posted on January 21, 2003 11:00:48 PM new
We've heard
We must get the perpetrators of Twin Tower attack,
Change to
We must get Osama,
To
We must get Sadam,
To we won’t get Iraq if Sadam goes away,
We've heard every excuse but the truth,
If I were a reasonable man and I was an Iraqi, the clear message I would be getting is:-
…….give us control over all your oil supplies and we’ll let your babies live……...
Iraq experienced colonialist Britain attempting control in C19th and into the C20th and now they have USA, with the support of UK & Australia (or more correctly the rulers of UK USA & Aust.)
Such is the recent history of the ‘white man’.
In fact look at all of Europe, building walls, physical ant political, to keep out refugees from the very countries whose misery can be attributed to the ‘white man’s’ recent colonialist past.
And do we give a toss?
For example, In Australia, many of our people aren’t even willing to say ‘sorry’ to the Aboriginals for what ‘white man’ did to them.
Saying, It wasn’t me personally, or my family came later.
Much like the reasons many Americans give for rejecting extra educational assistance to Black Americans.
Say SORRY?? It’s no big deal, from the very people who bandy around the word and have reduced it’s meaning to nothing more than a faux-courtesy. You know, how ‘we’ jump a cue or car park, turn around say sorry to the guy behind, but stick to our guns and maintain our position.
OH BUT I DIGRESS
WE ARE IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW: WHY NOT WALK UP TO SADAM AND GAROT HIM WITH A PIANO WIRE, IF HE’S THE TRUE REASON FOR ALL THIS TROUBLE.
WHY NOT??
…ANSWER THAT.
NO GREAT LOSS TO ME, WHY KILL INOCENTS.
Those of you that, that DO believe Sadam is the reason for all this, ask yourselves why we don’t just kill him.
Assuming the moral high of war is at least no lower than assassinating one man, as I do, then:
If we must get Sadam then,, just get him and him alone.
Send bear49 & 12pole, they’re all for it, send bubya, and any one else that wants to go, it seems we have enough devotees for a hit squad.
posted on January 21, 2003 11:57:10 PM new
What a delightful rant!
Frankly, I care more about the emergence of the Muslim agenda around the world than I do about one delusional despot.
" 'Muslim agenda' "? you ask.
Yes. That would be the one that stones women for being suspected of committing adultery; brutally sterilizes young girls ( how would *you* like to have a clitorectomy?) in order to subdue their sexuality; demands that women either stay indoors or travel the streets clad from head-to-toe in blinding, binding garb; fosters and perpetuates in men the idea that all of the above is both righteous and proper; demands that Islam be foisted upon the world as the True Religion, no matter how heinous the method of delivering The Message. (Yes, I know there are those who think Christians approach their religion with the same zeal, but I can't recall Christians -- as a block -- taking on Humanity since The Crusades.)
Take a look around at the Muslim world... The Saudi's are an absolute monarchy -- they maintain their power by selling us (and others) their oil. They don't do a damned thing to uplift their "subjects" -- in fact, when the radical mullahs came calling, the House of Saud said, "Go ahead, take over the schools and the civic government -- just leave us in power." So Saudi Arabia, once home to women doctors and professors, has become as rigid and oppressive a nation as the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran.
Check out Africa -- that "promising" continent that broke away from British, French and Dutch rule. Look at what The People have done for themselves... Hutus massacering Tutsis; Sierra Leone wiping out so many people that there aren't enough left to have another 'civil war'; Ivory Coast aflame with insurrection; AIDS (oops!) out of conrol (because its causes aren't recognized by Muhammed) ... Guess what? All of these (and most) African nations are Muslim. It's their way or no way, and while I'm no great fan of war or GW Bush, I got a clear sense of what lies ahead of us -- as part of the non-Muslim world -- on 9/11, and I'd rather live with the tolerance I have known as an American than the intolerance I have seen promulgated by Muslim-run nations.
posted on January 22, 2003 12:05:05 AM new
plsmith
wants war because she doesn’t agree with circumcision, and so demands a ‘Holly War’, and probably doesn’t go to church any how, as most in west don’t apart from weddings and funerals.
But still wants to 'liberate' the Iraqis.
You don’t see me calling you a jerk for mutilating your son’s genitalia.
I’m Greek origins we don’t circumcise.
posted on January 22, 2003 12:48:27 AM new
No, austbounty, I'm not after war. I'm after getting out of the Middle East. And if that means you have to schlep your Greek booty to the temple on a bicycle, so be it.
I have no sons, btw. Odd bit of racism you added there...
posted on January 22, 2003 01:58:21 AM new
Plsmith
Your argument only shows the anti-Semitism you feel.
What ‘breed’ do you come from.
So I can make some racial slurs against you.
It's red-necks like you that are making this a religious war.
So what does that have to do with oil.
“tolerance I have known as an American”
Tell that to your Black American brothers.
After 14years as Head of Family court in South Australia, a recently retiring judge said she had never experienced a Greek parent come before her for sexually assaulting their children,
And I can assure you that there are many of Greek origins in Australia , making it a valid observation.
