Hussein did not slaughter wedding parties
The US slaughtered at least two wedding parties in Afghanistan so we have a
tradition of it. This is not new. The facts on the ground are it was an
inhabited village. Both the bride and groom lived there. Women, children and
old men are among the dead. The film of the aftermath is being shown all
over the middle east. Even if the US action was in some manner justified the
PR battle has been lost.
Ironic Thought Department
For Iraqis, Americans have turned out to be everything Hussein said they
were.
Sovereign Iraq
So sovereign tortured Iraqis will not have the right to sue for damages. I
guess it is implied Iraq will not have to power to bring them to trial for
their crimes.
Stay the course
Sounds good but the course changes every week and there is still no clear
exposition of the destination. So lets stop the metaphor and say something
that is more than teenage sloganeering.
2004 May 21
Kerry, why are you silent?
Why should he waste time confronting Bush on rape, torture and murder when
he has pulled ahead in the polls ignoring the issue? Bush is losing very
well all by himself. He does not need Kerry's help to lose. And there is no
need to take a chance the tide may turn in Iraq no matter how remote that
is. Kerry is winning by saying nothing on the subject. As long as he is
silent Bush has nothing to attack.
2004 May 20
Polls make the news
The Financial Times reports a new poll will show 90% of Iraqis consider the
US occupiers. Al Sadr, the one man to publicly oppose the US by force of
arms is rising in popularity, 32% ready to support him and another 36% who
support him enough not to oppose him. Scroll back a few days and find I
predicted if he gains popularity others will have to imitate him else they
will be out of the running for control of Iraq. Sistani will be forced to be
more Sadr than Sadr himself. So with 90% seeing it as occupation and support
for violence rising and more having to authorize violence where is the
bright side of this? The new management of the torture rooms is not as bad?
But Iraqis compare American promises with American actions would prefer no
management at all.
No plan for the victory
This was to be expected. The neo-cons are Marxists of the Trotskyite
variety. They have a doctrine of perpetual revolution. They believe if
enough chaos occurs eventually it will all come out for the better. They are
insane but that never stopped a true believer. Their entire purpose in Iraq
was to create chaos. They did not have a plan for after the chaos as they do
not believe it necessary. They continue to support the US insuring further
chaos in the belief it will eventually come down in their favor. Insane and
idiots.
Murder a wedding party
Just when you think the US can't do anything more to make it worse they do.
It is not just the torture. It is the orders from the top down to do
anything possible to cause chaos. The orders are to kill and when in doubt
to kill some more. That has been in the open literature often enough hidden
in the jargon. People have chosen not to see the jargon for what it is
because they do not want to believe what it clearly says. This is how
Doublespeak works. If you believed any of it then this is how you are taken
in by Doublespeak.
Ideals vs Reals
We see Americans proclaiming their ideals to judge Iraqis. And Iraqis
proclaiming their ideals to judge Americans. Both sides need a lot of
humility. But fact is the Iraqis are the offended party in this. They are
the occupied. They are the ones with the absolute right in international law
to kill the occupiers. It leaves the Americans with only their force of arms
to defend their unlawful position against the lawful use of force by Iraqis.
I never wrote an international law in my life. Don't complain to me.
Seriously no one thinks Iraqis are any less hypocritical than the Americans.
When a dinner guest protests his honesty it is time to count the silver.
When a country protests its virtue in treating prisoners it is best to count
how many come out alive. Not one nation in the world, Arab included, has
protested the use of torture or even the rapes and murders. They have all
protested the hypocrisy. They have not been hypocritical.
Four of the five who murdered Berg are in custody
That was a very short-lived story. We know when it was (not) announced
the fifth was not Zarqawi so we did not bother asking. None of the four
were Zarqawi. We did not have to ask. The Scarlet Pimpernel must always
remain free to terrorize the dumb and ignorant. Like Osama been Forgotten he
must live forever. There is no reason to ask how dumb they think we are.
