Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein trav­els across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, the United States, Britain, Greece, and Australia to witness the reality of disaster capitalism. He discovers how companies such as G4S, Serco, and Halliburton cash in on or­ganized misery in a hidden world of privatized detention centers, militarized private security, aid profiteering, and destructive mining.

Disaster has become big business. Talking to immigrants stuck in limbo in Britain or visiting immigration centers in America, Loewenstein maps the secret networks formed to help cor­porations bleed what profits they can from economic crisis. He debates with Western contractors in Afghanistan, meets the locals in post-earthquake Haiti, and in Greece finds a country at the mercy of vulture profiteers. In Papua New Guinea, he sees a local commu­nity forced to rebel against predatory resource companies and NGOs.

What emerges through Loewenstein’s re­porting is a dark history of multinational corpo­rations that, with the aid of media and political elites, have grown more powerful than national governments. In the twenty-first century, the vulnerable have become the world’s most valu­able commodity. Disaster Capitalism is published by Verso in 2015 and in paperback in January 2017.

Profits_of_doom_cover_350Vulture capitalism has seen the corporation become more powerful than the state, and yet its work is often done by stealth, supported by political and media elites. The result is privatised wars and outsourced detention centres, mining companies pillaging precious land in developing countries and struggling nations invaded by NGOs and the corporate dollar. Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein travels to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea and across Australia to witness the reality of this largely hidden world of privatised detention centres, outsourced aid, destructive resource wars and militarized private security. Who is involved and why? Can it be stopped? What are the alternatives in a globalised world? Profits of Doom, published in 2013 and released in an updated edition in 2014, challenges the fundamentals of our unsustainable way of life and the money-making imperatives driving it. It is released in an updated edition in 2014.
forgodssakecover Four Australian thinkers come together to ask and answer the big questions, such as: What is the nature of the universe? Doesn't religion cause most of the conflict in the world? And Where do we find hope?   We are introduced to different belief systems – Judaism, Christianity, Islam – and to the argument that atheism, like organised religion, has its own compelling logic. And we gain insight into the life events that led each author to their current position.   Jane Caro flirted briefly with spiritual belief, inspired by 19th century literary heroines such as Elizabeth Gaskell and the Bronte sisters. Antony Loewenstein is proudly culturally, yet unconventionally, Jewish. Simon Smart is firmly and resolutely a Christian, but one who has had some of his most profound spiritual moments while surfing. Rachel Woodlock grew up in the alternative embrace of Baha'i belief but became entranced by its older parent religion, Islam.   Provocative, informative and passionately argued, For God's Sakepublished in 2013, encourages us to accept religious differences, but to also challenge more vigorously the beliefs that create discord.  
After Zionism, published in 2012 and 2013 with co-editor Ahmed Moor, brings together some of the world s leading thinkers on the Middle East question to dissect the century-long conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians, and to explore possible forms of a one-state solution. Time has run out for the two-state solution because of the unending and permanent Jewish colonization of Palestinian land. Although deep mistrust exists on both sides of the conflict, growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Arabs are working together to forge a different, unified future. Progressive and realist ideas are at last gaining a foothold in the discourse, while those influenced by the colonial era have been discredited or abandoned. Whatever the political solution may be, Palestinian and Israeli lives are intertwined, enmeshed, irrevocably. This daring and timely collection includes essays by Omar Barghouti, Jonathan Cook, Joseph Dana, Jeremiah Haber, Jeff Halper, Ghada Karmi, Antony Loewenstein, Saree Makdisi, John Mearsheimer, Ahmed Moor, Ilan Pappe, Sara Roy and Phil Weiss.
The 2008 financial crisis opened the door for a bold, progressive social movement. But despite widespread revulsion at economic inequity and political opportunism, after the crash very little has changed. Has the Left failed? What agenda should progressives pursue? And what alternatives do they dare to imagine? Left Turn, published by Melbourne University Press in 2012 and co-edited with Jeff Sparrow, is aimed at the many Australians disillusioned with the political process. It includes passionate and challenging contributions by a diverse range of writers, thinkers and politicians, from Larissa Berendht and Christos Tsiolkas to Guy Rundle and Lee Rhiannon. These essays offer perspectives largely excluded from the mainstream. They offer possibilities for resistance and for a renewed struggle for change.
The Blogging Revolution, released by Melbourne University Press in 2008, is a colourful and revelatory account of bloggers around the globe why live and write under repressive regimes - many of them risking their lives in doing so. Antony Loewenstein's travels take him to private parties in Iran and Egypt, internet cafes in Saudi Arabia and Damascus, to the homes of Cuban dissidents and into newspaper offices in Beijing, where he discovers the ways in which the internet is threatening the ruld of governments. Through first-hand investigations, he reveals the complicity of Western multinationals in assisting the restriction of information in these countries and how bloggers are leading the charge for change. The blogging revolution is a superb examination about the nature of repression in the twenty-first century and the power of brave individuals to overcome it. It was released in an updated edition in 2011, post the Arab revolutions, and an updated Indian print version in 2011.
The best-selling book on the Israel/Palestine conflict, My Israel Question - on Jewish identity, the Zionist lobby, reporting from Palestine and future Middle East directions - was released by Melbourne University Press in 2006. A new, updated edition was released in 2007 (and reprinted again in 2008). The book was short-listed for the 2007 NSW Premier's Literary Award. Another fully updated, third edition was published in 2009. It was released in all e-book formats in 2011. An updated and translated edition was published in Arabic in 2012.

