posted on September 9, 2004 04:02:33 AM new
US$100,000,000,000; later
1000 US Soldiers;
35,000 Iraqi civilians (inc.children)
The Day the World Ended
9/11, Three Years On
By JOHN CHUCKMAN
A lot can happen in three years.
In the United States since 9/11, about 4,000 children died from child abuse and neglect; in more than 80 percent of cases, parents were the perpetrators. About 36,000 Americans died from unnecessary surgery. Another 21,000 died from medication errors in hospitals, along with another 60,000 from other errors in hospitals. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs killed about 100,000. Roughly 10,000 Americans died from accidental drowning. About 2,100 died from bicycle accidents. Homicidal Americans killing other Americans took another roughly 60,000 lives. Suicide took more than 90,000. Traffic deaths amounted to well over 120,000.
.
.
cont.)............
http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman09042004.html
posted on September 9, 2004 04:13:58 AM new
Austbounty, it is somewhat different when death happens from accidents or errors, than when it is intentional by a extremist group, isnt it?
..
..
~~ Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues(forces)of life..Proverbs 4:23~~
posted on September 9, 2004 06:01:19 AM new
I guess you overlooked this Chuckman piece eh?
But then that doesn't go with your anti-american attitude then does it...
"America's pathetic liberals: the sequel"
By John Chuckman
YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada)
(YellowTimes.org) -- The controversy over Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' provides sharp insight into contemporary American liberalism. You might think from all the noise that something radical or revealing or important was happening.
But you would be wrong. The noise represents another example of what Robert Hughes called America's 'Culture of Complaint,' an endless bickering, never deciding anything but enjoyed purely for itself.
The film is at its heart a thoroughly conservative document, a fact which generally has gone unnoticed except in Robert Jensen's acute review, 'A Stupid White Movie.' Worse, it explains virtually nothing about events it claims to examine.
Michael Moore's role is to make American liberals feel good about themselves without having to question the practices of a society which cast an increasingly long, cold, dark shadow over the planet. The job pays well, and Moore is becoming a wealthy man, a kind of well-kept court jester for those with occasional twinges of liberal conscience or human decency.
Moore likes to play the big, innocent kid from the heartland, a kind of latter-day Spanky McFarland, only much older, happily shuffling along with a beat-up baseball cap instead of beanie, keeping the faith with values absorbed in 1950s Flint, Michigan, but asking bright-eyed, impertinent questions about serious things. He's America's backyard Socrates in baggy pants and gym shoes.
The image appeals to the confused, clinging-to-childhood quality of American culture. Yet that very quality is what let the invasion of Iraq and so many other terrible events happen.
Moore, unlike straight-shooter Spanky, also displays a streak of the somewhat unpleasant practical joker or prankster. I do not mean the talent for funny lines that makes his books sell well, but a certain tendency to sly, sniggering tricks, a certain Eddie Haskell or Candid Camera quality which overlays and sours the honest Spanky image. We see this clearly in the many stunts he uses, some quite clever, in movies or television to get filmed reactions from or about those who will not respond to him in a direct manner. These are the tricks of the process server or repo-man.
Moore's film revels in exactly the kind of inconsistent thinking, full of unwarranted assumptions, thick with suggestions of undefined conspiracy, typical to one degree or another of most media in the United States. The thinking also is typical of a President who keeps telling us he decimated Iraq and spent a hundred billion dollars to save American lives.
Moore told the world some months back that he had found his presidential candidate in former General Wesley Clark. That announcement should have been a warning, because Clark is indistinguishable in his views from George Bush, and the general's behavior in the former Yugoslavia was arrogant, provocative, and dangerous.
Moore simply wants to be rid of Bush, and he was ready to support an opportunistic and dangerous man like Wesley Clark to do it. Now, in his movie he has assembled a pastiche of attitudes, assumptions, and interesting, but largely unenlightening, film clips hoping to elicit enough of an emotional response to be rid of Bush.
Why does Moore, and I use him to represent all of liberal America, so want to be rid of Bush that he takes what I regard as the unprincipled position of supporting someone as bad or worse?
I do not believe it is because Bush represents a danger to American values, the favorite charge of many fuzzy-thinking American liberals, because in many ways Bush accurately reflects those values. I think they are desperate to be rid of Bush because he is an embarrassment. There is something excruciatingly American about Bush, revealing some painful truths about the society he represents, much the same as was the case with President Nixon's brother and his efforts to create a fast-food empire based on Nixon-burgers or President Carter's whining, beer-swilling brother, Billy.
