Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

ok maybe i rushed that last post a bit - but even if i sat down and thought out the wording it would still read the fucking same ppl - stop picking at bad wording and reaslise what the whole thing is saying. i hate people who are such pedantic little shits they compleatly miss the whole picture for picking at tiny details.

if this war doesn't happen saddam - who is a complete fucking nutter BTW - and osama - who is also a complete fucking nutter BTW - will continue thier research into making weapons of mass destruction and we will all end up quite royally fucked upon. from a great height.

during the second world war if u saw a german and u had a gun in your hand u would shoot him - because chances are he would have a gun in his hand and if u didn't do it first he would shoot u

the situation is no fucking different ppl - stop picking at insignificant little details and wake the fuck up.


( 15 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 30th, 2003 08:51 am (UTC)
I don`t think I was picking at the wording - I think I was picking at the fact that you seem to be equating yellow skin with terrorism.....

And fail to understand the fundamental pointyou seem to be making that we have a right to retaliate when "they" release Anthrax on us, but seem to think that bombing a load of civilians into fuck to get at someone like Saddam is in fact completely acceptable. Which in my dictionary is defined as hypocrisy.
Jan. 30th, 2003 10:42 am (UTC)
The Americans (and others) gave Saddam funding and weapons to help fight Iran.

The Americans (and others) gave Osama funding and weapons to help fight the Russians.

I've not seen any evidence of them being nutters. Quite the opposite - Saddam has been quite adept at nation-building (though not so good at external affairs), and Osama is an expert terrorist.

The two of them are quite different problems. Saddam needs preventing from breaking treaties he has entered into and held back from manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. The best people to do this are the UN, through consensus.

Osama needs his power base removed, so he cannot get others to launch terrorist attacks on his behalf. Bombing the families of his followers is not going to persuade them that the West is a force for good. Murdering their neighbours is not going to make them trust the West with their security.

If you were alive during WW2 and met a German Jew, what would you do?
Jan. 30th, 2003 11:15 am (UTC)
and as it turns out, you would have been one of the jew-hating German, followers of Hitler, because HIS propaganda machine was far superior to the US government's today.

How many followers of Hitler do you think thought the countries fighting against it in WW2, thought the people FIGHTING Hitler were complete nutters? Do the math. A man or a government needs PEOPLE in order to be powerful. They need to persuade PEOPLE that their cause is just and right, and furthurmore, if it is a Western nation, that it fits the INTEREST of the people. When really, it's usually about some form of material wealth here in the Western world. So sad. So go to the mall, stay drug free, eat McDonalds, and make sure to watch plenty of TV.
Jan. 31st, 2003 07:37 am (UTC)
Yes. Of course I would have.

Jan. 30th, 2003 11:22 am (UTC)
I've read all the follow-ups and I don't think anyone was picking at the wording or grammar or anything to do in the way in which you expressed yourself. They were arguing with your sentiments and arguments.
Jan. 30th, 2003 12:05 pm (UTC)
As a matter of fact your use of SMS speak does portray you as ignorant and immature. Even if what you actually said wasn't bigoted, simplistic and reactionary, it would be hard to take you seriously given the way you have chosen to express yourself.

Somewhere under all the racism and sweeping generalisations of your original post you do raise one or two interesting points. You must have a strong mind to offer up your ideas on a public forum like this knowing you're flying in the face of popular opinion, so why not think through what you say a bit more and give your argument some validity?

"Saddam is a fucking nutter! Osama is a fucking nutter!"

Really? Why? Your position would be a lot stronger if you could back up what you say, or is this just what the tabloids have told you to think?

Both of them are effective leaders and motivators of their own people which is more than we could say for our own inglorious Prime Minister and a certain trigger-happy president. Osama is certainly a dangerous terrorist and Saddam a brutal dictator but the war you seem to support so blindly is not about either of those things as much as Dubya cashing in on the aftermath of September 11th to finish what his father started. I'd be right behind it if it really were a 'war against terrorism', but bombing Iraq into the ground is not going to put a stop to the activities of Al Qaeda. More likely, quite the reverse.