Wake-up time

The American people are finally accepting reality, and failure, in Iraq:

Many adults in the United States believe the coalition effort should end soon, according to a poll by the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute. 47.8 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should pull out of Iraq now, while 44.1 per cent disagree. 

I guess these individuals are just terrorist-loving appeasers.

  • smiths

    off topic i know, sorry but,

    there was an acrimonious debate recently regarding a piece published on counterpunch by richard itani that antony extracted from titled,

    Not our problem
    Published by Antony Loewenstein February 23rd, 2006 in General

    captain chimed in with this as the third post

    captain Feb 23rd, 2006 at 8:06 am

    I think this quote is a fake. There is no reference at all to it on the BBC. Put up or shut up.


    Addamo, Antony has asserted that it is true. There is no evidence that it is true. It is obvious parody. I am sorry that you didn’t get it. But then again, you are pretty gullible.


    Addamo, thanks for the laugh. The last person to acknowledge the hoax is clearly the biggest idiot here.

    i wrote

    smiths Feb 23rd, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    i dont quite understand,
    nowhere in the article does he say that he made it up,
    what he says is that he changed some words for effect,
    i have emailed him to ask since i dont think it was obvious either way

    to which captain replied

    captain Feb 23rd, 2006 at 6:38 pm

    smiths is unfortunately intellectually challenged.

    so anyway, here is rachard itani's response confirming it was a real interview with just one word changed

    I'm sorry I misunderstood your quetsion. I thought it
    referred to the refugee issue, as you now realize.

    Concerning Howard's interview about the Abu Ghraib
    photos, which I quoted using what I thought would be
    immediately perceived as the obvious satire that it
    meant to be, switching words to highlight the cynical
    hypocricy of his comments: I did not make up the
    interview, and would not have done so for obvious
    deontological reasons. I actually watched Howard
    personally utter those words on BBCWorld, and it would
    have been the day before I wrote my comments. I'll try
    to provide an exact date and time, though it won't be
    easy to do the research from where I am (traveling
    through the Middle East and now in Saudi Arabia.) But
    I assure you he did give the interview, I watched it
    myself, and the quote is not a fake. The fact that
    Zionists will immediately claim that any comments that
    do not fit their agenda are false, is a well known
    tactic of theirs, and it's useless trying to use
    reason and principled positions to argue with people
    who argue back using faith as the basis of their
    argument. That goes for any faith of course, whether
    religious or secular. Anyway, I'll get back to you on
    this as soon as I am able to do so, and thanks for
    following up with me on this.

    so captain, who's intellectually challenged now?

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Smiths, thanks for that, much appreciated.
    I wish i was surprised…

  • captain

    Yes Smiths, thanks for confirming that the quote was a fake.

