Israel murders disabled people... whats next i wonder Re: IDF-Apachefiring missiles on 67yr old civilian in wheelchair- at Sabra mosque inGaza...

[Aerophotos]

Its called a low scum act killing people anyone with a disability, but
dont expect any brains from anyone from the side who killed him.. people
with disabilities have been trodden on for years... go and research it
if your not sure information is freely available.

I think its opened not only the gate of hell which Israel deserves - for
the fact alone he was disabled... but a serious case for legal action on
the issue of murdering a severely disabled person with no reason for it.

I wonder what will Israel think of its its blind/hearing impaired and
wheelchair bound citizens been killed next is like.. unfair?.. sick?...
horrible?.... too bad they stupidly have now set a sickening low scum
precedent.. let them suffer i say... even a World Court trial at the
Hague would be good to see.


Oelewapper wrote:
>
> Admittedly, I am not very familiar with this particular kind of issues in
> military aviation, but how can it be "legal" for the Israëli occupation
> force to send out US-made Apaches, to launch a couple of missiles on a 67
> year old crippled, half-blind and unarmed man, leaving a mosque in a
> wheelchair after having said his dawn prayers ?? What about the pilot's
> responsibility ??
>
> And what about the countries that are supplying and financing those
> governments that are responsible for these "evil" state-sponsored - yet IMHO
> completely unlawful - brutalities ??
>
> Oele.
> In pace, Iustitia omnibus.
>
> ---
> Juan Cole *Informed Comment*
> http://www.juancole.com/

[Tarver Engineering]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
...

> I wonder what will Israel think of its its blind/hearing impaired and
> wheelchair bound citizens been killed next is like.. unfair?.. sick?...
> horrible?....

HAMAS's bombs created many blind/hearing impaired wheelchair bound Israelis.

Sacrificing Israel will not be enough.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
...
> Its called a low scum act killing people anyone with a disability, but
> dont expect any brains from anyone from the side who killed him.. people
> with disabilities have been trodden on for years... go and research it
> if your not sure information is freely available.
>

In 1945 the ruler of Germany was definitely clinically
disabled, one arm was obviously useless and he had a
nervous tick.

Do you believe killing him would have been a
despicable act ?

Keith

[Moose]

"Moose" > wrote in message
...
> If you were an aircraft, you'd never fly becasue you only have a 'left
> wing'. Check six you air force reject!!!
>
This post was actually for Aerophotos. Disregard

[Dav1936531]

>From: Aerophotos
>Date: 3/22/04 3:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Its called a low scum act killing people anyone with a disability, but
>dont expect any brains from anyone from the side who killed him.. people
>with disabilities have been trodden on for years... go and research it
>if your not sure information is freely available.
>
>I think its opened not only the gate of hell which Israel deserves - for
>the fact alone he was disabled... but a serious case for legal action on
>the issue of murdering a severely disabled person with no reason for it.
>
>I wonder what will Israel think of its its blind/hearing impaired and
>wheelchair bound citizens been killed next is like.. unfair?.. sick?...
>horrible?.... too bad they stupidly have now set a sickening low scum
>precedent.. let them suffer i say... even a World Court trial at the
>Hague would be good to see.

Were you bitching like that when Palestinian Abu Abbas killed wheelchair bound
American citizen Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and throwing him overboard
from the Achille Loreau (sp? tourist ship) that he was busy hijacking, an overt
act of piracy?

Abu Abbas, incidently, was captured by US troops in Iraq and just recently died
of natural causes (or not..who cares?) while in US custody.
Dave

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Aerophotos > wrote:

> I think its opened not only the gate of hell which Israel deserves

The gate was long open.

> - for
> the fact alone he was disabled... but a serious case for legal action on
> the issue of murdering a severely disabled person with no reason for it.

Israel has a long history of murdering Palestinians - Age or ability are
not relevant.



--
.................................................. ............................

Truth is always the enemy of power. And power the enemy of truth.

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Tarver Engineering > wrote:

> "Aerophotos" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I wonder what will Israel think of its its blind/hearing impaired and
>> wheelchair bound citizens been killed next is like.. unfair?.. sick?...
>> horrible?....

> HAMAS's bombs created many blind/hearing impaired wheelchair bound Israelis.

And vice-versa, however, the losses have been far higher on the Palestinian
side, according to Red Cross statistics.

--
.................................................. ............................

Courage means going against majority opinion in the name of truth.

-Vaclav Havel

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
news:5eP7c.930$Ct5.570@edtnps89...
> In us.military.army Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
> > "Aerophotos" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> I wonder what will Israel think of its its blind/hearing impaired and
> >> wheelchair bound citizens been killed next is like.. unfair?.. sick?...
> >> horrible?....
>
> > HAMAS's bombs created many blind/hearing impaired wheelchair bound
Israelis.
>
> And vice-versa, however, the losses have been far higher on the
Palestinian
> side, according to Red Cross statistics.

Perhaps HAMAS should rethink their strategy.

[Sunny]

> "Aerophotos" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Its called a low scum act killing people anyone with a disability, but
> > dont expect any brains from anyone from the side who killed him..


JGG, your hatred of anything/anyone connected to the USA is showing.
How about voicing an opinion of your scum bag Muslim mates, murdering school
kids on buses and trains?

[Chad Irby]

In article <5eP7c.930$Ct5.570@edtnps89>,
wrote:

> And vice-versa, however, the losses have been far higher on the Palestinian
> side, according to Red Cross statistics.