Does that give me the justification to call all non-Greeks ‘Kiddy-FU@&($’
I once saw on the news, a few years ago now, a group of protester in USA demanding and shouting “SEX BEFORE 8 or It’s too Late”
Man/Boy/Love/Organisation or what ever the sick F#@%$ call themselves still exists in USA. Does that mean all Americans support this request.
NO
‘schlep’, please don’t use Yidish derived American slang, this is an International chat,
I had to use a dictionary.
p.s The British have an absolute Monarchy Too, oops, I nearly Forgot, we do too.
posted on January 22, 2003 04:55:14 AM new
austbounty- I have not commented on your use of the term "anti-semite" until now. As others have pointed out, the term is commonly accepted as meaning anti-Jewish. Although other races/religions may have technically been semites, your use of the term demeans the insidious problem. You certainly have freedom of speech, but your continued misuse of the term shows ignorance at best and a hidden agenda at worst. Give it up or come clean!!!!!
posted on January 22, 2003 08:07:09 AM new
This war is not being waged to eliminate Saddam or terrorists or Weapons of Mass Destruction or any other propaganda that the American people are expected to believe.
Bush has been planning this war since 1999 when he was governor of Texas.
While Saddam slips out the back door, just like Osama bin Laden, the United States will be killing thousands of innocent people in exchange for oil and power.
posted on January 22, 2003 08:47:15 AM newor any other propaganda that the American people are expected to believe.
Even Hillary believes it. She did support giving the war power to President Bush. Read her 10-10-02 statement made before she helped pass the bill granting him the power to make the decision. It's on her website. She makes clear the threat that Saddam creates. She makes clear that a regime change has long been in order.
______
Has anyone heard or read her say [recently] she's against going to war? Or that she favors continuing to allow breaches of the latest UN agreement?
posted on January 22, 2003 08:48:37 AM new
Stusi
If I were to doubt the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of land because I believed it to be Palestinian, that does not make me an anti-Semite? It does not mean I hate Hebrews?
And yet anti-Semitism is the accusation often thrown at those that that speak in any way against Israelis, Hebrews, Jews, or Zionists.
You say “The term is commonly accepted as meaning anti-Jewish” even though a non-Semite Greek, German, Spaniard, Italian, Fijian, Mexican or Indigenous American or Australian can convert to Judaism.
Correct me if I’m wrong, is it a religion which excludes certain races.
Let us say that your are right and it has evolved to being widely accepted as being anti-Jewish.
It most certainly however is not accepted by all to mean that.
How do words like this evolve?… Through distorted use.
Yes I agree the word has WIDELY come to mean anti-Jewish but NOT EXCLUSIVELY.
It is a powerful word in English, even more nasty an accusation than ‘racist’, and I believe carries connotations of supremacist or Nazi or even would-be-murderer.
I believe it’s definition has evolved because it has been used More by Israelis, Hebrews, Jews, or Zionists, than other Semites. (and Semites they are too).
As long as the term is used widely to refer to hatred of all Semites, even if it be more widely used to mean just Jews etc. even if it is more widely believed to mean especially Jews, then my use of the term is legitimate.
I am Not misusing the word.
I can see why some would be concerned over my use of the word, because as long as I and others do use it in that manner, and many do, including my Chambers dictionary, then the term will not BECOME one used exclusively by Jews to further their ‘agenda’.
I can see many posters on this chat site showing clear hatred for ‘other’ Semites and the wider Muslim communities, (just scroll up a little). They ARE anti-Semites in the true sense, it involves ‘hatred’.
There, I’ve come clean.
posted on January 22, 2003 08:57:34 AM new
We have people suffering in our own land: plenty; and yet we let it slide.
How can we possibly accept that the same people who turn a blind eye to their closest neigbours' sufferings are so willing to risk their lifes to 'liberate' some Muslims thousands of miles away.
posted on January 22, 2003 09:56:12 AM newthe same people who turn a blind eye to their closest neigbours' sufferings are so willing to risk their lifes to 'liberate' some Muslims thousands of miles away.
posted on January 22, 2003 01:03:00 PM newI can see why some would be concerned over my use of the word, because as long as I and others do use it in that manner, and many do, including my Chambers dictionary, then the term will not BECOME one used exclusively by Jews to further their ‘agenda’.
WELL WELL AUSTBOUNTY'S RACISIM COMES OUT AND WITH VENOM...
AT LEAST WE KNOW THE REAL REASON YOU ARE SUPPORTING SADDAM, YOUR HATRED OF ISREAL AND IN PARTICULAR JEWISH PEOPLE...
posted on January 22, 2003 01:10:43 PM new
Twelevepole's right -- it's really easy to slap that label around, isn't it? Maybe we ought to refrain from doing so here in the RT where varied opinion has its home.
posted on January 22, 2003 04:11:47 PM new
austbounty- One can disagree with Israel's political policies and not be considered an anti-semite if their beliefs are non-religious.
The accusation of anti-semitism is not always justified.
"It is a religion that excludes certain races"? What the heck are you talking about? Have you not heard of Ethiopian Hebrews? Cuban Jews? The religions I know of don't exclude certain races. People who have religious freedom can choose their religion of choice. This is no different with Jews.