That is it eaten up by the dumb shows they have the masses calibrated.
Anyway, if four are in custody, where are they? If they are not, what is the
explanation for the false announcement? Did they disappear into another
prison? Are they modeling panti-liners now? Will we get pictures of the
aftermath? News at Eleven?
Two of women in Abu Ghraib are hostages
They are there solely because their husbands have not been found. That is
the reason the US gives. Taking hostages is a war crime, period, no
exceptions. And the US freely admits to this crime. This is not the first
time the US has admitted to this war crime. No one is being charged with
this crime. It has not been stopped. It continues. Bush is required to know
of it. Bush is a war criminal.
Israel, the cause of it all
Israel massacres children in Rafah. The US doesn't cover it because it is
not news. Man bites dog is news.
Inside view of the Israeli Army
It is the most moral army in the world except for all the rest. Insiders
report drug use is rampant particularly when deployed in the occupied
territories. They while away the nights in true Spartan fashion, they bugger
each other. Casual anal sex among the men is the norm not the exception.
Then there are the wagers in the thousands of NIS on the number of sniper
kills, with separate wagers on men, women and children. Many of the reported
dead troops are the result of fighting over counting the kills. Except for
all the rest.
2004 May 19
Freedom is God's gift
At least Bush says it is. Jesus didn't bother mentioning it but maybe Bush
is the second coming or the fourth person in the Quadrinity. Mohamed didn't
mention it, nor Moses, Zarathustra, Buddha, Lao Tze or Confucius. Please
insert your favorite if it is not one of those and consider if he or she
said it. And if not we have only the word of President Jesus on the subject.
Without continuing revelations from god from Bush we would not have a source
of on-going revelation.
Latest on Berg
Head-scarves worn by Arab men are indicative of where the wearer came from
and his family. They are as distinctive as the decorations on military
uniforms. Even the way they are wrapped has meaning. The ones worn in the
film relate to no location and no family, nothing. The people in the film
are not Arabs because they don't know a damn thing about head-scarves. It is
as simple as that.
Chalabi funding terminated
And if we keep hearing from him (convicted felon) and his group (admitted
liars on Iraqi weapons) then we know the funding did not stop. Funds will
still be supplied by the US simply from another US source. Chalabi did not
embezzle enough money from Jordan to pay for his team by himself. He
requires outside financing.
Draft
If we don't have enough troops to do the job, leave. If there is a draft
then Bush will have the door open to get enough troops to invade Syria and
Iran. Rest assured the draft will not be "just enough" to deal with Iraq. It
will be open-ended to get all the troops needed for global conquest.
Annual Suck up to Israel Fest
Which is followed by the annual condemnation of the Suck up to Israel Fest
held by AIPAC. It provides filler once a year. Doesn't mean anything. It is
all just filler. In the middle of the Rafah atrocities where Rachael Corrie
was murdered just a year ago, every politician who can get the podium sucks
up to Israel.
US: 45 Iraqi militants killed near Syrian border
Iraq: 45 killed in US Attack on wedding party.
Militants can't get married?
We can't pull out now
The US has never left a country in a good a shape as Iraq before leaving.
There has to be a lot more destruction before we can declare victory. In
proportion to Vietnam, the US must suffer at least 180,000 deaths before
running away.
So what is the definition of when we can leave? That thing called an exit
strategy. Even Limbaugh knew that was important in the 1991 war even though
he never heard of the requirement these days. I am willing to listen to any
thing on the subject. But there is none. So we will be staying until kicked
out.
Depleted Uranium
The stuff has long terms risks. It was adopted during the Cold War when the
problem was to stop Russian tanks coming through the Fulda Gap in WWIII. The
radiation problem was not considered significant as during that war we
expected cities to be nuked all over the world. Whatever might come from DU
would be masked by the fallout from those bombs. After the end of the Cold
War DU was used mostly because it was cheaper than the next most effective
metal tungsten. That is about all you need to know about the subject.
