Post by lo yeeOnIf some ISIS fighters harbor grandiose illusions about their future,
try to put yourself in their shoes and see if you can feel their
pain.
Good one. You've succeeded in being arrogant, idiotic and offensive,
all in one fell swoop.
Notice deafening silence on his golden boy Putin bombing ISIS targets.
I suspect soon we'll hear about all these "gentle souls" driven to bomb
and shoot innocents like he did with the Boston Marathon bombers.
He's a *genius*. He understands everyone's motives and hidden agenda,
even better than they do.
Unfortunately for you, bmoore, who is lying in wait to shoot the
messenger whose messages on these newsgroups do not agree with what
your neocon masters want the people to hear, you haven't show a shred
of evidence of what you've been gossiping about. Show what you're
talking about by providing concrete evidence or citations to the
points you have specifically made, please.
I have no "neocon masters" nor do I defend GW Bush. That's just what you
accuse people of all the time. Whether people agree with your positions
or not, there's no denying that your style and (lack of) substance are a
problem with your posts, along with an unbelievable bias in one
direction. Whatever message you are trying to convey is being lost due
to your arrogance and illogic.
You don't need to pretend. Look at what you wrote...
"Saddam was a monster, no question"
">Given your defense of not only Saddam, but Kadaffy and the North
Korean monsters, you deserve to have the shit beaten out of you."
Your modus operandi has always been so apparent and your villains seem
to have always coincided with the neocons' monsters du jour.... (You
know G W Bush's by-now-infamous antics of "fixing the intelligence to
serve his neocon masters' policy"? You know that the neocons were
keeping quiet about Qaddafi and Assad until they were ready to take
them on?) Yet you only characterized your "opposition to the Iraq
war" as something that is not "worth it", as if there was any virtue
about dropping tons of bombs on Iraq and bringing it back to the stone
age (entirely aside from killing 4500 American soldiers and maiming tens
of thousands more, for life).
Paul O'Neill, G W Bush's own treasury secretary for his first term and
Richard Clarke, the White House anti-terrorism czar since Bill
Clinton's time both revealed that the Bush team was actively working
on the invasion of Iraq from the first days while ignoring the defense
of this country, despite repeated warnings from the intelli community.
The Bush White House's preoccupation with attacking a distant country
while neglecting the safeguarding of the country he was entrusted to
defend was a high crime. It cannot be simply dismissed as a venture
that wasn't worth taking. It was deliberate deception. People who
use the term "not worth it" to describe the Bush crime are
whitewashing his crime.
Furthermore, your track record on soc.culture.china consists of
attacking rst9, forceSin, ltlee, and me, with no substance except ad
homenim, character assassination, and maybe meaningless gotyas. So,
it's clear that you've never had anything to say: all you've done was
attempt to discredit the messengers. It just so happens that our
messages are not in sync with those of neocons. Therefore, it's not
only hard for me to disassociate you from them but it is probably
pointless and maybe impossible to do so.
By the way having seen your explicit demonization of the Iranian
rulers, the North Korean rulers, Qaddafi, Saddam, etc. and anything
connected with the CCP's China and Putin's Russia, all point to your
irrational biases. Unfortunately, such biases also point to wars as
your favorite approach to American foreign policy.
You may pretend that you and your neocon pals are America's friends,
but with friends like these, who needs enemies?
lo yeeOn
Subject: ISIS root: Why G W Bush bandied a big lie to wage a war
against Iraq that caused hundreds of thousands to die, millions
homeless, and the entire country destroyed just because "Saddam was a
monster, no question"?
And the revival of the slogan "Saddam was a monster, no question"
is just the accompaniment to reviving a conflict we never had a
justification to be in in the first place.
Once again, you still don't seem to understand that one can be opposed
to US foreign policy yet recognize what kind of person Saddam was. You
seem to have a pathological inability to say anything negative about
Saddam, North Korea, etc.
And therefore, you were making this pretentious statement as a follow
up to jdeluise's post below?
bmoore wrote:
The real point IMO is that opposition to the US invasion of Iraq
should not have been based on challenging the neocons' assertion
that Saddam was a monster, because he most certainly was. It should
have been based on the fact that shaking up the status quo in that
part of the world would with high probability make things worse,
which it did.
Notice that you use the specious word of "challenging the neocons" who
asserted as you have repeatedly also have that Saddam was "certainly" a
"monster".
I was not challenging any assertions until when you came out of the
closet and started to whip Saddam's corpse. Whip, whip... Saddam was
bad, and that's why he's dead. Whip, whip,...
You are the one who keeps whipping Saddam's corpse on behalf of the
neocon propaganda machine to retroactively justify their crimes of
waging a totally unjustifiable war that resorted to big lies and to
proactively justify a new military adventure in Iraq and Syria.
The "evidence" that you cited for "Saddam was a monster - no question"
are urban legends. Even if true, that's no basis to bring hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis to their premature deaths and millions more to
loss of their homes, and the entire country of Iraq wrecked. Why is
ISIS so powerful today? It's not because Saddam killed his health
minister. It is because our bombs and bullets drove millions of Iraqi
citizens to despair and hopelessness.