    If you read the original article he stated quite clearly that it was fake.

    Now I know that none of you were fooled by the artifice that I used in the first paragraph above: substituting the word "Jewish" for "Iraqi." Funny, isn't it, how starkly revealing can be the transposition of a single word.

    You obviously didn't read the article. It is extremely funny that you would need to write to him to confirm what he said in the original article ie the quote was a fake. Yes, you are intellectually challenged.

    Further, he didn't just change one word, that is complete crap. Read it again.

    I was startled to hear Prime Minister John Howard of Australia exclaim in a BBC interview last night that he could not understand why pictures of starving Jewish interns of Bergen Belsen, Dachau, and Auschwitz had been aired, yet again, by an Australian TV station a few days ago

    I wish I was surprised also…

  • smiths

    oh dear captain,
    why cant you just admit that you were smug, condescending and ultimately wrong,

    the quote was real

    "I don't understand what news value there is any longer in showing more pictures of starving Jews, tortured in these prison camps." He added that the airing at this time was all the more disturbing that "people involved in abusing the Jewish concentration camp interns had been prosecuted and some had even gone to jail" and wondered who benefited from the re-airing of photos that had shocked the civilized world. Mr. Howard was also shocked, but shocked that the photos had been published "unnecessarily", not revolted at the humiliating, disgraceful, vile acts that they depicted.

    and then

    Now I know that none of you were fooled by the artifice that I used in the first paragraph above: substituting the word "Jewish" for "Iraqi."

    yes he did ad "interns of Bergen Belsen, Dachau, and Auschwitz" for effect,
    but mainly he just switched the word iraqi for jewish,
    and i only ever stated that i didnt think it was obvious how much of it was made up,
    you behaved as if you knew all,
    proving to me that you are a smug know all who talks out of his arse and ignores facts when they dont suit him

  • captain

    smiths, thank you for accepting that what I said from the very begning was correct.

    Thank you for also accepting that Rachard did not merely change one word.

    For you to think that Howard could have ever made such a statement shows how little you understand about the man. I didn't behave as if I knew all, I made an assertion and I was demonstrably correct. Thank you again for accepting this.

    Talking out of my arse? You have merely confirmed what I initially stated. Howard was quoted as talking about Jews in named concentration camps. It was obvious satire. Even Rachard stated "I know that none of you were fooled…" He obviously didn't realise how low he was pitching his bilious rhetoric. Foolishly, he thought he was being read by an intelligent and educated audience.

    This is no victory for you, get over the embarassment and move on.

  • orang

    Howard has just said that Australians are "afraid" when they see a woman covered (as in some muslim women in Burkhas) so it shouldn't be allowed. it He definitely is a turd.

  • Addamo

    Back to the topic,

    It was amazing to see Bill Kristol, the grand poobah of neocons, this weekend insist that:

    "We have not had a serious three year effort to fight a war in Iraq, as opposed to laying the preconditions for getting out."

    And all this time you thought American troops were fighting, killing and dying in a deadly serious way.

    You have to take your hat off to people like Kristol, who have the most extraordinary capacity for sticking their head in the sand without hitting oil.

  • Chris

    This seems to be both sides positions:

    In April 1996, a cease-fire that had ended the July 1993 fighting between Hezbollah and Israel broke down due to violations, which involved several attacks on Israeli population centers by Hezbollah. During the five weeks of fighting between March 4 and April 10, seven Israeli soldiers, three Lebanese civilians and at least one Hezbollah fighter were killed. The tally of injured was sixteen Israeli soldiers, seven Lebanese civilians, and six Israeli civilians.1 On April 9, in response to the cease fire violations, Maj.-Gen. Amiram Levine declared: “The residents in south Lebanon who are under the responsibility of Hezbollah will be hit harder, and the Hezbollah will be hit harder, and we will find the way to act correctly and quickly.”2 On April 11th, after initial strikes against Hezbollah positions, Israel, through SLA radio stations, warned residents in forty-four towns and villages in southern Lebanon, to evacuate within twenty four hours3.