Everything else is debating the degree of radiation risk.
2004 May 18
War Crimes Act of 1996
It criminalizes the actions of any American who commits war crimes as
defined by the Geneva Conventions and includes penalties up to and including
the death penalty. There are no exceptions to this law for any reason. Bush
and Rumsfeld are toast along with everyone involved or who knew of the crimes
and remained silent. While a pardon from Kerry may apply, the treaty states
the failure of the US to punish the crimes makes them liable to
international trial and punishment.
When the US declared Al Qaeda and the Taliban exempt from the Geneva
Conventions it was blowing smoke. According to the Geneva Convention such a
determination can only be made by an impartial tribunal composed of members
neutral to the parties involved. It cannot be declared unilaterally in any
circumstance. The convention further states that until such a determination
is made they must be treated according to the convention. There are no
exceptions.
So the War Crimes Act binds all American citizens to the use of the
impartial tribunal to determine whether or not the people are protected by
it. The unilateral declaration was a violation of the convention and any
subsequent action to that declaration in violation of the convention was a
crime. The failure to seek the impartial determination is nonfeasance which
do not appear to be a crime but is not an excuse for any subsequent crime as
it is the normal responsibility of a belligerent to comply with the
convention to which it is a party.
If Limbaugh learns how to bake a cake he can send a file.
Yesterday I came across an August 2002 Iron Webmaster prediction. That the
issue in the 2004 presidential election would be the war in Iraq and there
would be no choice against the war so there would be no choice. Told me so!
Kerry and Bush are the same. The only difference is the rhetoric used to
force feed them on the benighted ideal of freedom or die. [Iraq's new motto:
Live Free or be killed!]
Bush will permit majority rule in an Iraqi democracy. Kerry would impose gay
marriage upon Iraq.
The original US Constitution in its original meaning might be perfect for
Iraq. First and foremost it would have to ratified by the provinces before
they were bound by it else they could go their own separate ways.
There can be no state religion but the provinces can impose one. The
Provence's would essentially cede only international relations to the
central government. Kurds could be Kurds and Shia be Shia and all they cede
is a centrally fixed price for export oil but each would get the province
taxes on it. Etc. The original states of the US were as diverse or more so
with state religions and such.
But the idea they want to impose is the entire body of law and social
changes unique to the US upon Iraq. Worse yet, Bush and Kerry would impose
convervative and liberal policies respectively. Dictator Bush imposed a flat
income tax on Iraq. Dictator Kerry would impose a steeply graduated tax.
Neither gives a damn about what fits Iraq and no Iraqi would have a say in
it.
It is not just the US Constitution they would impose but more than two
centuries of amendments and case law and Supreme Court decisions all unique
to the US.
And they would do this because the US is perfect. The highest ideal of
social and political development. Just ask them. That is what the Brits
tried to impose upon India and why Gandhi said he thought western
civilization would be a good idea -- if the west were to try being
civilized for a change.
Way back when the US got a messianic complex and has never lost it. Every
country thinks they are best but the idea of aggressively imposing it is one
the average citizen supports each for their own reasons.
Credibility at stake in Iraq
It is? I doubt there is a nation on earth that thinks we are not willing to
be arrogant assholes who try to force our way of life on others and in the
process kill anyone who disagrees until they force us to stop. We have
already proved most of that in Iraq. There is no reason to prove that last
point that we will kill until we are forced to leave because we are losing
again. Everyone knows we will not cut and run until until we have inflicted
the maximum damage on the other country and ourselves. Everyone knows we
will not compromise but fight until we run out of cannon fodder. We are
fanatics and that is well known.
What Americans do not realize is the complimentary political rhetoric from
political leaders of other countries is no more than mutual masturbation. Bush
and Blair jerk each other off. But should they actually believe it then we
have incompetent or insane people in charge.
There is a very fundamental difference between Christian and other societies
in this world. Christianity condemned first cousin marriages and discouraged
second cousin marriages. Other than European Jews who copied it no other
society in the world does this. And before anyone does a "poor savages" eye
roll, Gandhi was the product of a first cousin marriage.