Like Yassin's brother, who was killed by, er, well, he was killed by
Yassin, but don't let that stop you.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Sunny]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
<snip crap>
Worked out how to name the day of the week yet JGG ?

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:

> Like Yassin's brother, who was killed by, er, well, he was killed by
> Yassin, but don't let that stop you.

Stop me from what?

How does this excuse Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?


--
.................................................. ............................

Chase after truth like hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never
touch its coat-tails.
-Clarence Darrow

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Sunny > wrote:

> How about voicing an opinion of your scum bag Muslim mates, murdering school
> kids on buses and trains?

All murderers should be condemned in proportion to the numbers they murder -
That is why the Judeo-American alliance deserves more than it's lions share.

--
.................................................. ............................

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually
come to believe it.

-Joseph Goebbels

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Matt Wiser]

(Dav1936531) wrote:
>>From: Aerophotos
>>Date: 3/22/04 3:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Its called a low scum act killing people anyone
>with a disability, but
>>dont expect any brains from anyone from the
>side who killed him.. people
>>with disabilities have been trodden on for
>years... go and research it
>>if your not sure information is freely available.
>>
>>I think its opened not only the gate of hell
>which Israel deserves - for
>>the fact alone he was disabled... but a serious
>case for legal action on
>>the issue of murdering a severely disabled
>person with no reason for it.
>>
>>I wonder what will Israel think of its its
>blind/hearing impaired and
>>wheelchair bound citizens been killed next
>is like.. unfair?.. sick?...
>>horrible?.... too bad they stupidly have now
>set a sickening low scum
>>precedent.. let them suffer i say... even a
>World Court trial at the
>>Hague would be good to see.
>
>Were you bitching like that when Palestinian
>Abu Abbas killed wheelchair bound
>American citizen Leon Klinghoffer by shooting
>him and throwing him overboard
>from the Achille Loreau (sp? tourist ship) that
>he was busy hijacking, an overt
>act of piracy?
>
>Abu Abbas, incidently, was captured by US troops
>in Iraq and just recently died
>of natural causes (or not..who cares?) while
>in US custody.
>Dave
Good riddance to both of them.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Chad Irby]

In article <OST7c.2460$Ct5.1591@edtnps89>,
wrote:

> In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > Like Yassin's brother, who was killed by, er, well, he was killed by
> > Yassin, but don't let that stop you.
>
> Stop me from what?
>
> How does this excuse Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?

Considering that Israel has only killed, since the start of the last
Intifada in 2000, about 2600 Palestinians (most of whom were armed or
standing around people who were armed and shooting) out of a population
of 8.7 million, you're horribly abusing that "ethnic cleansing" phrase.

On the other hand, if the Palestinians would stop bombing buses and
coffee shops, a lot of that death and destruction would stop practically
overnight. But since several different terror groups in the Palestinian
population have announced that they want nothing much besides every
Jewish person dead...

(That's what "ethnic cleansing" really means, you know. It's a modern
European phrase for the outmoded "genocide.")

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article <rVT7c.2462$Ct5.438@edtnps89>,
wrote:

> All murderers should be condemned in proportion to the numbers they murder -
> That is why the Judeo-American alliance deserves more than it's lions share.

The worst murderer of Muslims, *ever*, was Saddam. Have you ever
condemned him?

Oh, wait... the magic of Google.*

"No one claims Saddam was a saint."

Wow. Strong words.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:

> Considering that Israel has only killed, since the start of the last
> Intifada in 2000, about 2600 Palestinians (most of whom were armed or
> standing around people who were armed and shooting) out of a population
> of 8.7 million, you're horribly abusing that "ethnic cleansing" phrase.

You dishonestly restrict the use of the word, both in time, and in impact.
Ethnic cleansing is the only word to describe the concerted *60 YEAR*
effort to drive Palestinians out of their native land into neighboring arab
countries. Murder, assassination, torture, intimidation, racism,
harassment, destruction of infrastructure, destruction of economy,
destruction of farmland, theft of water, environmental destuction.

The message is quite clear. It is "Get out or suffer".

> On the other hand, if the Palestinians would stop bombing buses and
> coffee shops, a lot of that death and destruction would stop practically
> overnight.

No, it wouldn't. A complete surrender by Paletinians would not halt the
Zionist master plan for the exclusive habitation of Palestine.

I'm surprised, for someone who has such a concern for buses and coffee
shops, that you don't have a greater concern for the Paletinians, who have
lost far more, in both lives, property, and infrastructure, than their better
armed enemy.



--
.................................................. ............................

Freedom comes from human beings, rather than from laws and institutions.

-Clarence Darrow

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
> In article <rVT7c.2462$Ct5.438@edtnps89>,
> wrote:

>> All murderers should be condemned in proportion to the numbers they murder -
>> That is why the Judeo-American alliance deserves more than it's lions share.

> The worst murderer of Muslims, *ever*, was Saddam. Have you ever
> condemned him?

Do Saddam's crimes justify, or minimize Zionist crimes?


--
.................................................. ............................

Courage means going against majority opinion in the name of truth.

-Vaclav Havel

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Chad Irby]

In article <zp28c.4247$Ct5.518@edtnps89>,
wrote:

> In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > The worst murderer of Muslims, *ever*, was Saddam. Have you ever
> > condemned him?
>
> Do Saddam's crimes justify, or minimize Zionist crimes?

Nope.

