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

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.

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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.

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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.

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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

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"