    Operation Grapes of Wrath
    Within forty-eight hours, Israel launched the military campaign known as Operation Grapes of Wrath. On April 11, Israel bombarded positions in southern Lebanon and Beirut first, with artillery and later laser guided missiles. On April 13, Israeli warships initiated a blockade against Beirut, Sidon and Tyre, Lebanon’s main ports of entry. Meanwhile, Hezbollah continuously bombarded northern Israel with Katyusha rockets. Israel continued to bomb Hezbollah installations. According to U.N. spokeswoman, Sylvana Foa, on April 18, Hezbollah, in response to this israeli military campaign, fired two Katyusha rockets and eight mortars at Israel from an area 300 yards away from the Fijian compound, 15 minutes before an Israeli unit responded by shelling the area with M-109A2 155 mm guns.4 As a result of the shelling, 102 civilians died, with more wounded. Most of the casualties were residents of nearby villages who had fled the conflict, while four were U.N. troops.

    Israel immediately expressed regret for the loss of innocent lives, saying that the Hezbollah position and not the UN compound was the intended target of the shelling, and that the compound was hit “due to incorrect targeting based on erroneous data.” Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Matan Vilnai stated that the shells hit the base not because they were off target, but because Israeli gunners used outdated maps of the area. He also stated that the gunners miscalculated the firing range of the shells.

    Prime Minister Shimon Peres claimed that “We did not know that several hundred people were concentrated in that camp. It came to us as a bitter surprise.”5 Following the attack, Lt.-Gen. Amnon Shahak, Israel’s chief of staff, at a press conference in Tel Aviv on April 18 defended the shelling: “I don’t see any mistake in judgment… We fought Hezbollah there [in Qana], and when they fire on us, we will fire at them to defend ourselves… I don’t know any other rules of the game, either for the army or for civilians…”6. Both the US and Israel accused Hezbollah of “shielding”, the use of civilians as a cover for military activities, which is a breach of the laws of war. The U.S. State Department spokesperson, Nicolas Burns stated, “Hezbollah [is] using civilians as cover. That’s a despicable thing to do, an evil thing.”7 and Prime Minister Shimon Peres cited the use of human shielding to blame Hezbollah. On April 18 he said, “They used them as a shield, they used the UN as a shield — the UN admitted it.”8 Rabbi Yehuda Amital, a member of Peres’ cabinet, called the Qana killings a desecration of God’s name (chilul hashem) 9.

    The U.N. appointed military advisor Major-General Franklin van Kappen of the Netherlands to investigate the incident. Van Kappen’s findings included that, “The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuzes and proximity fuzes were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces,” and ultimately that, “While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors.”

    A video recording made by a UNIFIL soldier showed an unmanned drone and a helicopter in the vicinity at the time of the shelling. Uri Dromi, an Israeli government spokesman, confirmed there was a drone in the area, but stated that it did not detect civilians in the compound. The Israel response to the report stated that “The IAF drone shown on videotape did not reach the area until after the UN position was hit and was not an operational component in the targeting of Israeli artillery fire in the area.”[2]

  • Chris

    In believe it has to do with Hezbollah, a lebanese faction, though I don’t know any characteristics which can be used to distinguish between them and palestinians.

  • captain

    Howard said that it was confronting. He did not use the word fearful.

    He never said it shouldn't be allowed. In fact he stated in another piece that he was opposed to legislating against them as France had done in some situations.

    What is most interesting is the way that the left, and especially feminists, have joined with these Islamic radicals who denigrate their women to say that Howard has somehow transgressed here as well!!

  • Chris

    Antony, since this is an off-topic subject, it seems the best place for this.

    I would like you to clarify your policy. Specifically, why are comments like this allowed?


    Feb 25th, 2006 at 5:57 pm


    fuck him, he’s a moron.

    Are there those on your blog so special that they are allowed to dispense with all decorum? Is this what you desire on your blog?

  • captain
  • Addamo

    Yes that's right. IDF snipers have nothign to do with the numbers of dead children.

    Link doesn't seem to work BTW Captain.

    Chris, when are you going to grow a spine and stop beinfg such a pussy? Unless you are a woman of course, in which case I take it back.

