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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

"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.

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!