Selling lies

[a_unique_person]

The Australian conservative government is just as good at it as the American. Selling blatant lies, and not giving a fig if that involves the deaths of innocent people.

John Howard rang up Bush to congratulate him, for his 'war on terrorism'.

Only, the war on terrorism isn't, it's a war on Iraq which was only ever minor league terrorism, with no association with OBL. Estimates of up to 100,000 civilians in Iraq dying just seem to indicate that all it takes to wage a war on terrorism is to kill some dark skinned foreigners and stand resolute while your countrymen die doing so. Just as long as some towelheads die, then something is being done.

[Grammatron]

I know it's hard to understand and you were told this before, but I'm a nice guy so I'll repeat. We can fight a battle in more than one place at a time and not all of it will end up on CNN or whatever news you watch. Heck you didn't even mention Afghanistan and we still have troops there or have you forgotten?

Also since you like numbers so much, how many civilians is it "ok" to kill in a war?

[The Don]

Is it a simple matter of numbers or is it a reference to the reasons for going to war. Here in the UK we heard that we had to go to war now (as opposed to later or not at all) because:

Saddam has WMD and can launch an attack in 45 minutes
Which didn't turn out to be the case so they said:

Saddam has WMD or is close to having them
Which have not YET been found, so they said

We've toppled a terrible dictator who is slaughtering his own people
Which, if the 100,000 figure is correct (I believe it to be grossly overinflated) means that Iraqis are being killed quicker than ever before. Which leaves us with

We wanted to settle his hash after his performance over the past 15 years
which leaves us open to why him rather than someone worse.

I just wish they'd (the UK government, the US government has been much more honest in this respect) be honest and say that the reason Iraq was invaded was to try and have a compliant client state in a crucial part of the Middle-East and international law be damned.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Also since you like numbers so much, how many civilians is it "ok" to kill in a war?


ZERO

[a_unique_person]

I think lip service is given to freeing the people of Iraq. Just as long as some towel heads die is the main thing.

[Darat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think lip service is given to freeing the people of Iraq. Just as long as some towel heads die is the main thing.

Do you really believe this? That all the USA administration wanted to do was kill some "arabs"?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by The Don
I just wish they'd (the UK government, the US government has been much more honest in this respect) be honest and say that the reason Iraq was invaded was to try and have a compliant client state in a crucial part of the Middle-East and international law be damned.

The motive-hunting of motiveless malignity.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Darat
Do you really believe this? That all the USA administration wanted to do was kill some "arabs"?

Not the admin, the voters. The admin is more cynical than that, but the voters of Australia bought it, and so did the americans. Killing arabs = fighting terrorism.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Originally posted by Darat
Do you really believe this? That all the USA administration wanted to do was kill some "arabs"?

Not the admin, the voters. The admin is more cynical than that, but the voters of Australia bought it, and so did the americans. Killing arabs = fighting terrorism. Would you care to name anyone? You know this board is overrun with right-wing racist Nazis. Which of us do you think just wants to kill some "towelheads"?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Not the admin, the voters. The admin is more cynical than that, but the voters of Australia bought it, and so did the americans. Killing arabs = fighting terrorism. Would you care to name anyone? You know this board is overrun with right-wing racist Nazis. Which of us do you think just wants to kill some "towelheads"? [/QUOTE]

I didn't say anyone here, well, I would have my doubts about 1insatan.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles
ZERO

Well fighting any war or having police is out of the question then.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Darat
Do you really believe this? That all the USA administration wanted to do was kill some "arabs"?

Towelheads are not arabs.

[demon]

We were all sold and told lies. The difference is that some object to it, others lapped it all up and continue to do so because of their cheap attitude to human life that isn`t within their own boarders or else originated there.

For example, just one of the factoids put out by Blair that "every intelligence service" agreed there were WMDs. Not even the British and US ones were in agreement - but they were prepared to put aside their credibility as agencies to go along with their masters.
The French DGSE had precisely the oppositie assessment to the publicly stated assessments of the British and US and Russia found nothing to support the WMD contention. (See link at bottom).