But you should remember that most of those "Zionist crimes" seem to be
"they killed some of our terrorists!"

And since you mentioned it, when was the last time you condemned Saddam?

Have you ever?

Here's a telling quote from one of your other posts:

> Basic feedoms? The you mean the freedom of press, the freedom to vote, the
> freedom to have access to water and power, the freedom to walk the streets
> without fear?
>
> You mean the freedoms they actually have LESS of than they did under Saddam?

Other than the fact that *everything* in this comment was false, it sure
gives away your priorities... since they had *none* of those things
under Saddam Hussein.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article <Eo28c.4246$Ct5.3230@edtnps89>,
wrote:

> No, it wouldn't. A complete surrender by Paletinians would not halt the
> Zionist master plan for the exclusive habitation of Palestine.

Here's a clue: if you're going to pretend that you're not just
anti-Zewish, stop using phrases like "Zionist master plan."

The Israelis must really suck at this "ethnic cleansing" thing, though,
since there are about 1.3 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip now,
versus about 400,000 in about 1967. The Pali population has gone up
ever year over the last 37 years, which puts the lie to your little
comments.

The Palestinians have been offered peaceful solutions many times over
the years, and it's people like Yassin who always screw things up, not
because they want to defeat the "Zionist master plan," but because they
publicly tell everyone in earshot that they want all of the Jews *dead*.

It's on their *web page*.

If you want a good compromise, don't tell the other side that you want
to commit genocide (sorry, "ethnic cleansing") on them, or that you
won't be happy until you push them into the sea.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Jim Yanik]

wrote in
news:Eo28c.4246$Ct5.3230@edtnps89:

> In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>> Considering that Israel has only killed, since the start of the last
>> Intifada in 2000, about 2600 Palestinians (most of whom were armed or
>> standing around people who were armed and shooting) out of a
>> population of 8.7 million, you're horribly abusing that "ethnic
>> cleansing" phrase.
>
> You dishonestly restrict the use of the word, both in time, and in
> impact. Ethnic cleansing is the only word to describe the concerted
> *60 YEAR* effort to drive Palestinians out of their native land

THEIR native land? ISTR a mosque built on Jewish Temple remains.
In fact,the Jews were there before the "Palestinians" ever were invented.
(most of the "Palestinians" are Egyptians,Syrians,Lebanese,or Jordanian.)
Jews have lived in that area for many thousands of years.It's the ARABS who
want to drive the Jews "into the sea",to use their own words.The Israelis
have Palestinians in their GOVERNMENT,and coexist peacefully with them in
the State of Israel,while no Arab country tolerates Jews living among
them,and certainly not allowing them representation in any Arab government.
And the ARABS are the ones who calle dfor Arab resisdents to flee when they
launched the first of several wars to "drive the Jews into the sea".To
exterminate them.

and Jordan is at least 70% "Palestinian",yet no one is calling for Jordan
to be "Palestine",or even part of it.It was even part of the original
"Palestinian Mandate" created after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire,
-another- Arab government that persecuted the Jews living in that area.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[William Davenant]

Maybe the UN should have a EDA resolution? An Earthlings with Disabilities
Act. And it could be enforced by the WDC, World Disabilities Court, whose
judges would truly be the halt and the blind.

But since that would presumably include developmentally disabled, that would
favor certain countries over others. For example, the EU, Canada,
and NZ would be bringing claims right and left since most of their
populations are thus sorely afflicted, but would that really be equitable?

If you could ever justify eugenics, this scenario would be a prime example!

;-)

As far as the ol' skeik goes, you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

wd

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:

>> Basic feedoms? The you mean the freedom of press, the freedom to vote, the
>> freedom to have access to water and power, the freedom to walk the streets
>> without fear?
>>
>> You mean the freedoms they actually have LESS of than they did under Saddam?

> Other than the fact that *everything* in this comment was false, it sure
> gives away your priorities... since they had *none* of those things
> under Saddam Hussein.

Incorrect. Under Saddam, and before the American-backed embargo, Iraqis
had some of the best infrastructure in the ME, including, but not limited
to, universal health care, universal education, and stability. There were
definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were able to walk
the streets without fear of rape, and there was clean water.

In any case, I don't need to condemn this dishonest and ill-conceived war -
There are enough of your own officials doing it.


--
.................................................. ............................

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Michael Wise]

In article <dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84>,
wrote:

> In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >> Basic feedoms? The you mean the freedom of press, the freedom to vote,
> >> the
> >> freedom to have access to water and power, the freedom to walk the streets
> >> without fear?
> >>
> >> You mean the freedoms they actually have LESS of than they did under
> >> Saddam?
>
> > Other than the fact that *everything* in this comment was false, it sure
> > gives away your priorities... since they had *none* of those things
> > under Saddam Hussein.
>
> Incorrect. Under Saddam, and before the American-backed embargo, Iraqis
> had some of the best infrastructure in the ME, including, but not limited
> to, universal health care, universal education, and stability. There were
> definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were able to walk
> the streets without fear of rape, and there was clean water.


Yes, but what about the trains?