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Abuse is certainly not acceptable. By anyone.
    I can't monitor every single comment, but it's important to keep debate respectable.
    This is addressed to everyone, by the way.

  • captain

    The link does work under the word "sick"

    And thats right, Addamo, IDF snipers have very little to do with the deaths. These parents want their children to die.

  • Stev

    Captain, that's gotta be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No parent wants their child to die.

    I'm not trying to justify what is done by these kids, nor what is encouraged by parents, but the way you put it makes it sound like if peace came tomorrow and a two-state solution was struck and there was no more occupation and no more attacks, IDF or suicide, these parents would still be killing off their kids because they want them to die.

    Statements like that are unbearably simplistic and help the discussion precisely zero. Parents encouraging their children to be involved in suicide attacks is a terrible terrible thing, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum – nothing does. It's not like 'Dammit Billy, I told you what would happen if you left your toys lying on the floor one more time – now take an explosive belt and head down to Haifa'.

  • Addamo

    Thank you Stev,

    Some sensible comments indeed.

    You can extrapolate Captins' flawed logic very easily by suggesting that Israeli settlers are putting their children at risk by moving to Israel. After all, the dangers are undeniable, but they still arrive and bring their children with them.

    Hamas have just issued a statement that says they do not want futher conflict with Israel and want peace with Israel once the terriroties are returned to the Palestinians. We all agree that Israel will not do this so iis it fair to assuem that Israeli's are knowingly endangering their families for the sake of a few plots of barron land?

    Similarly, in the US, families are encouraging their children to sign up for active duty, knowing there is a chance their childern will get killed.

    If you twist the logic tight enough, there are deth sults everywhere you look.

  • captain

    You are right Stev, this is not occuring within a vacuum, the context is Islam rather than Israel. Suicide bombing is ocurring in many parts of the world, quite distant to the Israel's difficulties. In almost all cases, the suicide bombing is perpetrated by Islamists.

    Its a pity that adammos' logic is so flawed that he would consider an equivalence between a soldier going off to war with a good chance of returning to that of a suicide bomber who faces almost certain death. If you watch the clip I supplied you would see that the mother of this girl, as has been typical of many palestinian parents, was disappointed that her daughter failed.

    I can certainly see why anyone would find this hard to believe.

    And when you talk about returning territory to palestinians, can you tell me when they owned the land initially? When was there a state of palestine with a palestinian leadership? What language did they speak? Palestinian? Who was their first prime minister? What was the national religion? Please try and answer these basic questions without frothing.

  • Stev

    It's good that you've started to admit the context affecting this situation, but you need to recognise that Israel is part of the context too. We could argue back and forth forever on what has more impact on the Palestinian mindset and what is more responsible for suicide bombers and we would never get anywhere.

    And you're probably right, the nature of Islam probably does have a bigger bearing on the decisions made by these people to pursue this method of 'protest'. But you're being naive if you're claiming that Israel has no bearing on this decision whatsoever. It is part of the geographical environment, it is part of the social context and as such it is inextricably linked to the Palestinian mindset.

    It's difficult to consider your opinion if you are unwilling to admit this influence.

  • Addamo

    It's that blinkered refusal to acknowledge reality that has led to this mess in the middle east. Naaaa can't be Israel. Can’t for the life of me understand why the bulldozing of 10 thousand homes or the thousands killed would upset anyone. Can’t be the humiliation at check points or the tens of thousands being tortured in Israeli prisons.

    Naaaaaaa can't be that. Why would anyone object to that? We are the chosen people after all. They should be grateful to have us in their midst.

    Gotta be Islam. That’s it Islam.

    Captain, can you tell me when the North American Indians owned land or when aborigines owned any land in Australia? They never had prime ministers did theyr? They never had a pieces of paper stating they had right to the land so they too go slaughtered. And here you are, biy genius telling us that's the way it should be.

    Can you not see hwo blinkered and boxed into your idology you are?

  • The topic here is actually about a poll showing the majority of Americans have now realised what most of the rest of the world already knows : The invasion and occupation of Iraq has failed, as most invasions and occupations of the past century have failed, including the invasion and occupation of Palestine, first by the British, then by the Zionists.