In Australia (a "'coaltion member"), Andrew Wilkie, one of the highest officials from the Australian Office of National Assessments (which advises the PM on international issues and is like the U.S. National Security Agency), and who was fully in the loop and parent of the overall assessment, as one of the top officers on terrorism and WMDs regarding Iraq resigned his post over misrepresentation of intelligence before the war began. While he thought there may be weapons of mass destruction - not really knowing one way or the other - he explicitly charges that the PMs office dishonestly changed the intelligence -

"Sometimes the exaggeration was so great, it was clear dishonesty....I will go so far as to say the material was going straight from ONA to the prime minister's office and the exaggeration was occurring in there, or the dishonesty was occurring somewhere in there,"

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/22/content_257485.htm

"For a start, Iraq does not pose a security threat to any other country at this point in time. Its military is very weak, it's a fraction of the size of the military at the time of the invasion of Kuwait. Its weapons of mass destruction program is very disjointed and contained by the regime that's been in place since the last Gulf War. And there is no hard intelligence linking the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda in any substantial or worrisome way."

http://www.abc.net.au/adelaide/stories/s1069554.htm

"And finally, as the Senior Transnational Issues Analyst at ONA, I was involved routinely in matters relating to Iraq. This provided me with almost unrestricted access to intelligence on that country. In particular, my December 2002 assessment on the possible humanitarian implications of a war required me to research in detail the threat posed by Saddam Hussein."

http://www.cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=mobilisations/atl2&id=update13aug04.htm

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/01A33C10272BF7A2CA256CE500837A10

http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000539.php

Russia's Putin, pre-war, talking of the CIA report, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another...Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." (thanks to Benjamin Mackie for this quote).

Link: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html


And now, on a day when British soldiers have been killed in Iraq, we have Blair lying again.
Just when you thought Blair's nose couldn't grow any longer, he's telling the Fallujans that the Iraqi government (led by former Ba'athist and CIA asset Allawi) is UN appointed - not a sentiment the UN's Lakhdar Brahimi ("Bremer is the dictator of Iraq") would agree with.

Mr Mendacity speaks.....“What we are saying to people in Fallujah is this – and this is from the Iraqi government, never mind the multi-national force – ‘Lay down your weapons, submit to the authority of that UN-appointed government and participate in the election, and see from the election how much support you have’."

5:33pm (UK)
Lay Down Your Weapons, Blair Urges Insurgents

By Andrew Woodcock, Political Correspondent, PA News

Prime Minister Tony Blair today called on insurgents in the Iraqi city of Fallujah to lay down their arms, as preparations continued for an expected all-out assault on the rebel stronghold by US troops.

Mr Blair dismissed as “gross� accusations by a prominent Labour backbench critic of the war that the planned military action in Fallujah amounted to “collective punishment� of the city’s people.

He was speaking as the final detachments of an 850-strong Black Watch battlegroup arrived at Camp Dogwood in US-controlled central Iraq.

The Black Watch are expected to begin active patrolling this week, blocking off exit routes from Fallujah and releasing US forces for the anticipated attack.

It was confirmed this morning that the camp came under fire last night, with one mortar explosion and five other “impacts�, but no injuries.

A spokeswoman for the MoD in Basra said: “At 17.50 (yesterday) we can confirm that there was one explosion in Dogwood and five impacts which did not explode.

“There were no casualties and no damage.�

In the Commons, anti-war Labour MP Alice Mahon demanded assurances that “when the United States launch their ‘bomb into submission’ policy on Fallujah, our Army will not become involved in any way in what are collective punishments that indiscriminately kill innocent civilians�.

Mr Blair responded: “What we are saying to people in Fallujah is this – and this is from the Iraqi government, never mind the multi-national force – ‘Lay down your weapons, submit to the authority of that UN-appointed government and participate in the election, and see from the election how much support you have’.

“But what we cannot allow – the Iraqi government can’t and we can’t – is a situation where outside terrorists and others use Fallujah as a base to mount operations killing innocent civilians and our soldiers, who are doing a job blessed by the UN Security Council resolution.

“To describe this as collective punishment of Fallujah, I think, is gross, if I can say so to you.

“The collective punishment that has been visited on people in Iraq is a collective punishment of suicide bombers, of people detonating vehicles, of people trying to stop the democratic process take place and our job is to make sure it does.

Earlier, Mr Blair told MPs he did not accept claims, published in The Lancet earlier this week, that as many as 100,000 Iraqis may have died as a result of the war and occupation...

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3712400

[demon]

Looks like The Geneva Convention has left the building...again.

The other point that's clear from Blair's speech is that the Geneva Convention has left the building - there's no longer even the pretence of observing its provisions. When Blair says: "...it is the case that when our troops come under fire, and when Iraqi forces come under fire, they have to return that fire",

no-one raises questions about the proportionality of the response. If an Iraqi fires an AK47 at at US patrol, is a response calling up an airstrike to obliterate half the street proportional? How can a pilot x miles up, differentiate between insurgents and civilians? War crimes are happening every day throughout Iraq.

[demon]

If you are American and you grow up in this crass society that swamps you with this awesome patriotic, down-dumbed, pro-violent garbage, and WMD and terrorism lies so that you vote for Bush - is that entirely your fault?