--Mike

[Chad Irby]

In article <dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84>,
wrote:

> In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >> Basic feedoms? The you mean the freedom of press, the freedom to
> >> vote, the freedom to have access to water and power, the freedom
> >> to walk the streets without fear?
> >>
> >> You mean the freedoms they actually have LESS of than they did under
> >> Saddam?
>
> > Other than the fact that *everything* in this comment was false, it sure
> > gives away your priorities... since they had *none* of those things
> > under Saddam Hussein.
>
> Incorrect. Under Saddam, and before the American-backed embargo, Iraqis
> had some of the best infrastructure in the ME, including, but not limited
> to, universal health care,

....which was terrible, except for the ruling elites. Most of that
"universal health care" consisted of telling people they couldn't get
any treatment.

> universal education,

....as long as it told the students that Saddam was wonderful.

> and stability.

The stability that comes with fear.

> There were definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand,

"Heavy hand?" Sheesh, you must have broken your euphemism generator
with that bit of text. "Horrible, bloody dictator's hand, with
thousands of murders by the government, topped off with torture" is more
appropriate.

> but women were able to walk
> the streets without fear of rape,

You're out of your mind.

> and there was clean water.

Less than now, actually. Along with power. Although they're starting
to have power problems, because non-government people are able to get
such luxuries as refrigerators and air conditioners without having to
bribe someone in charge. Iraqis are buying more cars per *month* than
they used to buy in a *year*. TV and satellite dish sales are
skyrocketing (you couldn't get those before the war, either).

> In any case, I don't need to condemn this dishonest and ill-conceived war -
> There are enough of your own officials doing it.

Take it up with the Iraqis. About 2/3 of *them* think it was a good
thing, and most of the rest are neutral about it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Jarg]

> wrote in message
news:dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84...
> In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
> There were
> definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were able to
walk
> the streets without fear of rape,

Aren't you overlooking Uday Husseins well documented love of rape? But
otherwise I'm sure it was a lovely place to live.

Jarg

[Charles Gray]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:22:00 +1100, Aerophotos >
wrote:

>Its called a low scum act killing people anyone with a disability, but
>dont expect any brains from anyone from the side who killed him.. people
>with disabilities have been trodden on for years... go and research it
>if your not sure information is freely available.
>
>I think its opened not only the gate of hell which Israel deserves - for
>the fact alone he was disabled... but a serious case for legal action on
>the issue of murdering a severely disabled person with no reason for it.
>
>I wonder what will Israel think of its its blind/hearing impaired and
>wheelchair bound citizens been killed next is like.. unfair?.. sick?...
>horrible?.... too bad they stupidly have now set a sickening low scum
>precedent.. let them suffer i say... even a World Court trial at the
>Hague would be good to see.
>
>
>O

Point of order-- being disabled doesn't give you a free ride,
especially when you're the head of an illegal organization that is
engaged in A. using suicide bombs against Isreal, and B. hiding behind
civilians hoping that any collateral damage will cause a PR problem.
Isreal made an error-- I think the palestinain rage and
energization will cost them more than leaving a fellow alive who
wasn't overly involved in the tactical end of things, but as for being
"wrong"-- well no.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Charles Gray > wrote:

> Isreal made an error-- I think the palestinain rage and
> energization will cost them more than leaving a fellow alive who
> wasn't overly involved in the tactical end of things, but as for being
> "wrong"-- well no.

People have said that a lot, since the start of the current "second
Intifada," but facts don't bear it out. Israel started targeting Hamas
and other leaders early last year, and the result has been a *reduction*
in attacks by Palestinians, a reduction in deaths of Israelis, and a
reduction in deaths of Palestinians.

"Common wisdom" says that we should have seen a massive increase in
attacks over the last year.

Practical warmaking says that killing the leaders of an organization
that wants to kill you is a smart move, since it makes them less
effective and puts the enemy in the position of trying to fight you
while being run by the less-talented second-raters.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[LawsonE]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> Charles Gray > wrote:
>
> > Isreal made an error-- I think the palestinain rage and
> > energization will cost them more than leaving a fellow alive who
> > wasn't overly involved in the tactical end of things, but as for being
> > "wrong"-- well no.
>
> People have said that a lot, since the start of the current "second
> Intifada," but facts don't bear it out. Israel started targeting Hamas
> and other leaders early last year, and the result has been a *reduction*
> in attacks by Palestinians, a reduction in deaths of Israelis, and a
> reduction in deaths of Palestinians.
>
> "Common wisdom" says that we should have seen a massive increase in
> attacks over the last year.
>
> Practical warmaking says that killing the leaders of an organization
> that wants to kill you is a smart move, since it makes them less
> effective and puts the enemy in the position of trying to fight you
> while being run by the less-talented second-raters.
>

In the short run, that may be true, but it gets kinda old after the first
few generations.

Unless you're claiming that ONLY the current generation of Palestinians are
going to demand reprisals.

[Chad Irby]

In article . net>,
"LawsonE" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > Practical warmaking says that killing the leaders of an organization
> > that wants to kill you is a smart move, since it makes them less
> > effective and puts the enemy in the position of trying to fight you
> > while being run by the less-talented second-raters.
>
> In the short run, that may be true, but it gets kinda old after the first
> few generations.

Well, a 30% to 50% drop in terror ops and deaths on both sides in one
*year* seems like a lot better trend than letting the real bad guys keep
on living and talking the young idiots into doing stupid things.

The medium-dumb ones already got the message. They're sending in 10 and
16 year old boys with bombs strapped to them now. With a corresponding
lack of success (the kids aren't happy with it and don't really
cooperate). *MAJOR* PR failure among their own people.

> Unless you're claiming that ONLY the current generation of Palestinians are
> going to demand reprisals.

