the 1940s, he wasn't.

Baker's account, however, reminds us that the war was not fought for humanitarian or democratic ends. Britain fought Germany for the same reason it had always fought wars in Europe: to maintain the balance of power and prevent a single state dominating the continent. America fought Japan to stop the growth of a powerful rival in the Pacific.

The book ends on December 31 1941. At that moment, he says, "most of the people who died in the second world war were still alive". They included nearly all victims of what we now call the Holocaust. Did waging the war "help anyone who needed help"? Baker asks rhetorically, and gives his answer through a series of documentary snapshots. But, historically, it's the wrong question. The war wasn't supposed to "help" anybody.

The idea that wars can be "helpful" is a relatively new conceit. The second world war was fought as an instrument of British and, later, American foreign policy. To be sure, it started when Britain went to "Poland's aid". As AJP Taylor pointed out in The Origins of the Second World War: "In 1938, Czechoslovakia was betrayed. In 1939, Poland was saved. Less than one hundred thousand Czechs died during the war. Six and a half million Poles were killed. Which was better - to be a betrayed Czech or a saved Pole?" Both countries, he might have added, were ultimately "liberated" from Hitler only to be handed over to Stalin.

We have given the second world war such a retrospective glow that many now believe that it was fought because Hitler was beastly to the Jews. Yet at the time, almost nobody talked about the Jews. Hitler's intention to murder every Jew in occupied Europe was well corroborated by December 1942. In that month Rabbi Stephen Wise, head of the American Jewish Congress, presented President Roosevelt with a 20-page dossier called Blueprint for Extermination. The House of Commons stood for a minute's silence after it heard of this "bestial policy". Yet nobody in authority gave more than a few minutes' thought to how Jews could be saved.

Would the Holocaust have happened if there had been no war or if the western democracies had acted against Nazi Germany earlier? We can never know - though it is likely that, if Britain had made peace in 1940 after the fall of France, the Jews would have been sent to Madagascar. What is certain is that the war prevented any concerted attempt at rescue.

Resources used to help Jews would be diverted from the war. Any mass movement of refugees ran the risk of the Germans planting agents among them. Oil supplies were too vital to Britain to risk upsetting Arabs by evacuating them to Palestine. Any of the suggested swaps - Jews for German PoWs, for example - might suggest allied weakness. Besides, why should the allies assist Hitler to rid Europe of Jewry? The best we could do, as Anthony Eden, the British foreign secretary, observed in 1944, was to "hope that the German government will refrain from exterminating these unfortunate people".

Once we were at war with Germany, we existed on a similar moral plane. Baker records how the British, not the Germans, started the night bombing of civilian populations, and how Churchill wouldn't allow food relief to occupied Europe. Towards the end of the war, Eden acceded to Soviet demands that Russians found in previously Nazi-controlled areas should be returned home, knowing full well that many of them would be shot. "We cannot afford to be sentimental about this," he wrote to Churchill. Because of our alliance with Stalin, our moral superiority by 1945 consisted almost entirely in our not having instigated the Holocaust. But because we were indifferent, even that superiority was qualified.

Romanticising the second world war has led us into foreign policy traps ever since. We look for new crusades against new Hitlers and new Mussolinis. We yearn to cheer our young men into "good wars", to fight once more against the simple badness of fascism. Tony Blair thought he could detect a national interest in fighting Saddam because he was so anxious to emulate Churchill and defeat "evil". Hitler was monstrous and wicked; but we fought him, not for that reason, but because he was trying to make his country a rival great power, using force where necessary.

Other leaders, including British and American, have pursued similar foreign policies. As Taylor observed, there was nothing especially wrong with Hitler on the international stage except that he was a German. Equally, there was nothing wrong with Saddam except that he was an Iraqi. The difference between him in 2003 and Hitler in 1939 was that the latter posed a genuine threat and there was no need to quote liberal or humanitarian justifications.

· Peter Wilby is a former editor of the New Statesman
peter.wilby3@ntlworld.com

_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Stratehy Of Tension, Fake Terror, 9/11 & 7/7 Truth News All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group