So what? It is not so much the closer relationships in the rest of the world
as western culture depends upon individual rising above family for the good
of the community rather than good of family. The westerner has a much
broader view of who is his relative, his brother, than does the rest of the
world. Who will rise for the community when there is a solution for the very
extended family? Why would anyone?
Gandhi did rise for all of India but English educated and hitting upon the
weakness of England in being unable to respond unless violence is shown and
becoming the traditional, mystic Hindu he was able to force England to his
terms. Of course England checked that by creating Pakistan to create local
enmity it could exploit. And another Gandhi was just elected to run the
country even though born in Italy. The family still rules. Good traits can
and do accumulate in closely interbred family units just as bad traits do.
Sorry for the digression. Bottom line is expecting the civic minded to rise
for the good of a country outside of the Christian countries is only a
demonstration of ignorance. But a western culture requires it. The ideal of
the community over family is unique. And when we see small towns where
everyone is related we do not see outsiders welcome. I do not claim to
understand it. I observe it.
We call them tribal. So were the pre-christian Greeks, Romans and Egyptians
for the same reasons. But we consider tribal a negative. Dumb but true. What
we call nepotism and try to minimize its impact (even though another Powell
got a job as head of the FCC to get the elder Powell into the Bush camp) it
is the rule rather than the exception. And who needs mention Bush I and Bush
II as a familial tendency?
In any event the foundation of any post royalist western system does not
exist outside Christianity. And this does not single out Islam or the
Mideast for special attention. It is every place else, China, India,
Southeast Asia, the rest of the world. If ever for any reason they should
ever want a democratic system it has to be built entirely different than
it arose in the Christendom.
But the liberals and conservatives and the whacked out neo-cons are all
ready to impose their minor variations of the grand scheme upon everyone
else without realizing the grand scheme is flat out impossible. No system
can be imposed by force. Imposing freedom by force is an insane idea.
So while the original US Constitution as written might be useful all the
baggage it has gained from the day after it was adopted has nothing to do
with it. Secession is not prohibited so if the Kurds don't like it they can
leave, right? Why not? Because of the American civil war which never
addressed secession but rebellion? So the Kurds can't leave. But the real
reason that matters is the Turkey will not permit it because of the Kurds in
Turkey. So the reason to deny freedom of choice is because of Turkey but any
denial of choice is the prohibition of freedom.
Iconoclast
No matter how badly this goes eventually American politicians will begin
quoting Bush claiming the freedom is god's gift. Pardon me but civil society
has only achieved freedom by escaping the tyranny of religion. And no one
who is not delusional can separate god from his self appointed spokes-rats.
There is no god. There are only the animals who tell us all about what god
really means and really wants. Bush is such an animal. And his rhetoric will
be cited for into the future as is the gibberish of Wilson and Lincoln and
all the rest who have invoked god on their side to justify slaughter.
If right and justice are to be controlling forces in the world will god come
down from on high and tell us what is right and just? Or will politicians
and self appointed fruitcakes tell us what god thinks is right and just? And
if they disagree is god divided against himself? Of is he just having a
belly laugh at stupid humans? Is this god for real?
After this god orders us to remove Hussein he orders us to impose freedom
along 21st century American lines and to enforce it by Hussein's methods.
Whatta God! Ya gotta love Him!
But all that is bullshit
I view Iraqis by asking what I would do. If a foreign country invaded I
would use them for target practice. I would stop drinking strong liquor
because it would make me miss. They would be fun targets. I am an equal
opportunity killer just as they are. All invaders come in killing anyone in
sight just as they have. I would take the opportunity to let out my real
instincts and kill. We both hate foreigners when we don't have a reason to
make nice with each other.
We accept rules of civilization simply to avoid random acts of violence. It
is better for us overall as a group. But when one group breaks the rules
then it looks like a chance to be a real person. People cherish war because
it is the only time everything they do matters from moment to moment. That
is the what we are. We are killing machines and we love it.