Yes, Bush has done a lot of damage in the world, but Presidents can't act alone. In Nixon's last days of wandering the White House corridors late at night, a muttering ghost with a tumbler of Bourbon, the armed forces and others were alerted not to respond to orders that did not pass through the appropriate chain of command. And it is not just the Cabinet that limits a President's ability to act. It is the Congress and, more generally, the people of the country. The anti-war protests that engulfed America, once Vietnam was seen for the ugly fraud that it was, had no force of law but they very much influenced policy. The murderous fiasco of Iraq happened with the complicity of Congress, notably including Senator Kerry, and with the passive acceptance or indifference of most Americans.
The truth is that Bush is a fairly typical white, suburban, middle-aged American. He talks and thinks the way a great many Americans talk and think. He jogs and plays golf. He has a fondness for schoolboy pranks, although less clever ones, similar to Michael Moore's. He unquestioningly accepts America's fairytale, official version of itself as God's own chosen place on the planet with liberty and justice for all - something shared by Michael Moore and most flag-waving American liberals.
Bush's personal redemption story is shared in tens of millions of American homes. When Americans aren't experiencing redemption first-hand, they are consuming it from checkout-line magazines and talk shows. It's a national obsession with its promise of being able to start life over representing another kind of clinging to childhood.
Bush has always enjoyed a comfortable life without any evidence of earning or meriting it, but that is what so many Americans dream of doing as they throw away money on state lotteries and at casinos. Americans love watching television families similar to Ozzie and Harriet in the 1950s where nothing real ever happened, just nice people floating in a timeless space. Many modern shows, like Seinfeld, are just hipper versions of the same thing.
Bush's total lack of interest in serious books -- there is no evidence he's ever read one -- genuine art, and new ideas is quite typical. The last President of the United States who took some interest in the arts or thinkers was Kennedy. Bush's lack of interest in anything outside the United States -- only altered as required in his role as President -- and his Blondie Bumsted behavior, right down to choking on a pretzel while watching football from a couch, put him at the very middle of middle America.
You may ask, we know Bush is a brutal, rather psychopathic man, so how can he be like so much of middle America? You see, middle America is not the harmless, gentle place it seems in Hollywood's confections. It is the place where thirty-year old couples assume they are entitled to a five-bedroom home on a sprawling lot in the suburbs with at least two lumbering vehicles in the driveway. It is the place which ignores the ugly parts of its own society, the ghettos, the broken-down schools, the lack of healthcare. It is the place where the relentless demand for still more endangers the planet's future. And it is the place that drives America to global empire.
Bush is not, as so many American liberals claim, out of step with American history. Childish slogans about taking back America or, even worse, 'Dude, Where's My Country?' are just that, childish. Bush is an awkward, unpleasant exemplar of enduring American behavior and values. Did the invasion of Iraq represent different values or attitudes than the 'Remember the Maine' invasion of Cuba? How about the invasion of Mexico, or the seizure of Hawaii, or the holocaust in Vietnam and Cambodia? Does the Patriot Act represent anything different than the Alien and Sedition laws of John Adam's day or the dark excesses of the FBI under Hoover?
Americans are always attracted, like Marlon Brando's wonderful character in 'On the Waterfront,' to what used to be called 'class.' The movies of Hollywood's golden era, from those with John Garfield to Humphrey Bogart, are filled with that word used in that way. Because the entire throbbing core of America is about making as much money as possible as quickly as possible in almost any way possible, afterwards, you are supposed to settle in for some show of class.
While the flavor of American culture has changed, especially in its complete abandonment of post-depression era sympathy for struggling little people, the desire to display something that is the equivalent of 'class' in 1950 remains palpable. It's there in everything from the names bestowed on car models and real estate subdivisions to the look of popular American designers like Ralph Lauren or figures like Martha Stewart. Part of the problem with Bush, no matter how quintessentially American he is, is that he has no class. It's unnerving to have an empire whose Caesar is laughed at by much of the world, all those funny-talking people out there in the world sniggering at the leader of God's own chosen place.
I have a problem with all the liberal whining in America over professional soldiers being killed in Iraq, actually still a small number compared to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed both in the war and in the decade-long run-up of brutally harsh American-imposed restrictions, and it is no different for Moore's scene of a mother's tears. No, I'm not talking about the poor mother herself whose loss is real, but about the calculation of Moore's film in using the scene and about the very predictable result on American audiences. Pictures of a small number of flag-draped coffins appear to be almost the only thing fueling America's limp, antiwar movement.
