Monday, November 8

Who's afraid of the big bad Bush

Noam Chomsky Mike Golby sees the hordes of Satan descend on the innocents of Falluja. Its really just a victory celebration, you see. The people in Falluja are innocent innocents. Sheep like, really. Lambs to the slaughter.

In fact, there is no difference really between Saddam and the US. Once the bloodbath happens, we wont even hear about it. After all "the declaration of a national State of Emergency will further restrict reportage...". See, they just want to kill as many people as they can. Because its just a victory celebration...

Make sense yet? (via Rethabile, who's blaming the whole thing on religious nuts (Bush, that is))

7 Comments:

Blogger Rethabile said...

Actually, this here link is via me.

The people in Falluja are innocent innocentsDo you doubt that they are? The people of Clocolan in the Free State are innocent innocents, aren't they? Now, if Eugene TerreBlanche and his pals decide to set up a kraal in Clocolan to lauch missiles at the enemy, the invading Soviet army (because during the bad Apartheid regime's time the Soviets have attacked in order to liberate the people of South Africa and install democracy in the country... and the world would have been a better place without the rogue state that was South Africa before 1994) -- if Eugene entrenches himself in Clocolan with his pals, then, and the Soviets torch the town, how that look or sound or feel to the average South African? To the world?

In fact, there is no difference really between Saddam and the US.There are plenty of differences between Saddam and Bush. One of them is that Saddam didn't have enough firepower to venture far, but he did try before he was unceremoniously kicked out. Bush has enough firepower. Make no mistake, Saddam is a worm and was not a real leader. Full-stop.

09 November 2004 at 08:29  
Blogger Richard said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

09 November 2004 at 10:35  
Blogger Richard said...

The link I was referring to was that of the post by Mike Golby. Sorry for the confusion.

The insurgents are using Felluja as a base from which to launch terror attacks that mainly target Iraqis. The Americans have a responsibility to go into Felluja and capture or kill these people. The fact that innocent people are going to die makes this a tragedy, but not one that can be avoided by the Americans.

That they are doing everything in their power to prevent mass slaughter I do not doubt. Do you believe for an instant that the Americans cannot destroy the whole of Felluja in an instant, just using conventional arms?

The insurgents on the other hand are doing everything in their power to increase the number of civilian casualties so that they can use it as propaganda. That plenty of people are more than happy to make use of this propaganda for their own interests is upsetting and should upset you too.

There is a difference between Sadam, the insurgents and US and that difference matters. If you find yourself siding with people who gain by the slaughter of innocents perhaps its time to question your choices?

Update: Grammer edit

09 November 2004 at 10:37  
Blogger Mike Golby said...

Richard, in terms of international law, the United States' pre-planned invasion and occupation of Iraq on patently spurious grounds were and remain illegal (Kofi Annan reiterated the point a couple of weeks ago). The usurpation of the Iraqi economy and the exclusion from it of the Iraqi people and any companies outside the U.S.'s laughable coalition were and are illegal. The slaughter of 100,000 plus Iraqis since the invasion constitutes one of the greatest war crimes of our time. The systematic, institutionlised torture of detainees is illegal. Now that they're there, the Americans' failure to secure the safety of the people and infrastructure of Iraq was and is illegal. The bombing of hospitals is illegal. The withholding of medical treatment is illegal. The bombing of civilians is illegal. The bombing of press offices and the murder of journalists are illegal. The refusal to allow civilians to leave cities facing destruction is illegal. All these constitute war crimes in terms of the Geneva Conventions. More, the Iraqi people are infinitely worse off than they were three years ago. They have no electricity, water, food, oil or security (70 percent of the 'crack' Iraqi forces assigned to Fallujah deserted). The international media is unable to report on the war unless embedded with the occupation forces. Tell, me, beyond making a vague connection between the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Israeli Army atrocities in the refugee camps of the Occupied Territories, what part of this do you not understand? Perhaps I can assist you.

10 November 2004 at 21:06  
Blogger Richard said...

Mike ,we hold what are called diametrically opposed world views. In my world the items on your 'list' are either irrelevant, wrong, lies, complete hyperbole or all of the above.

The connection between Jenin and Iraq I was making was not a literal one as you believe. It was an allusion to those world views. In yours, you assume that the Jenin massacre took place as a matter of fact. In mine you would have read the article and read that the obvious conclusion is that no 'massacre' took place.

It is the difference between using facts to shape your view of the world, and shaping facts to suit your world view. I dont think you 'can' assist me, but thanks for the offer.

11 November 2004 at 11:09  
Blogger Mike Golby said...

Okey-dokes. I must say I do prefer to let the facts speak for themselves but, hey, that's my trip. You mangle 'em as you will. Whatever make you happy, y'know?

11 November 2004 at 21:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seldom sunglasses sooner a be wearing[url=http://rayban.client.jp][b]レイバン 店舗[/b][/url]
occupied such a storied metropolis in American tolerable gentility and narration as Pencil Bans.From Presidents to burly stars, swing stars to artists, construct designers to runway models, there's not a procreation [url=http://rayban.mukade.jp][b]rayban サングラス[/b][/url]
swarming that can't [url=http://rayban.michikusa.jp][b]レイバン 店舗[/b][/url]
all over owning (or tarnished to own ) [url=http://rayban.kurushiunai.jp][b]ray ban サングラス[/b][/url]
a matched pin down of these iconic sunglasses.While Glimmer[url=http://rayban.makibishi.jp][b]レイバン メガネ 店舗[/b][/url]
Bans time [url=http://rayban.genin.jp][b]サングラス レイバン[/b][/url]
can be seen on the next institution of Hollywood mania setters, the famed sunglasses had a much more reasonable [url=http://rayban.kurushiunai.jp][b]レイバン[/b][/url]
and shame beginning.Founded in 1937 away Bausch & Lomb, the essential Brace Ban sunglasses were created for the US Army Known Corp. The Army was looking repayment [url=http://rayban.kurushiunai.jp][b]レイバン サングラス[/b][/url]
instead of a sunglass to hold a brief for aviators from the damaging rays of the phoebus apollo, but also a sunglass that would look courtly on the garish airman of the day.

14 June 2013 at 06:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home