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.
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
and
and
i wrote
to which captain replied
so anyway, here is rachard itani’s response confirming it was a real interview with just one word changed
so captain, who’s intellectually challenged now?
Smiths, thanks for that, much appreciated.
I wish i was surprised…
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.
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 wish I was surprised also…
oh dear captain,
why cant you just admit that you were smug, condescending and ultimately wrong,
the quote was real
and then
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
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.
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.
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.
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!!
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?
orang
Feb 25th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Stev,
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?
These people are completely sick!
With mothers like that, is it any wonder peace is so elusive. As I stated earlier, they hate Jews more than they love their own children. No wonder there are high child casualties.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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?
By the way Ant, news from the hill seems to be that the hawks are running with the term ‘fifth columnists’ these days.
Source
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.
BTW Captain,
If it’s blood that get’s you off, here’s a graphic video of the Israeli Massacre In Qana 1996.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/quana_01_19_03.htm
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?
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.
[edit]
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.
[edit]
Response
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]
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.
And I seriosuly need to work on my typing. Hope you can read my last post. ;-(
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.
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’m not certain there are any linguistic or cultural differences. Nor do they state different things as you have implied.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcpoll06-4.html
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.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
I don’t really see where the ‘murder’ is in that, but hey - at least I have a sense of humour.
Yes, we both agreed that you have a sense of humor.
Wow, not so good with the subtle nuances of language are you? I’m inferring that you don’t have a sense of humour.
Yes, we both agree that you have a sense of humor.
Ah, so you are opting for the fingers-in-the-ears ‘lalalalalala I can’t hear you’ approach. Thanks for confirming that for me.
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…
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?
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:
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.
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.