When I see pleas about dead American soldiers, I can't help but think of all the tears shed at the Vietnam memorial for the relatively few who died helping in the work of bringing overwhelming destruction to another land, but there is never a tear shed for the millions of souls extinguished by America.
There is a scene in a much more moving documentary from the Vietnam War called 'Hearts and Minds' in which a poor Vietnamese man bawls and screams over the limp limbs of his dead young child, one of countless innocents snuffed out by Americans flying too high ever to glimpse the horror they delivered. The film then cut to an interview with General Westmoreland sitting comfortably, pontificating about the way Asians didn't regard life the same way Americans do. Propaganda, yes, but still shatteringly true and unforgettable.
Well, it was a fine film of its type, but it wasn't destined to make its director a wealthy man. Americans just are not much interested in the suffering of others, especially it seems when they cause it. Although, in mitigation, it is fair to point out how little of the suffering they ever are permitted to see, the lack of imagination over what must happen when you drop thousands of tons of high explosives and flesh-ripping shrapnel is still appalling.
But even if you do not feel the same way I do, and you were moved by the mother's tears in the last part of the movie, be very careful how you vote to get rid of Bush. Kerry has never so much as condemned the war. He has never condemned Bush, except by repeating official-report findings all thinking people on the planet understood a year before the official report. Kerry's view of the Middle East, frantic pandering to Israel's darkest interests, promises no end to future troubles. He is an unrepentant, unimaginative supporter of global empire.
That brings us to the real tragedy of America and the real cause of 9/11 and so many other horrors: America's swaggering readiness to play the game of global empire with all the brutality and incivility that it implies. You tell me how a confused film like Moore's, even if it contributes to toppling a confused President like Bush, adds anything to resolving America's great dilemma of insatiable greed and willingness to do terrible deeds while mouthing high-sounding ideals.
[John Chuckman is former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company. He has many interests and is a lifelong student of history. He writes with a passionate desire for honesty, the rule of reason, and concern for human decency. He is a member of no political party and takes exception to what has been called America's 'culture of complaint' with its habit of reducing every important issue to an unproductive argument between two simplistically defined groups. John left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the government embarked on the murder of millions of Vietnamese in their own land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He lives in Canada, which he is fond of calling 'the peaceable kingdom.']
YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on September 9, 2004 06:28:46 AM newMoore simply wants to be rid of Bush...
He was asked point blank by some reporter if that was his primary goal or motivation and his answer was: "yes, he'd like to see Bush out of the White House".
I dont know how the left can complain about the swift boat ad when this came out first and he has implictly stated that was his goal? What could be a more blatent endorcement?
..
..
~~ Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues(forces)of life..Proverbs 4:23~~
posted on September 9, 2004 07:22:31 AM new
The big difference being that Moore is an independent citizen, while the "swift boat vets" are tied politically to the Republican campaign...
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on September 10, 2004 02:26:13 AM new
Did you understand what you read 12pole?
“Michael Moore's role is to make American liberals feel good about themselves without having to question the practices of a society which cast an increasingly long, cold, dark shadow over the planet. “
I think the ‘society’ he refers to is America.
If there is to be an end to attacks on US and their coalition, as a response to what the terrorists believe to be injustices against them, then we and especially people like you need to look a bit further than your own nose and consider the effects of the actions committed by our nations and it's citizens.
If we don’t have a sense of justice and fairness then those who suffer by our actions, especially if they are smaller or weaker than us, may have little recourse but to get us when our backs are turned.
There is more which is worthy of respect in the world than just your corner of USA.
Yes neroter12, “it is somewhat different when death happens from accidents or errors, than when it is intentional by a extremist group”.
Is the murder of any one of 4000 American children since 9/11 any less abhorrent than the deaths of 3000 adults in the WTC?
It would seem by the reactions and mourning of many people that they believe it is.
posted on September 10, 2004 02:57:02 AM new
We either have to fight and kill them or surrender to them. There are no other choices....there's not going to be any negotiating with terrorists - there is no 'in between'. Read THEIR own words....they want to destroy us. But you excuse their behavior....excuse their actions....and then place the blame on OUR country.
Just look to the recent hostage event in that Russian school. The terrorist take SCHOOL children hostage on their first day back to school. Their clerics approve of taking women and children hostages, saying it's justified. They killed some of their hostages - including children. They are animals....and they'll pull this crap again and again just like they have been doing all over the world.