Don't forget that you are the one who cited a couple of unsupportable
stories of a gruesome nature and mega-sensationalist tone that have no
logical basis for a term like "monster" except to fan the flames of
war and justify your whipping of Saddam's corpse, with your
condescending
"He is a monster, no question."
Saddam took ten years to assume power since he and his "Trotsky"
counterpart seized control in the 1968 July 17 revolution.
He didn't just overthrow a president and assumed power for life.
He was one among many Baathists - a kind of communists or Trotskyist
in Iraq at the time. He just happened to be the most ruthless, like
Stalin in the USSR and like Chiang and Mao in China.
So Saddam became a dictator and was ruthless - and so what? That I
have repeatedly stated this fact and you repeatedly ignored it doesn't
mean that there was any real content to your assertion about Saddam
other than its obvious political/propaganda motivations.
I have repeatedly asked why Mao and Chiang were not branded, by our
government, as "monsters" and used as a basis to go to war with China,
theoretically at least twice, since they certainly committed more
"monster" acts than the acts you've cited against Saddam (murder of a
political minister). And naturally, Stalin would be more qualified to
be a "monster" than Saddam and we never went and invaded Russia? How
come?
In terms of the sheer scale of the ruthlessness of a leader, Saddam
was only learning from those three guys I mentioned above and I doubt
he ever exceeded his teachers of ruthelessness. Saddam might have
been on par with Henry the 8th, he beheaded his wives and knew no
bound to punish his opponents, real or merely suspected.
Likewise, Gaddafi of Libya. Gaddafi led a prosporous, secular, and
relatively progressive country until NATO's regime change and you
incited physical violence against me in some of these newsgroups
because I raised, again, the question of why we had to wreck a country
just because Gaddafi was a "monster", which is really a question about
a "monster to whom"? Of course, to those who were hurt; but to those
who benefited?
Remember that even our beloved Lincoln was viewed in very poor light
by the sourtherners because he killed so many of them and imprisoned
so many others. But Lincoln does not wear the "monster" duncecap only
because he won a war that gave us today's exceptionalist propaganda
machine.
These rulers were all ruthless, but their ruthlessness is not a basis
for war. And calling them "monsters" is just sloganeering to promote
the kinds of emotions necessary to drive people to war.
And, again, even more emphatically, I have asked why we have to bandy
a whopper lie to wage the war against Iraq and caused hundreds of
thousands to die, millions homeless, and the entire contrun destroyed
just because you say
"Saddam is a monster, no question"?
And why was it so unsurprisingly that John Kerry came out to labeling
Bashar Assad a Hitler of our time, when it was almost a sure thing
that our missiles were about to rain down from the sky of Syria?
There is a pattern of hoisting the bogeyman before you bomb, isn't it?
And that's the modus operandi of the neocon propaganda machine to fan
the flame of war, one war after another, until we control the whole
planet, isn't it?
It is clear as the sky in a sunny day what a dark cloud you are in
these newsgroups, defending the neocons for their insatiable appetite
to garrison the planet: threatening physical violence to silence the
protest that the Iraq war was more than
"It's not worth it,"
the basis of your "opposition to" our governing policy.
Remember your bully tactics to silence messengers of message that is
not in sync with the mainstream:
On 24 March 2013, around the time of the ten (10) year anniversary
of George Bush' coldly calculated invasion of Iraq that caused
enormous destruction to the country and enduring suffering to its
people, there was a series of posts on the subject addressing
exactly the same issue that Dennis Kucinich has again brought out
this week. In this series, bmoore wrote:
">Given your defense of not only Saddam, but Kadaffy and the North
Korean monsters, you deserve to have the shit beaten out of you."
when I asked the question:
Why did so many Iraqis have to die because Saddam was "such a
monster". Indeed, "monster" to whom? Re: If Saddam was "such a
monster" and had caused so much "carnage" when Tony Blair decided
to go to war with G W Bush, then why did they have to resort to the
monster WMD lie?
Notice bmoore's attempt to incite physical violence on an indivudal:
"... you deserve to have the shit beaten out of you."
It is ridiculous for you, bmoore, to deny what you said, given the
degree of violence your words could excite!
lo yeeOn
The 17 July Revolution was a bloodless coup in Iraq in 1968, led by
General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, which brought the Iraqi Regional Branch
of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party to power. Both Saddam Hussein,
later President of Iraq, and Salah Omar al-Ali, later a Ba'athist
dissident, were major participants in the coup. According to historian
Charles R. H. Tripp, the coup upset the "US-sponsored security system
established as part of the Cold War in the Middle East. It appeared
that any enemy of the Baghdad regime was a potential ally of the
United States."[1] The Ba'ath Party ruled from the 17 July Revolution
until 2003, when it was removed from power by an invasion led by
American and British forces. Iraq then came under a military
occupation by a multinational coalition.[2] (The 17 July Revolution is
not to be confused with the 14 July Revolution, a coup on 14 July
1958, when King Faisal II was overthrown, ending the Hashemite dynasty
in Iraq and establishing the Republic of Iraq.) (wikipedia)