If the problem is selfish greed - and corporate power (and its political off-shoots here and abroad) is fundamentally a manifestation of that - then concern for others, compassion, is a vital opponent force - it counters greed.
If we can develop compassion for people whose actions we hate, we are developing a powerful resource for countering the madness in the world. As the fate of John Kerry shows - you don't combat insane greed, hatred and ignorance with something that is 5 or 10% (or whatever) less insane. You combat it with its genuine opposite.








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

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Grammatron
I know it's hard to understand and you were told this before, but I'm a nice guy so I'll repeat. We can fight a battle in more than one place at a time and not all of it will end up on CNN or whatever news you watch. Heck you didn't even mention Afghanistan and we still have troops there or have you forgotten?

Also since you like numbers so much, how many civilians is it "ok" to kill in a war?

Don't forget to ask a_u_p what specifically he would do differently in Afghanistan and Iraq...

He won't give you a straight answer, but you should ask him none the less...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by demon
War crimes are happening every day throughout Iraq.

1) Provide your definition of "war crime".

2) Evidence please...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by demon
If you are American and you grow up in this crass society that swamps you with this awesome patriotic, down-dumbed, pro-violent garbage, and WMD and terrorism lies so that you vote for Bush - is that entirely your fault?

If the problem is selfish greed - and corporate power (and its political off-shoots here and abroad) is fundamentally a manifestation of that - then concern for others, compassion, is a vital opponent force - it counters greed.
If we can develop compassion for people whose actions we hate, we are developing a powerful resource for countering the madness in the world. As the fate of John Kerry shows - you don't combat insane greed, hatred and ignorance with something that is 5 or 10% (or whatever) less insane. You combat it with its genuine opposite.

...and thus begins the demonization of 59 million Americans... :nope: :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
...and thus begins the demonization of 59 million Americans... :nope: :rolleyes:

Hot on the heels of the demonisation of so many millions of arabs.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Don't forget to ask a_u_p what specifically he would do differently in Afghanistan and Iraq...

He won't give you a straight answer, but you should ask him none the less...

You confuse simplistic, bombastic killing with an attempt at a reasoned solution with some recognition of the fact that you won't get anything right the first time.

I have said before that I would like to live in a world where we can take action against such monstrosities as Saddam. I do know that what is happening is a stupid, moronic, hateful, paternalistic approach to solving problems, as has been totally shown by the results of the actions of the US.

As I said at the start, as long as some foreigners are dying in some distant land, people feel something useful is being done.

The first principal has to be sovereignty. The current US administration reserves the right to ignore this at any time it feels fit.

I was surprised to see neo-cons in interviews after the chaotic situation in Iraq was apparent, saying the US should leave Iraq immediately. Obviously, the only intent they had was that Iraq be bloodied, arabs humiliated, and the world left with the clear message, "if you don't do what we want, we will blast the cr@p out of you".

Any pretence at concern for the people of Iraq was not in their mind. The whole exercise was about domination.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Hot on the heels of the demonisation of so many millions of arabs.

Are you wearing blinders, or are you suffering from selective memory?

No one is condemning all arabs, or even all muslims, which, by the way, are not one in the same. Us "warmongers" have always maintained that the insurgency in Iraq consists only of a thousand or so militant fundies and foreign jihadists, not the entire citizenry, as many on the left would like everyone to believe. Even during the invasion fighting, it was clear we were fighting Saddam and his Baathist regime and military, not the entire arab, or even muslim, population.

Try again, a_u_p...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You confuse simplistic, bombastic killing with an attempt at a reasoned solution with some recognition of the fact that you won't get anything right the first time.

I have said before that I would like to live in a world where we can take action against such monstrosities as Saddam. I do know that what is happening is a stupid, moronic, hateful, paternalistic approach to solving problems, as has been totally shown by the results of the actions of the US.

As I said at the start, as long as some foreigners are dying in some distant land, people feel something useful is being done.

The first principal has to be sovereignty. The current US administration reserves the right to ignore this at any time it feels fit.

I was surprised to see neo-cons in interviews after the chaotic situation in Iraq was apparent, saying the US should leave Iraq immediately. Obviously, the only intent they had was that Iraq be bloodied, arabs humiliated, and the world left with the clear message, "if you don't do what we want, we will blast the cr@p out of you".

Any pretence at concern for the people of Iraq was not in their mind. The whole exercise was about domination.

I confuse nothing. How long do you intend to continue this hindsighted armchair quarterbacking?

That's a nice opinion you've got there, but that's all it really is.