I think your opinions are dangerous and flimsy, but I'm not questioning your right to broadcast them in your own space. I just think you could put your point across more effectively if you actually thought through what you were saying and expressed yourself in a more grown up way.
Jan. 31st, 2003 04:45 am (UTC)
if this war doesn't happen saddam - who is a complete fucking nutter BTW - and osama - who is also a complete fucking nutter BTW - will continue thier research into making weapons of mass destruction and we will all end up quite royally fucked upon. from a great height.

Saddam Hussein is doing things he believes in, exactly the same as you, me, the U.S. and our own government. Similarly so is Osama Bin Laden. Their methods of achieving this are exactly the same as our own.

Saddam Hussein is (I assume) continuing to build a weapons stockpile. He is attempting to do so for one or both of two reasons:
- To defend his country against an oppressive power.
- To attack a foreign organisation as an objection of their attitude.

To me that sounds very similar to both the UK and the US own attitude to armed forces. We have a huge stockpile of weapons and armed forces for the same two reasons. Additionally we also commit terrorist acts on foreign countries justified by our own culture and beliefs. Because x country is persecuting y people we intervene with action z. Action z is justified to the people who vote in the elections through the media releases surrounding the events. We don't consider those acts terrorist acts but the foreign parties probably do.

Consider the well publicised accidental bombing of the hospital a few years ago. We were led to believe that another, much more sinister, target was the intended recipient of that bomb. I don't know which to believe but I am absolutely sure that the media in the foreign country (please forgive me, I forget which country it was) advertised this as a deliberate terrorist act by the US government. To be honest I'm half tempted to believe them.

Please don't think that the UK is innocent too. The government that we as a people have voted in are already in pre-war activities with Iraq (and other countries not publicised in the media). We are policing a no fly zone that *we* have defined. We have told Iraq that any planes in that area will be shot down. If that doesn't sound like oppression and unwelcome intervention into their business then what does?

People who believe what's written in the papers tend to group Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein together in this evil pot of terrorists when perhaps the real terrorists are a little closer to home and Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are only trying to fight them off.

Please don't think I'm excusing the terrorist activities of any party, I disagree with it at every level, but I really think you should consider the possibility that people you label as terrorists are reacting to activities we have done and are lowering themselves to our level, not the other way around.
Jan. 31st, 2003 07:26 am (UTC)
Jan. 31st, 2003 08:23 am (UTC)
I apologise. I disagree with your statements about Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden being nutters (in any interpretation of the word) and I still think you missed my point.

My opinion is that even though we think that the things that they do are terrible by our standards, they also think that the things *WE* do are terrible by their standards. Who are we to judge someone else by our own moral code?

But then that's just my opinion...
Feb. 13th, 2003 12:18 pm (UTC)
She thinks that anyone objecting her argument intelligently is talking to her like she is 5 because her mental age and intelligence is that of a five year old receiving an explanation from someone older and more intelligent. I think everyone should stop wasting their time. She makes very little sense, can't express that little sense that must be hiding somewhere, seems stuck enough on herself that she's not going change her mind or rethink her statement based on intelligently deduced arguments. . .and come on, everybody. . .

she isn't going to change this country going to war even if she does epitomize what people in other countries make fun of about America. You're all taking out your impotence to change anything on this person who posted something dumb on livejournal.

This entry-comment sequence is a small-scale model of what is happening in this country. Sad? More than sad, but I won't confuse her with any big words.
Jan. 31st, 2003 09:18 am (UTC)

- To defend his country against an oppressive power.
- To attack a foreign organisation as an objection of their attitude.

Defend his country? He's had 100'000's of his countrymen massacred. Used chemical weapons on his own villages. Iraqi propaganda (which you seem more open to than western propaganda for some reason) has him down as the Great Defender etc, etc. If you don't tow the line you get tortured or perhaps butchered en masse because of your ethnicity (kurdish) or religion (Shi'ite Muslims). The only thing Saddam would appear interested in defending is Saddam.