Like this has only been going on for a year? The people who are calling
for "reprisals" are the guys who, whenever there's a chance for peace,
send out the bomb-toting morons. Kill off the bosses, and you get less
terrorism.

We're in something like the fourth generation of idiots in Gaza... and
when you kill off the mean smart ones who have been running things, the
nice smart ones get a chance to come to the top over the mean dumb ones.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 06:20:16 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article . net>,
> "LawsonE" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>>
>> > Practical warmaking says that killing the leaders of an organization
>> > that wants to kill you is a smart move, since it makes them less
>> > effective and puts the enemy in the position of trying to fight you
>> > while being run by the less-talented second-raters.
>>
>> In the short run, that may be true, but it gets kinda old after the first
>> few generations.
>
>Well, a 30% to 50% drop in terror ops and deaths on both sides in one
>*year* seems like a lot better trend than letting the real bad guys keep
>on living and talking the young idiots into doing stupid things.
>
>The medium-dumb ones already got the message. They're sending in 10 and
>16 year old boys with bombs strapped to them now. With a corresponding
>lack of success (the kids aren't happy with it and don't really
>cooperate). *MAJOR* PR failure among their own people.
>
>> Unless you're claiming that ONLY the current generation of Palestinians are
>> going to demand reprisals.
>
>Like this has only been going on for a year? The people who are calling
>for "reprisals" are the guys who, whenever there's a chance for peace,
>send out the bomb-toting morons. Kill off the bosses, and you get less
>terrorism.
>
>We're in something like the fourth generation of idiots in Gaza... and
>when you kill off the mean smart ones who have been running things, the
>nice smart ones get a chance to come to the top over the mean dumb ones.

And about the fourth generation of religious fanatics in Israel. Fanatic vs
fanatic is a lose-lose proposition.

Al minyard

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:09 GMT,
Jarg attempted to say .....

> > wrote in message
> news:dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84...
> > In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
> >>
> > There were
> > definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were able to
> walk
> > the streets without fear of rape,
>
> Aren't you overlooking Uday Husseins well documented love of rape? But
> otherwise I'm sure it was a lovely place to live.
>

But he never committed his rapes on the street.....

So the Sadam appologists give him a pass.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[LawsonE]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:09 GMT,
> Jarg attempted to say .....
>
> > > wrote in message
> > news:dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84...
> > > In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
> > >>
> > > There were
> > > definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were able
to
> > walk
> > > the streets without fear of rape,
> >
> > Aren't you overlooking Uday Husseins well documented love of rape? But
> > otherwise I'm sure it was a lovely place to live.
> >
>
> But he never committed his rapes on the street.....
>
> So the Sadam appologists give him a pass.
>

Actually, its a matter of numbers. How many rapes did Uday commit? How many
are being commited now? Likewise with daily murders, etc.

You guys like to tout the mass graves and so on, but the reality is that
most of that stuff happened years ago. The biggest single killer in Iraq has
been for several years the result of the UN sanctions. True, Saddam could
have played better with us and the sanctions wouldn't have been needed, but
it will be several years before things improve to the point that the Iraqis
are significantly better off materially than they were before the invasion.
And, in the meantime, we have the potential for even worse things happening
in Iraq than anything that Saddam and his kids ever managed to do.

[Kevin Brooks]

"LawsonE" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:09 GMT,
> > Jarg attempted to say .....
> >
> > > > wrote in message
> > > news:dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84...
> > > > In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > > There were
> > > > definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were able
> to
> > > walk
> > > > the streets without fear of rape,
> > >
> > > Aren't you overlooking Uday Husseins well documented love of rape?
But
> > > otherwise I'm sure it was a lovely place to live.
> > >
> >
> > But he never committed his rapes on the street.....
> >
> > So the Sadam appologists give him a pass.
> >
>
> Actually, its a matter of numbers. How many rapes did Uday commit? How
many
> are being commited now? Likewise with daily murders, etc.

Apologia...

>
> You guys like to tout the mass graves and so on, but the reality is that
> most of that stuff happened years ago. The biggest single killer in Iraq
has
> been for several years the result of the UN sanctions. True, Saddam could
> have played better with us and the sanctions wouldn't have been needed,
but
> it will be several years before things improve to the point that the
Iraqis
> are significantly better off materially than they were before the
invasion.

That is not what the Iraqis themselves believe, according to the recent poll
results (from an organization that was none to much in favor of the
operation, either).

> And, in the meantime, we have the potential for even worse things
happening
> in Iraq than anything that Saddam and his kids ever managed to do.

Sounds like apologia for Saddam...resulting in a well-deserved *plonk*.

Brooks
>
>

[LawsonE]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LawsonE" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > on Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:09 GMT,
> > > Jarg attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > > > wrote in message
> > > > news:dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84...
> > > > > In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > > There were
> > > > > definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were
able
> > to
> > > > walk
> > > > > the streets without fear of rape,
> > > >
> > > > Aren't you overlooking Uday Husseins well documented love of rape?
> But
> > > > otherwise I'm sure it was a lovely place to live.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But he never committed his rapes on the street.....
> > >
> > > So the Sadam appologists give him a pass.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, its a matter of numbers. How many rapes did Uday commit? How
> many
> > are being commited now? Likewise with daily murders, etc.
>
> Apologia...
>

I'm defending Sadam/Usay by pointing out that things could be worse than
they were?