Do you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that others can and do legitmately disagree with you?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I confuse nothing. How long do you intend to continue this hindsighted armchair quarterbacking?

That's a nice opinion you've got there, but that's all it really is.

Do you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that others can and do legitmately disagree with you?

I was asking from the start, what is the post war plan? That isn't hindsight. As I said, the post war interviews with neo-cons had them saying that the US should just pull out. All they wanted was the US to cr@p on the place, kill a few people, and let the region know that it had to fear them.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
Towelheads are not arabs.

Care to elaborate on that?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Are you wearing blinders, or are you suffering from selective memory?

No one is condemning all arabs, or even all muslims, which, by the way, are not one in the same. Us "warmongers" have always maintained that the insurgency in Iraq consists only of a thousand or so militant fundies and foreign jihadists, not the entire citizenry, as many on the left would like everyone to believe. Even during the invasion fighting, it was clear we were fighting Saddam and his Baathist regime and military, not the entire arab, or even muslim, population.

Try again, a_u_p...

And Dubya went in there to help the Iraqis. BS. And it's only a few thousand. BS. At least I can make some semblance of making an argument based on reality. If it was only a thousand or so, the issue would have been decided already.

[Tony]

Originally posted by gnome
Care to elaborate on that?

I'll need to know what it is don't you understand.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
At least I can make some semblance of making an argument based on reality.

oh, that's rich... :rolleyes:


Originally posted by a_unique_person
If it was only a thousand or so, the issue would have been decided already.

And exactly what type and level of experience allows you to come to that conclusion?

I can't wait to hear this... even with the actual level of insurgency between 5000-20,000 as I've posted below...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Us "warmongers" have always maintained that the insurgency in Iraq consists only of a thousand or so militant fundies and foreign jihadists, not the entire citizenry, as many on the left would like everyone to believe.

I seem to be wrong here.

Current estimates range from 5,000-20,000 insurgents currently in Iraq. Either way, the number is significantly more than "a thousand or so".

Apologies all...(especially to you, a_u_p...)

It still isn't the entire citizenry, though...

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Kodiak
...and thus begins the demonization of 59 million Americans... :nope: :rolleyes:

Some 56 million other Americans are already being demonized by those same 59 million Americans, so I guess we're all in the same boat.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Some 56 million other Americans are already being demonized by those same 59 million Americans, so I guess we're all in the same boat.

Sadly, there is some truth to what you say. I may have disagreements with Kerry and his supporters, but I don't think they are evil or even stupid. Exceptions to the rules do exist though...at both ends of the political spectrum...

[IXP]

There is actaully a rational reason for the war in Iraq.

I heard it first expressed by Condoleeza Rice and later W. took it up in his campaign stops.

"We can fight terrorists over there or we can fight them here."

Yes, we have attracted the Al-Quaida masses to Iraq where we can occupy them for a while. Maybe they will even be distracted from attacking in America in the near term.

But rational is not moral. Trading the lives of a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis and a thousand+ foolish young American volunteers to distract the terrorists from killing many fewer in America is, as W. would say, "evil."

The use of the word "nuissance" by Kerry in describing terrorism was unfortunate, but it actually is true. The number of Americans killed by terrorists is not a serious threat to our nation or our freedom. The response to it by this adminstration is.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I seem to be wrong here.

Current estimates range from 5,000-20,000 insurgents currently in Iraq.


Yes but thats just the ones who filled out the "Are you An Insurgent" census form.:p

Im always baffled how they come up with stats like this. Is there one guy in the military whos the head of the pull a number out of your ass division? If there gonna make up numbers they might as well narrow it down somewhere bettween 5-20K. Thats a big swing.

[Tmy]

There is this macho-rambo undercurrent with alot of americans. THey see war as a romantic thing, go over and kill the badguys be a hero, coem home and have a parade.

There was a caller on Orielly radio who talked about this today. He talked about being a naive kid who joined the army so he could go kill people. Once he got there the reality of the destrution and pain really hit him. He ended up getting injured. Hes now back home and feels like a real tool.

Tony was right, there not "towelheads". Which speaks volumes cause so many people use that ignorant term to describe them. On may occasions Ive heard people say "we have to free the Iraqis" then after theres a beheading the same people say "we should nuke all them towelheads." I call them the feux-bleeding heart conservatives.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yes but thats just the ones who filled out the "Are you An Insurgent" census form.:p

Im always baffled how they come up with stats like this. Is there one guy in the military whos the head of the pull a number out of your ass division? If there gonna make up numbers they might as well narrow it down somewhere bettween 5-20K. Thats a big swing.