You hold a huge political rally in London calling for Blair to be thrown out of office - you'll get massive media coverage and go home afterwards. You call for Saddams downfall in Iraq and you get gunned down by security forces. The Republican Guard was actually using military attack helicopters to fire upon any civilian massing in the south - that hasn't happened since no-fly zones were introduced.

Incidently it is UN Security Council Resolution 688 that gives mandate for the no-fly zones - it is not a unilateral action by the US, UK or France. The forces building up in the Gulf include Australians, Czechs and Polish troops. All the arab countries on the Persian Gulf are backing this war politically and by offering the use of their airspace and facillities. French and German opposition is all mouth. The French have moved a carrier group to the Gulf region and the Germans are giving logistical support to the US forces moving from Germany. Spain, Italy, Cananda, Denmark, the Netherlands, Hungary and Lithuania have all made noises about backing the war. In short, we're not going it alone.

Whilst I'm sure the west has some 'morally flexible' people over in Iraq; the aim is towards teh greater good. And as for "other countries not publicised in the media" it may not be on the front cover of the Daily Mail; but these activities are well and freely documented - there is no shadowy world of conspiracy here...

If you don't want to believe that then the world you see must be a perpetually horrible dark and twisted one :/
Jan. 31st, 2003 09:29 am (UTC)
If you don't want to believe that then the world you see must be a perpetually horrible dark and twisted one :/

Heh, yes, pretty much :) I find it a lot less disappointing than optimism ;)

And yes, your points about the no-fly zones and the public knowledge of the activites are well noted. On top of that I'd like to add that I'm one of the conspiracy theorists (if you want to call it that) that believe that the government hides (in varying forms of obscurity and secrecy) too much from the general public. I don't see a solution, just don't like it and I disagree strongly with it.
Feb. 6th, 2003 01:46 am (UTC)
It could be pointed out that the majority of Arab countries have human rights records just as bad. Good ol' boys in Kuwait- our chums have done exactly the same including regularly murdering its own population. We didnt give a tuppenny fuck what happened prior to Iraq invading Kuwait and potentially disrupting the flow of oil to fuel our cars etc.
The West supplied the gas and chemicals- so Iraq could use them against Iran- which was seen as the enemy at the time. Funny how things can change in a couple of years when oil is involved.
The west has reportedly killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's through over a decade of sanctions.Maybe true may be not. Who knows?
Turkey is still persecuting Kurds in the old Kurdistan area of Turkey- no one blinks an eye.They are even being considered to join the European community.
When Britain was in control of the area only just over half a century ago we killed more Kurds than Saddam.
I totally agree there should be no fly zones by the way
No one is saying thet the regime is Iraq is good by any means and I am sure the people there would wish to have a new government HOWEVER you are vastly missing the point through lapping up anything that is said by the American establishment who have a vstly differnt agenda than giving a fuck about your average Iraqi citizen. Perhaps you shouldnt get your history lessons from the Sun or some far right bigoted publication.
There are many corrupt and cruel regimes throught South America, Africa and Asia- Some imposed and supported by the American government.Who is doing anything about it.It cant be done. America cant rule the world.
Although they have no proof of terrorist organizations in Iraq apart from one (which is in the area not controlled by Saddam) I have no doubt there are some- But when you oppress a populace the stronger minded ones and the brainwashed followers will always rebel- thats human nature.
Attacking Iraq will probably only add to terrorist activities. September the 11th was all about the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and the invasion and occupation of their lands and the support predominately by the US, Australia and the UK to the invaders.
You will always have terrorists where there is injustice and oppression on the scale of what Israel has done.
You are also vastly incorrect about the list of countries supposedly giving support.
Its easily led indiduals who dont look at the facts that makes this world a dangerous place- through ignorance and right wing zenophobic attitudes we are just going to make things far far worse.
The full horror of Bush being elected is going to rear its ugly and evil face .
The world isnt a nice place sunshine- we are just the cosseted lucky ones in a fairly rich and fairly relaxed country with fairly good civil liberties. We got like that through shitting on the rest of the world in the past and now. When 9/11 comes along and the oppressed and bullied do some shitting back it really shouldnt come as some gastly surprise and we could do without il-educated bigots like you and your missus piping up with il-informed right wing views. The only way to stop illegal imigrants and terrorists is to make this world a fairer place.