    Resistance movements against occupying armies have a solid history of (eventually) winning. It may be virtually illegal now to say that resistance, or 'terrorism', can lead to victory, but history shows us that this is true. Hamas' victory at the recent Palestinian elections are just the latest example of how resistance movements eventually win, if victory drenched in the children of both sides can be defined as Victory.

    On Iraq : To believe that the majority of Americans will get their wish and that the US will leave Iraq any time soon is fantasyland stuff. They're not going anywhere. The war pig mafia have managed to deploy more than 200,000 US, UK, Australian and Other troops into the middle of the world's Muslim heartland, and will have spent something close to a trillion US dollars by the end of 2006. To think they are simply going to pull out and not get a full return, at the minimum, on this massive investment is absurd.

    The US will never leave the Middle East, just as they never left Mexico, Germany or Japan.

    Whether the US still views Israel as a valuable ally is something else altogether. Hasn't anyone out there wondered why Condi Rice snubbed Israel on her recent 'Democracy Rules' tour of the region?

  • Stev

    terrorist-loving appeasers

    By the way Ant, news from the hill seems to be that the hawks are running with the term 'fifth columnists' these days.

    “The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements,” Graham, R-S.C.(Sen. Lindsey Graham), told Gonzales (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6


  • Addamo

    You are absolutely right Truth,

    The US are building the worlds largest military base in Iraq (at wice the sice of the previous one, Bondsteel, in teh balkands). Ironically, they are calling it Camp Victory and be costys for it;s contruction are higher than the entire money allocated for Iraqi reconstruction.

    The US embassy in Baghdad is consting over a billion to build and is said to be better secured than even the Pentagon.

    So in the end, these is no hint the US intend to leave Iraq.

    As for Condi, I doubt it was a snub of Israel. I think it might have been more case of her leaving with her tail between her legs after the Middle east countries she visited all refused to agree to isolate Hamas. Perhaps she chose to return to the US rather than arrive empty handed in Tel Aviv.

  • Addamo

    BTW Captain,

    If it's blood that get's you off, here's a graphic video of the Israeli Massacre In Qana 1996.

    How it warms my heart to know that those human body parts of babies, ie. would be terrorists, that would never get to strap on a suicide vest. The images of the bodies of mutiliated women reassures us that they will not be able to procreate and give birth to any more terrorists.

    And I have no doubt the mince meat that remains of the childrens bodies is evidence that Israel got them on their first day of suicide training.

    100 dead. Not a bad days work right Captain?

  • Addamo

    Thansk for the information Chris,

    I am sure that there is more to this story than I outlines, but this largely applies to the whole ongoign conflict. This act was no doubt retalliation for some gastly act perpatrated by the Palestinians, but it probabyl fueleld futher retaliation fromthe Paesltinians and so for.

    What he have isa situation like the UK IRA scenario, where he orignical act is lost and we have the perpetual momentum of retribution. To blame this on Islam is therefore simplistic in the extreme, just liek blaming this entirely on the occupation is simplistic.

    All we can focus on is what needs to be doen to rectify the situation.

  • Addamo

    And I seriosuly need to work on my typing. Hope you can read my last post. ;-(

  • orang

    Yeah, they all look the same to me too. I think for sure you have to hear them talk.
    One says, "F*ck off from my land you zionist ars*hole", and the other one says "F*ck off from his land you zionist ars*hole".
    -Then you know who is who.

  • Chris

    I'm not certain there are any linguistic or cultural differences. Nor do they state different things as you have implied.

  • Stev

    It was a joke Chris, and a good one at that.

    I hope I'm not the only one that sees the irony in these comments starting and ending with discussion of an apparent inability to recognise humour.

  • Chris

    It was a joke? You find humor in murder? Good for you. Based on that it could be said that your sense of humor has outdistanced your sense of morality.

  • Ros

    Off topic by the look but re the poll. It is hard to place much faith in polls when such different outcomes can be delivered. Maybe depends on who does the poll? what questions? the context of the questions?

    The following poll (from The Big Pharoah) commissioned by the BBC.