> >
> > You guys like to tout the mass graves and so on, but the reality is that
> > most of that stuff happened years ago. The biggest single killer in Iraq
> has
> > been for several years the result of the UN sanctions. True, Saddam
could
> > have played better with us and the sanctions wouldn't have been needed,
> but
> > it will be several years before things improve to the point that the
> Iraqis
> > are significantly better off materially than they were before the
> invasion.
>
> That is not what the Iraqis themselves believe, according to the recent
poll
> results (from an organization that was none to much in favor of the
> operation, either).

And on any given day, Bush is guaranteed to win, or Kerry is guaranteed to
win, according to polls taken in this country. Polls don't mean much.

>
> > And, in the meantime, we have the potential for even worse things
> happening
> > in Iraq than anything that Saddam and his kids ever managed to do.
>
> Sounds like apologia for Saddam...resulting in a well-deserved *plonk*.
>

Defense of Saddam and family?

Ok, sure, whatever.

<bah> Waves hand.

[Jim Yanik]

"LawsonE" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> In article >,
>> on Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:09 GMT,
>> Jarg attempted to say .....
>>
>> > > wrote in message
>> > news:dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84...
>> > > In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > > There were
>> > > definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy hand, but women were
>> > > able
> to
>> > walk
>> > > the streets without fear of rape,
>> >
>> > Aren't you overlooking Uday Husseins well documented love of rape?
>> > But otherwise I'm sure it was a lovely place to live.
>> >
>>
>> But he never committed his rapes on the street.....
>>
>> So the Sadam appologists give him a pass.
>>
>
> Actually, its a matter of numbers. How many rapes did Uday commit? How
> many are being commited now? Likewise with daily murders, etc.
>
> You guys like to tout the mass graves and so on, but the reality is
> that most of that stuff happened years ago. The biggest single killer
> in Iraq has been for several years the result of the UN sanctions.

Ha! Saddam put his monies into palace construction,siphoned off "oil-for-
food" money to give bribes to other countries for UN support,and ratholed
millions of US dollars;he did *nothing* for "his people's" welfare.
In fact,he seems to have made it worse for them.

And you blame it on UN sanctions.

> True, Saddam could have played better with us and the sanctions
> wouldn't have been needed, but it will be several years before things
> improve to the point that the Iraqis are significantly better off
> materially than they were before the invasion.

Gee,that's not what the Iraqis themselves have been saying,according to
news reports.

And, in the meantime,
> we have the potential for even worse things happening in Iraq than
> anything that Saddam and his kids ever managed to do.
>
Yes,the potential for Al-queda to take over and bring forth another
"Taliban" government.And to use Iraq as a base for more terrorism.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Chad Irby]

In article t>,
"LawsonE" > wrote:

> You guys like to tout the mass graves and so on, but the reality is that
> most of that stuff happened years ago.

Yeah, and it stopped about a year back.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Grantland]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>Sounds like apologia for Saddam...resulting in a well-deserved *plonk*.
>
>Brooks

What a penis of a man you are, Brooks. A four inch penis.

Grantland

[David E. Powell]

So what? I f a guy in a wheelchair orders a bomb planted, isn't he as guilty
if he did it himself while doing the 100 meter dash?

I mean if a guy in a wheelchair could use his arms, and wheeled himself in a
crowded room, pulled out a submachine gun and hosed some people, isn't he
still a killer?

[Matt Wiser]

Tank Fixer > wrote:
>In article >,
> on Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:09 GMT,
> Jarg attempted to
>say .....
>
>> >
>wrote in message
>> news:dh88c.2205$wg1.816@edtnps84...
>> > In us.military.army Chad Irby >
>wrote:
>> >>
>> > There were
>> > definitely problems, due to Saddam's heavy
>hand, but women were able to
>> walk
>> > the streets without fear of rape,
>>
>> Aren't you overlooking Uday Husseins well
>documented love of rape? But
>> otherwise I'm sure it was a lovely place to
>live.
>>
>
>But he never committed his rapes on the street.....
>
>So the Sadam appologists give him a pass.
>
>
>--
>When dealing with propaganda terminology one
>sometimes always speaks in
>variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken
>for an unbiased slant.
Seems with the one-year anniversary of OIF the Saddam apologists have come
out of the woodwork. I'd send them over to have a look at the torture chambers,
mass graves, and listen to those who survived the prisons and torture rooms
and talk to those who lost loved ones to the Baathists; and then find out
if they still want to apologize for the Saddam regime. Several of the trolls
on this NG would certainly qualify.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Chad Irby]

In article <406443ff@bg2.>, "Matt Wiser" >
wrote:

> Seems with the one-year anniversary of OIF the Saddam apologists have
> come out of the woodwork. I'd send them over to have a look at the
> torture chambers, mass graves, and listen to those who survived the
> prisons and torture rooms and talk to those who lost loved ones to
> the Baathists; and then find out if they still want to apologize for
> the Saddam regime. Several of the trolls on this NG would certainly
> qualify.

Hey, give it a few years. They'll be telling us that they were bath
houses and delousing chambers, and that Saddam's folks could not have
possibly killed that many people. The mass graves? Just a convenient
way of getting rid of all of the people killed by UN sanctions. Then
they'll point to Saddam's 99% wins in the "elections," and tell us how
popular he was.

We've seen *that* tactic before...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Jarg]

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...

>
> What a penis of a man you are, Brooks. A four inch penis.
>
> Grantland
>

And how exactly would you know that?