Feb. 3rd, 2003 06:41 am (UTC)
You know, I have been reading the threads and arguments and counter arguments. There is a basic flaw in all of the reasoning. All of the arguments appealing to morals and ethics and reason are valid except for the fact that we are not dealing with ethical, moral or reasonable people here. Frankly, nobody is acting from any righteous position as far as I am concerned. If behaving with total disregard for other human's "right" to exist is a criteria to define being a "nutter", then there are far more of them then just Hussein, Bin Laden and Kim. I do believe they are ruthless, self-serving, power hungry manipulators, rallying the vulnerable, the desperate or the oppressed using cries of ethnic pride, nationalism or religion to further thier own [obvious or not] goals. George bush is using the same techniques to rally the western world against "them". Look through the propoganda and make your own decisions. This is what I have realized:

1. Killing is wrong. According to both Christian and Muslim history, killing for religion somehow becomes justifiable. This hypocracy if furhered by human nature's desire for defense and revenge. SHOULD we go to war and kill people? Ethically and morally, no. But, the killing will continue. Look at human history, there has ALWAYS been war and conflict so you have your choice to be an agressor, an apathetic bystander, a coward or a martyr. Frankly, none of them is on my short list of life goals.

2. There is no right or wrong. From each person's perspective SOMEBODY is more wrong then the next, but it's strictly a matter of culture, experience and belief. Go ahead and point a finger, but remember God gave us all 10 fingers, so you may point the other 9 to those around you as well.

3. War is not justified. There is a difference between "right" and "necessary". The problem with pre-emptive action is that you cannot prevent the occurance that hasn't happened yet. And, even if the U.N. forces achieve 100% of thier goals I don't beleive it will make anything better. It will just make it different and History will have to decide whether it was a good thing or a bad thing.

4. Governements do not tell us everything. They can't. Not without compromising thier positions. So people are left to speculate and that leads to wild misinformation being accepted as fact. My crystal ball broke years ago, so I have no more insight into the "truth" than anybody else, but I do believe that half of what we "know" is probably wrong and half of what we don't know is probably more horrific than we could have imagined.

5. All [group of people] are [adjective]. Well that's just racism. The truth is that most Iraqi's are indoctrinated into a western-hating mindset, but that's only because that's the information they are presented with. The western people use this instucted hatred to turn it into racism, making it easier to percieve "them" as all evil, which tends to support the propoganda in the first place, reinforcing that Americans [and others] are infidels.

6. Fear and hate are better motivators than morality.

7. This could go on forever, and, as far as human conflict is concerned, no matter what nationality or label you hang on it, it HAS gone on forever . . . and probably will continue.
Feb. 28th, 2003 07:58 am (UTC)
Killing is wrong. According to both Christian and Muslim history, killing for religion somehow becomes justifiable.

Wow, I had no idea you studied the Islamic texts that thoroughly. Incidentally as a Muslim I was taught (and have read time and time again) that killing is never justifiable unless it's in defence. I think that's reasonable justification. I also truly believe that Christians are taught the same. If a Muslim/Christian ceases to follow his doctrine it's unfair to say the doctrine is flawed or exhibits hypocracy; it is the follower who is flawed.

There is no right or wrong.

I think it's fair to assume that there are basic rights and wrongs that every human being (regardless of religion/culture/etc) adheres to and understands. It's what separates us from animals.

...half of what we don't know is probably more horrific than we could have imagined.

Indeed . . . the price of oil going up by 10 pence! *shocked expression* Sorry for belittling your argument here; I think it's fair to assume that we the public have been able to extrapolate nearly all the information we need and from all paths known the majority of people don't agree with a war.

The truth is that most Iraqi's are indoctrinated into a western-hating mindset, but that's only because that's the information they are presented with.

Wow . . . I had no idea you were an Iraqi like I am and knew the majority of Iraqis. Western hating mindset? Errr . . . wrong wrong wrong is all I can say to that argument; you've played into Western propoganda.

Points 6 and 7 I agree totally with.
( 15 comments — Leave a comment )