After doing a Google search, I ran across different sites, some biased left, and others right; some military, some civilian. They all made estimates ranging between 5000-20,000. None of them claimed to have a definitive count...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
There is this macho-rambo undercurrent with alot of americans. THey see war as a romantic thing, go over and kill the badguys be a hero, coem home and have a parade.

There was a caller on Orielly radio who talked about this today. He talked about being a naive kid who joined the army so he could go kill people. Once he got there the reality of the destrution and pain really hit him. He ended up getting injured. Hes now back home and feels like a real tool.

Tony was right, there not "towelheads". Which speaks volumes cause so many people use that ignorant term to describe them. On may occasions Ive heard people say "we have to free the Iraqis" then after theres a beheading the same people say "we should nuke all them towelheads." I call them the feux-bleeding heart conservatives.

That's the thing about emotion, and why it can be dangerous, especially in the military. Ideally, the professional soldier looks at warfare as a job, nothing personal. Sometimes this is impossible, as after Pearl Harbor or even 9-11. Even then it is important for high level officers to reign in their subordinates and redirect that energy in a positive, and not a criminal, way. The Abu Ghraib investigation may find that the military failed in doing this in this specific instance, but we as yet cannot say.

Regarding those who one second yell "we have to free the iraqis" and later scream "nuke all them towelheads", they are really not talking about the same group of people. In the first instance, I don't think they are including Saddam and the Baathist Party faithful. In the latter instance, I think they mean "all those involved in the beheading". Who knows, maybe I'm wrong...

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
I'll need to know what it is don't you understand.

I don't want to misunderstand you, I can see by the statement "Towelheads are not arabs" you could be either defending or objecting to the use of the term.

[demon]

More lies in the offing.
Strangely, this seems to have disappeared altogether from the Daily Mirror website so I've had to type it out from the newspaper itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon last night warned Britons to expect more wars.

He dismissed the idea that the anger over Iraq meant the Government would be reluctant to get involved in new conflicts.

And he insisted similar types of military operations could be expected "for the foreseeable future".

The admission comes at a time when there are already fears re-elected US President George Bush is planning new attacks. And it puts him in conflict with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who yesterday said it was "inconceivable" we could be involved in attacking Iran.

A No10 spokeswoman refused to comment on the remarks saying she "had not yet read them". But Mr. Hoon told New Statesman magazine more conflicts were "the consequence of the end of the cold war"

He said it was "not surprising" British forces had been involved in a series of wars since Tony Blair came to power.

Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq were a result of the increased threat from terrorists and the break-up of countries.

And he denied controversy over Iraq would make Tony Blair less likely to intervene with the military overseas again. He said: "I suspect all sophisticated countries with significant military are going to be involved in these types of operations for the foreseeable future".

The remarks came hours after Mr. Straw tried to play down fears we would be dragge into new US invasions. He said Britain would not back military action against Iran. "Not only is that inconceivable but the prospect of it happening is inconceivable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"sophisticated countries...with significant military"

That's a significantly unsophisticated choice of words, because it's so bloody revealing.
Rashly, Hoon has been more more honest than Straw, so no doubt we can expect a tactful retraction sometime in the next 24 hours.

Officer Hoon? you got to be joking -to paraphrase Hicks.
Would any honest man employ Hoon???
Obviously not. Hoon's lawyerly verbal flounderings get more comical by the day.
He should be the quarry of satirists , not serious political theorists.
But that is what we all deserve if we allow slithering barristers to lead in the place of honest people.

The War on Terror is a Scramble for Dwindling Resources, no matter how appealing the window dressing. It's that simple.

[Tony]

Originally posted by gnome
I don't want to misunderstand you, I can see by the statement "Towelheads are not arabs" you could be either defending or objecting to the use of the term.

I'm objecting to the use of the term as it applies to arabs. It's kind of like calling white people "gooks".

[Jim Bowen]

Originally posted by Tony
I'm objecting to the use of the term as it applies to arabs. It's kind of like calling white people "gooks".

So what are 'towelheads' then? It sounds like a pretty derogatory term for someone.

Jim Bowen

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
So what are 'towelheads' then?

Muslims.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony
Muslims.


I have only ever heard the term "towelhead" being used as derogative term for arabs. (I'll ignore the whole impossibility of trying to identify a "race" of people that you can label "Arab".) Consider the images in the popular culture in countries like the UK and the USA associate with the "Arabs" e.g. wearing the shumagh and ghutra (I always preferred the ghutra) it is easy to understand were the term "towelhead" came from.

If it is now being used to refer to Muslims and not “Arabs� that is quite a shift in meaning and must be quite recent?

[Richard G]

The U.S. Marines call them Hajis.