Jarg

[[email protected]]

In us.military.army Kevin Brooks > wrote:

> That is not what the Iraqis themselves believe, according to the recent poll
> results (from an organization that was none to much in favor of the
> operation, either).

Source?


--
.................................................. ............................

"Be wary of enraging a little man, for he will retaliate with the
force of a hundred little men"
-My Girlfriend, Lisa

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

[Keith Willshaw]

> wrote in message
news:Hc%8c.9459$wg1.8241@edtnps84...
> In us.military.army Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
> > That is not what the Iraqis themselves believe, according to the recent
poll
> > results (from an organization that was none to much in favor of the
> > operation, either).
>
> Source?
>

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

48% of Iraqis thought the US was right to invade while 39%
thought it was wrong.

Only 15% think the colalition forces should leave now
and encouragingly most want a stable democracy with
only 21% favoring a religious government.

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>Hey, give it a few years. They'll be telling us that they were bath
>houses and delousing chambers, and that Saddam's folks could not have
>possibly killed that many people. The mass graves? Just a convenient
>way of getting rid of all of the people killed by UN sanctions. Then
>they'll point to Saddam's 99% wins in the "elections," and tell us how
>popular he was.
>
>We've seen *that* tactic before...

Cuts both ways. Remember all those stories about how Saddam used to feed
victims feet-first through an industrial shredder?

Funny thing, that: turns out nobody actually saw that, or knew where it
happened, though lots of folks heard from a friend that a bloke they met
down the bazaar knew all about it...

Brendan O'Neill covered it in "Not a shred of evidence", 21 Feb 2004,
"The Spectator": it made for a great tagline, but like the tales of
Iraqi troops flinging infants out of Kuwaiti incubators in 1990 it
proved to be somewhat at variance with the facts.

"And there you have the long and short of the available evidence for a
human-shredding machine — an uncorroborated statement made by an
individual in northern Iraq, hearsay comments made by someone widely
suspected of being a ‘bull****ter’ (who, like the Australian Prime
Minister, made his comments about the shredder shortly after Clwyd first
wrote of it in the Times), and a record book, in Arabic, that mentions
‘mincing’ but whose whereabouts are presently unknown. Other groups
have no recorded accounts of a human shredder. A spokesman at Amnesty
International tells me that his inquiries into the shredder story
‘drew a blank’. ‘We checked it with our people here, and we have
no information about a shredder.’ Widney Brown, deputy programme
director of Human Rights Watch, says: ‘We don’t know anything about
a shredder, and have not heard of that particular form of execution or
torture.’ "



It depresses me because there were good reasons to get Saddam out of
Baghdad: so why the need to peddle so much bull?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >Hey, give it a few years. They'll be telling us that they were bath
> >houses and delousing chambers, and that Saddam's folks could not
> >have possibly killed that many people. The mass graves? Just a
> >convenient way of getting rid of all of the people killed by UN
> >sanctions. Then they'll point to Saddam's 99% wins in the
> >"elections," and tell us how popular he was.
> >
> >We've seen *that* tactic before...
>
> Cuts both ways. Remember all those stories about how Saddam used to feed
> victims feet-first through an industrial shredder?

Actually, this is cutting the *same* way.

To quote Tim Blair:

"Obviously, interviewing anyone with first-hand -- or feet-first --
experience of the alleged shredder is impossible. For the sake of
argument, let¹s assume that this person from northern Iraq was lying,
for whatever reason; we pro-liberation types now find ourselves in the
utterly humiliating position of having supported the removal of a tyrant
who tortured and killed tens of thousands of people (at least), but who
didn¹t use a plastic shredder."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[BUFDRVR]

>It depresses me because there were good reasons to get Saddam out of
>Baghdad: so why the need to peddle so much bull?
>

Well, because even with the somewhat less than accurate stories, like the
shredder, the U.N. was unwilling to act. I guess someone figured if we kept
piling on stories of Saddams brutality, no matter how credible they were (or
weren't) that eventually the U.N. would act. I do not throw WMD in this
catagory, the U.S. and the U.K. honestly believed they existed, despite how
some of the less intelligent and informed are trying to spin it.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Cuts both ways. Remember all those stories about how Saddam used to feed
>> victims feet-first through an industrial shredder?
>
>Actually, this is cutting the *same* way.

Okay, you're happy on a diet of lies: not everyone is as joyful about
being misled as you. You're telling me that you *like* being misled? Or
are you just wholly reckless as to the truth?

Again, there's plentiful truth about Saddam, so why bother making stuff
up?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[L'acrobat]

> wrote in message
news:5eP7c.930$Ct5.570@edtnps89...
> In us.military.army Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
> > "Aerophotos" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> I wonder what will Israel think of its its blind/hearing impaired and
> >> wheelchair bound citizens been killed next is like.. unfair?.. sick?...
> >> horrible?....
>
> > HAMAS's bombs created many blind/hearing impaired wheelchair bound
Israelis.
>
> And vice-versa, however, the losses have been far higher on the
Palestinian
> side, according to Red Cross statistics.

Which is another reason to condemn HAMAS as war criminals. they deliberately
place their forces in such a way as to generate collateral casualties if
attacked (that violates the laws of war) and under the laws of war that
makes HAMAS responsible for those casualties.