So I do understand Iraqis in that sense. They are human just like me. I
would kill an Iraqi army patrolling my streets as they kill ours. I don't
expect different from them than I myself would do. Why would anyone? In fact
I am surprised they have been so restrained. They must be very impressed
with US military power. One good loss for the US will take away that fear.
American commanders have a real problem there if they are intelligent. One
rout and the entire country rises against them. No one of interest likes
them.
Or course they will have the same qualms against their customs and their
normal behavior of not killing. And they will agonize with their consciences
and their religion. But in the end they will be human and kill and enjoy
killing. The risk of battle is being alive and exhilarating. That is the way
people are.
Sen. John McCain
He has refused to consider running as VP with John Kerry. Because he is in a
good position to replace Bush as the Republican candidate.
2004 May 17
To leave or not to leave
Today no one clarified the contradictions on leaving or not leaving that
came out over the weekend. Perhaps it is best to both stay and go, ask and
not be asked all at the same time. One assumes the dictator of Iraq would
inform Colin Powell and the rest of his staff of his decision.
Torture talk still just talk
It goes to the top. It is denied. It is a violation of the law to admit
there is a policy even to Congress except by specific individuals to
oversight committees which are not asking the questions.
US moving troops from Korea to Iraq
Leaving Korea wide open to attack and another excuse for war by the bush
league. And Bush will go nuclear.
A quiet day
I guess they spent today working on the spin for tomorrow. There should be a
lot of new terms thrown around which have no meaning and the war mongers on
the side of torture, rape and murder will write columns giving many
different meanings to the meaningless terms. Their objective will be turn it
all into a discussion of the meaning of the words rather than a discussion
of the facts.
Then of course there is Rush Limbaugh who thinks rape and murder are
standard in fraternity hazings.
2004 May 16
Bad apples, isolated cases
But it is now confirmed to be happening in three prisons in Iraq and at the
base in Cuba. So we have another Bush administration lie on the isolated,
bad apple, not representing America line of bushit. And we have Rumsfeld
ordering it all. And we have Congress complicit in the coverup by letting
the pictures be kept secret which is illegal. In fact it is specifically a
crime to classify something to coverup a criminal act. And there are 1300
pictures of 1300 criminal acts. But it is only the law and we are no longer
a nation of laws.
The US will or will not stay after 30 June
Powell and Bremer say the US will leave if asked but doubt the people they
pick to run the country will ask. Bush says yes, period. There appears to be
a bit of disconnect in telling Bush what to say. Or maybe God has not told
his misbegotten son yet. When Bush is on his knees he prays unless what his
prisoners are forced to do when on their knees.
Hussein's treatment
The Telegraph has run an article on his treatment which is about as low as
one can go without being considered subhuman. He gets no more than a GI
gets. But he is a POW and as the highest ranking officer in Iraq he is
entitled to treatment as such by the Geneva Conventions. This is another
violation by the US. A similar decision was made in favor of Manuel Noriega
of Panama. He is in prison in the US with the highest accommodations required
by his rank.
Peace or submission
Every action of the US indicates it wants submission to the US rather than
wanting peace.
Didn't realize some did not know it
Fact: No American who died or was wounded in Iraq did so to defend or
protect the US or its citizens.
Fact: No American who dies or is wounded in the future in Iraq will do so to
protect or defend the US
There is no point to any charade here. We can say it but no one has to
believe it. I doubt anyone will believe it. There will be many who will
simply hate being reminded of it. Politicians will be obligated to tell
lies. Whatever is said can be nothing more than a lie.
Perhaps it can be fairly said they died to get rid of Saddam Hussein. If
that satisfies people, fine. It has a passing credibility but no one is
required to consider that a good reason. I myself don't think all of Iraq is
worth even one American life but to each his own. If anyone does it
certainly should be on a voluntary basis with one's own life rather than
forcibly with the lives of others.