    Should troops in Iraq stay or with draw. US says, stay, 58%, withdraw 36%. When asked whether they should stay if Iraq government asks troops to stay, US 73%, should stay, leave 19%.

    Some interesting results, (with above questions still applying), as Big Pharaoh points out.

    Iran, should troops in Iraq withdraw or stay. Stay say 36%, a figure I find interesting in itself. Withdraw 58%. Then to, if Iraq government asks them to stay. Iran, stay 74%, pull out 17%.

    The country that moved very little in response to, if Iraq government asks troops to stay was Iraq. Stay went from 49% to 53%.

    Also Iraqis polled 75% on question whether Iraq war increased threat of terrorism, but 74% believed Saddam removal was the right thing. I guess they wish it could have happened some other way, or maybe they think the price was worth it.

    Most of the world did believe Iraq war increased threat of terrorism. Interesting to see as time passes and if the actuality of terrorist attacks remains downwards as has been the case, at least in the west, (went up Asia since 9/11) what responses may be.

  • Addamo

    Good point Ros,

    Many polls are driven by the qustrions that are asked or not asked.

    For example, whether you are pro war or agsint it, no onw would argue that Saddam Hussein was a nasty peice of work and deserved to be removed. Following his cpature, most would have agreed that his removal was a step in the right direction. Now, people are more divided on this matter.

    Let's also bear in mnd that most pools ignore the distributino of those surveyes. Most polls taken from Iraqi's are distorted because the responses from Kurds will be ovberwhelmingly pro occupation.

    A receont poll by Zogby shows that most US troops think the invasions was about 9011 retribution, in spite of denials by war appologists.

  • Stev

    Yeah, they all look the same to me too. I think for sure you have to hear them talk.
    One says, “F*ck off from my land you zionist ars*hole”, and the other one says “F*ck off from his land you zionist ars*hole”.
    -Then you know who is who.

    I don't really see where the 'murder' is in that, but hey – at least I have a sense of humour.

  • Chris

    Yes, we both agreed that you have a sense of humor.

  • Stev

    Wow, not so good with the subtle nuances of language are you? I'm inferring that you don't have a sense of humour.

  • Chris

    Yes, we both agree that you have a sense of humor.

  • Stev

    Ah, so you are opting for the fingers-in-the-ears 'lalalalalala I can't hear you' approach. Thanks for confirming that for me.

  • orang

    Stev Mar 1st, 2006 at 8:29 am

    Yeah, they all look the same to me too. I think for sure you have to hear them talk.
    One says, “F*ck off from my land you zionist ars*hole”, and the other one says “F*ck off from his land you zionist ars*hole”.
    -Then you know who is who.

    I don’t really see where the ‘murder’ is in that, but hey – at least I have a sense of humour."

    You have to have a few scotches, take off glasses or close one eye when you read the above, you will see between the lines, "redrum…redrum…redrum..", which, if said backwards…

  • Chris

    They all look the same to you? Seems like a racist remark. I guess you didn't see that either. By the way, did Stev say anything?

  • Stev

    though I don’t know any characteristics which can be used to distinguish between them and palestinians.

    Yeah, they all look the same to me too.

    Clearly a simple paraphrasing. Now where did the racist remark originate? By the way, which definition of racist are you using? Because according to the one you provided:

    A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

    That comment isn't the least bit racist. No inferrence of superiority or inferiority in there. Or are you perhaps using a different definition of 'racist' now?

    Of course I'm sure you won't actually see this Chris, it seems as though my posts aren't appearing on your computer. Technically I'm not really sure how that could happen, but it seems the only logical explanation why you might not be seeing my posts. Well, the only logical explanation outside of a startling level of immaturity that I'm sure no one here would exhibit.

  • Chris

    The remark by Orang was racist. My remark concerning you was a joke. You stated you had a sense of humor, you neglected to clarify that it was a good sense, apparently it was not.

    As proven to you earlier, the definition of racist and racism still follow the earlier definition of race, which has fallen by the wayside. In other words, your definition of race is not the word being used as the origin of racist and racism.

    You must now learn to divorce the new definition of race from the definition of racist and racism. It may be difficult for you based on your posts, but it is worth you trying.