[L'acrobat]

> wrote in message
news:Eo28c.4246$Ct5.3230@edtnps89...
> In us.military.army Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > Considering that Israel has only killed, since the start of the last
> > Intifada in 2000, about 2600 Palestinians (most of whom were armed or
> > standing around people who were armed and shooting) out of a population
> > of 8.7 million, you're horribly abusing that "ethnic cleansing" phrase.
>
> You dishonestly restrict the use of the word, both in time, and in impact.
> Ethnic cleansing is the only word to describe the concerted *60 YEAR*
> effort to drive Palestinians out of their native land into neighboring
arab
> countries. Murder, assassination, torture, intimidation, racism,
> harassment, destruction of infrastructure, destruction of economy,
> destruction of farmland, theft of water, environmental destuction.
>
> The message is quite clear. It is "Get out or suffer".

The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal
Husseini told the UN Security Council on April 16, 1948:

"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were
not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny
this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight".

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

Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha on September 16, 1947 -

"The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz,
that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not
decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get
anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something,
but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not
sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders,
but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose
Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions."

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

Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian
would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist
beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the
Arabs.

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

Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab
League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which
will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

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



Ah yes, damn the Israelis and their 60 year campaign of 'Ethnic cleansing
'...

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >> Cuts both ways. Remember all those stories about how Saddam used to feed
> >> victims feet-first through an industrial shredder?
> >
> >Actually, this is cutting the *same* way.
>
> Okay, you're happy on a diet of lies: not everyone is as joyful about
> being misled as you. You're telling me that you *like* being misled? Or
> are you just wholly reckless as to the truth?

That's really how I perceive most of the left as of now. They're so
busy trying to find "lies!" that they can't allow for any normal human
mistakes... and will forgive Hussein's *thousands* of murders because
someone said something that someone can't prove.

> Again, there's plentiful truth about Saddam, so why bother making stuff
> up?

Because, at the time, these *were* the stories we were getting out of
Iraq. This is what the Iraqis were *telling* us, through the msaaive
laters of insane lies coming out of there.

Of course, you're certain that the Great Bush and Company Conspiracy
made this all up, just to deceive *you* into supporting a war when you
wouldn't go in for any of the other hundred reasons, like torture,
murder, rape, and worse. And - here's the nasty part - the plastic
shredder wasn't even as bad as the *proven* events (note also that the
"no shredder" story didn't really do anything except show that the
writer didn't find anything, not that they found a disproof of it).

But *you* are so concerned with trying to find the Big Lie that you
don't care about the hundreds of medium-sized Ugly Truths.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Okay, you're happy on a diet of lies: not everyone is as joyful about
>> being misled as you. You're telling me that you *like* being misled? Or
>> are you just wholly reckless as to the truth?
>
>That's really how I perceive most of the left as of now. They're so
>busy trying to find "lies!" that they can't allow for any normal human
>mistakes... and will forgive Hussein's *thousands* of murders because
>someone said something that someone can't prove.

Who's forgiving anything? You're making this up as you go along.

>> Again, there's plentiful truth about Saddam, so why bother making stuff
>> up?
>
>Because, at the time, these *were* the stories we were getting out of
>Iraq. This is what the Iraqis were *telling* us, through the msaaive
>laters of insane lies coming out of there.

And you don't believe that a little caution might be required before
cheerfully believing every story?

>Of course, you're certain that the Great Bush and Company Conspiracy
>made this all up, just to deceive *you* into supporting a war when you
>wouldn't go in for any of the other hundred reasons, like torture,
>murder, rape, and worse.

Not particularly, no, this one seems to have started with Ann Clywd: who
would confuse the hell out of you because she's a left-wing politician
(in the genuine sense, not just a Democrat) who has been vehemently
pressing for regime change in Iraq for the last *decade* or so, pointing
out Saddam's iniquities to anyone she could get to listen. As far as I
know her mistake here was just being a little too credulous.

See what happens when you jump to conclusions?

>And - here's the nasty part - the plastic
>shredder wasn't even as bad as the *proven* events (note also that the
>"no shredder" story didn't really do anything except show that the
>writer didn't find anything, not that they found a disproof of it).

That's right: Hussein killed something like 30,000 people in the space
of a month or two. Back in 1991, right under the noses of UK and US
troops, who were ordered to sit tight and do nothing when the Shi'ia in
Basra and the south rose up against Hussein.

Where was the urgency to act back when the mass graves were still being
filled, and some of their occupants could have been saved?

>But *you* are so concerned with trying to find the Big Lie that you
>don't care about the hundreds of medium-sized Ugly Truths.

I'm just curious about the stop-go attitude.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Stephen Harding]

Paul J. Adam wrote:

> That's right: Hussein killed something like 30,000 people in the space
> of a month or two. Back in 1991, right under the noses of UK and US
> troops, who were ordered to sit tight and do nothing when the Shi'ia in
> Basra and the south rose up against Hussein.
>
> Where was the urgency to act back when the mass graves were still being
> filled, and some of their occupants could have been saved?
>
>>But *you* are so concerned with trying to find the Big Lie that you
>>don't care about the hundreds of medium-sized Ugly Truths.
>
> I'm just curious about the stop-go attitude.

Because the authority at the time felt further US involvement to
remove Hussein would lead to a massive breakdown of any sort of
authority, a likely multi-dimensional civil war, fragmentation of
the coalition and US forces being stuck in the country for years
to follow.

Sound familiar?

The difference was 9/11 happened in 2001, not 1990.

Yes you can argue 9/11 was terrorism and the Iraqi war something,
else, but rightly or wrongly, they have become somewhat bundled
as part of an overall package now.


SMH