The Chambers dictionary???? You choose a definition from one of the world's obscure reference books as your source of information. How many dictionaries did you look at until you found one that fit your existing definition of choice?
No, you have not come clean! As twelvepole stated, you came out with venom!
posted on January 22, 2003 05:34:50 PM new
WE ARE IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW: WHY NOT WALK UP TO SADAM AND GAROT HIM WITH A PIANO WIRE, IF HE’S THE TRUE REASON FOR ALL THIS TROUBLE.
posted on January 22, 2003 06:10:10 PM new
austbounty, wields the term "anti Semite" to describe anyone that doesn't agree with their own warped sense of ideology. Thus attempting to justify their own lack of understanding the term "semite", despite several attempts by MANY other posters to educate.
One can only come to the logical conclusion, that austbounty's only reason for posting anything is to see their misspelled rantings in written form.
posted on January 22, 2003 06:35:45 PM new
Stutsu
That was he 1st dictionary I looked in, because it’s the biggest one I have.
Prompted by you, & in the interset of honest debate,I sought another definition.
My son’s Collins Australian School Dictionary 1998 (p636)
Semitic
1. The Semitic languages are a group of languages that includes Arabic and Hebrew.
2. Semitic means Jewish. [from Latin ‘semita’] ‘meaning descendant of Shem’ One of Noah’s sons in the Bible story.
This definition does not EXCLUDE 'other' Arabs either.
The word does not appear in his ‘small’ Oxford primary school dictionary.
I don’t have any more dictionaries.
How about addressing some of my questions (ie. my previous post) so we can engage in honest debate.
Instead of tying us up in a debate over wide, wider, widest use of a word and accusing me of having 'venom'.
posted on January 22, 2003 06:45:32 PM new
I BELEIVE WHAT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO TELL YOU IS THAT IT IS HARD TO DEBATE A BIGOT AUSTBOUNTY... YOU HAVE SHOWN YOURSELF TO BE ONE AND NOW WE HAVE THE REASON YOU SUPPORT SADDAM HUSSIEN...
YOUR CONTINUED MISUE OF THAT PHRASE AND YOUR RESPONSE TO BEING SHOWN HOW WRONG YOU ARE MEANS THAT YOUR MIND IS CLOSED...
BESIDES ASSINATION IS A BACK DOOR APPROACH AND THE PRESIDENT WANTS SADDAM TO KNOW WHO KICKED HIS A$$ OUT OF IRAQ...
posted on January 22, 2003 06:59:13 PM new
Bear49
Yes, my spelling is bad, spell-check can’t tell me when to use below or bellow.
Although I was born in Australia, Greek was the 1st language used at home.
How ignorant are you!! (Rhetorical question)
As a child, I went for a holiday to Greece, with my parents.
Even though I was only 15 at the time, I observed that, over there if you can’t speak Greek well, they assume that you are a tourist.
In Australia however, and by your and others comments it seems in US too, it is assumed or implied that if you don’t speak English well; then you are Lazy, or an Idiot.
How ignorant is that!! (Rhetorical question)
So you are telling us that my arguments carry no weight because our definitions vary (in spite of the fact that I’m the only one quoting valid sources) and because my spelling is bad.
Y’all wan’a see evidence of propaganda and agenda, then read-
The myth machine.
John Pilger, 5 April 2002
“What about Hollywood making a film called Operation Cyclone, telling how the CIA trained Islamic terrorists and starring Bruce Willis as Bush? “
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wtie/Media%20Aware/Behind%20the%20Spin.htm#2
Simply put, you attempted to discredit my arguments because my spelling is poor.
posted on January 22, 2003 07:37:29 PM new
austbounty- you are not discredited because you don't spell well, but rather because you have a twisted sense of who the good guys are. If you had several dictionaries which solely showed the definition as anti-Jewish would you change your usage? I think not! Do you really think it would be easy to walk up to Saddam and garotte him? I think not! Do you really believe that everyone who would wipe out Saddam would turn a blind eye to their neighbor's suffering? I think not! You have a severe case of tunnelvision and you will not be swayed by logic or reason.
posted on January 22, 2003 10:36:38 PM new
Stusi,
I have edited your statement and replaced or added key words, (all in upper case) in an effort to demonstrate to you that YOU may be the one with tunnel vision.
Bear 1949- CAN NOT DISCREDIT ME because I don't spell well, but rather DISPLAYS HIS twisted sense of who the good guys are.
STUSI
If you had several dictionaries which solely showed the definition as anti – ALL SEMITES would you change your usage? I think not!
Do you really think it would be easIER TO WAGE WAR AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ THAN to walk up to Saddam and garotte him? I think not!
Do you really believe that MANY who would wipe out Saddam would turn a blind eye to their neighbor's suffering? WHY not!
You have a severe case of tunnelvision and you will not be swayed by logic or reason.
posted on January 23, 2003 04:47:09 AM new
austbounty- I see that you did not answer my questions but rather chose the coward's way out, of turning questions back to the one who asked instead of answering yourself. I will be glad to answer after you.