2004 May 15
Long reported now evidence of cold-blooded murder
Der Spiegel in Germany says it has the evidence. And there is a pattern of
orders and reports indicating there have been many more. Once again, it is
what Iraqis know has been happening. And the US expect al Sadr to surrender
to torture and possible murder? The US expects him to believe it won't
happen to him?
Der Spiegel is in the same league as Time Magazine in the US. Expect to see
ignorant Americans calling it a tabloid.
Another confrontation
The impatient Marines around Fallujah have been told in no uncertain terms
by the man they put in charge of the city that he will not disarm the
resistance members. As long as it is quiet the wise thing is to negotiate
forever. Is peace not what is desired? Or is submission to America required?
Fucking stupid thy name is Bush. Sunnis and Shi'ites are united against the
US. It only takes one spark for a general uprising. Half of our troops will
die on the way out because we do not have the 400,000 troops needed to
control the country and prevent a general uprising. It took six months to
prepare the invasion force in Kuwait. We have no troops ready to reinforce
Iraq. But even if we did have troops ready, there are only 480,000 people in
the US Army, clerks and all.
Our troops are spread out all over Iraq. Supply lines are hundreds of miles
long. Reports are they don't have everything they need now. It will take
days to get carriers into position just for air support. The Navy is poorly
equipped to support ground troops. If fuel, ammo and food supply lines can
be cut they have only existing supplies to depend on. Reports continue to
indicate supplies are almost day to day when there should be weeks of
reserves.
But keep pushing everyone into a corner and keep ignoring every warning and
keep insisting on public displays of submission to American rule. At some
point one has to conclude the US wants a general uprising.
War with Iran
They would like it, the amateurs in the White House and Pentagon. It has
three times the population of Iraq and much worse terrain, in fact it is not
flat at all. If it were in as bad a shape as Iraq was which it is not, it
would take a half million men to conquer the country. The entire US Army is
only 1.2 million.
We can't afford to lose in Iraq
When there is no way to win you have lost.
We have already lost because there is no way to win. The only question is
how much greater the loss before we are kicked out. We never did get a
surrender out of Iraq so the war never ended. A state of war still exists.
The defenders of Iraq are increasing every day. How many more losses can we
afford before we declare victory and leave.
This is not being negative. This is a fact. In the last century no
nationalist movement has lost. No effort to throw out the foreigners has
failed. They have all won or are still fighting. All the high tech looks
impressive but Israel has had the highest tech since Nixon adopted the
country and the Palestinians have grown stronger since then. In the fighting
in the last week in Rafah they are getting a 1:1 exchange ratio in body
count. The best they had in past battles is 1:5 on the losing side and
overall 1:20. They are winning by not losing which is all that is required.
Now if President Jesus can show he is doing something different that is for
him to prove in the field. So far he is no more than platitudes and
bullshit. All talk, no substance.
Don't take my word for it. Was it true Berg's life was offered in exchange
for prisoners? Who refused the offer and why? Or is the video a total fake?
A false flag op?
Knock off the torture
Not quite. A list of things which are to stop have been issued. It does not
say torture, rape and murder is to stop. The statement fell short of saying
they would all be treated as POWs as required. It only alluded to that in
Iraq. It said nothing about those in Afghanistan and Cuba because the US has
illegally declared they are not lawful combatants.
The treaty requires everyone to be treated as POWs until a neutral and
impartial body makes a finding of fact in each individual case they are not
lawful combatants. That has not been done. They will still be tortured,
raped and murdered.
Guantanamo Bay
Just to make life interesting we now have solid reports of systematic
torture there. Three released Brits have independently told the same story
including the beatings were videotapes. And the few rotten apples that do
not represent America at Gitmo have admitted to the name of the group and
the videotaping which confirms the major part of the stories.
And Rumsfeld has ordered all of it.
Who knows what the morrow will bring?
Older commentary
|
Page reads: 4471
|