Last report had 335 deaths of the hostages with many still in the hospital....many injured in one way or another.
This is what our soldiers that are DYING over in Iraq are fighting against....people who take such actions against inocent women and children.
Did all the countries they've attacked ALSO do something to tick them off? Or are you wanting only to blame our country again.
Way too many appear to want to blame America. And Australia is our ally in fighting the war on terrorism. Your leaders have also said you can't back down to the terrorists....we MUST fight them. Your upcoming election will show how your people really feel about the decision your leaders have made to fight terrorism. But maybe the Bali incident happened too long ago for you to remember how many Australian's were killed there.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those are only two reasons why we need to:
Without some understanding of the root cause of terrorism we will never be able to control it.
It's important to point out to the neocons that by gaining some knowledge of the psychology and social psychology of terrorism, there is no intention to excuse the behavior of terrorists or blame ourselves. That's a ludicrous leap in your thinking lindak.
Look at the case of Iraq, for example. The Bush preemptive invasion of Iraq has benefited al-Qaeda and expanded the recruiting pool by creating large numbers of angry Muslims -- increasing the threat of terrorism.
Right now, we are making more enemies than we can kill. Fighting one nation after another is not the answer to terrorism.
posted on September 10, 2004 01:23:39 PM new
About 36,000 Americans died from unnecessary surgery. Another 21,000 died from medication errors in hospitals, along with another 60,000 from other errors in hospitals. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs killed about 100,000.
"I will work to end junk law suits".
George W. Bush, campaign 2004
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on September 10, 2004 02:04:36 PM new
Yes, helen, I've understood for years that you are the queen of the 'blame America first club'.
To think what the terrorists want/need is to be understood is a joke. They want CONTROL...and will die trying to get it. They are so fanatical that it's not like any war we've ever had to deal with. These terrorists aren't 'normal' in their views...they're fanatics - extremists and they don't have the same fear of dying most soldiers - people do...and they most certainly not willing to compromise on anything....because they're going to a better place if they don't get their own way.
I just want to help get them to that 'better place' more quickly. Confront - not appease. And ignoring the problem....pretending there is anything we can do to change their 15th century minds...isn't going to make them go away. They're not used to being phychoanalyzed - the method you seem to always suggest...they're used to murdering to get what they want.
Take off those utopian glasses you're always wearing. This is war...and I hope WE win.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration--not the terrorists--as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those are only two reasons why we need to:
Re-elect President Bush!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 10, 2004 02:09 PM ]
posted on September 10, 2004 04:59:04 PM new
I've mentioned before that no one can change the terrorist's way of thinking and it would be silly to try to reason with them.
But in order to attack and win, one must understand their culture and religion, take time to study it.... know the peoples of the different countries and know the difference between the innocent and the enemy..... or the ones that may rise up and also become the enemy. That would have been a much better strategy and they would have had a head start in bringing freedom to Iraq and it may not have esculated into such a mess.
First of all the Bush regime should have studied the enemy in Afghanistan and concentrated most of their efforts there. To veer off path to Iraq and then allow all the terrorists to come into that country so quickly and then allow them to multiply has made Bush look somewhat foolish worldwide. A war cannot be won with no strategy and most realize that.
Now it looks like America is trying to be the "nice guy" in Iraq and they aren't hitting back strong enough. They've already made such a mess I just think ....... fight seriously already and quit backing off, make the rules and show who's boss........ be strong and follow through even if more innocents die, take care of the enemy while you can..... or get the heck out of there once and for all. It's too late to worry about being loved now.
lindak says, "Yes, helen, I've understood for years that you are the queen of the 'blame America first club'.
And lindak, I've understood for years your lack of understanding on all issues that I care about. This is only one of them. If you read my comment again you will find that I said, Without some understanding of the root cause of terrorism we will never be able to control it. It's important to point out to the neocons that by gaining some knowledge of the psychology and social psychology of terrorism, there is no intention to excuse the behavior of terrorists or blame ourselves. That's a ludicrous leap in your thinking lindak.
Look at the case of Iraq, for example. The Bush preemptive invasion of Iraq has benefited al-Qaeda and expanded the recruiting pool by creating large numbers of angry Muslims -- increasing the threat of terrorism.
Right now, we are making more enemies than we can kill. Fighting one nation after another is not the answer to terrorism.
posted on September 10, 2004 06:21:58 PM new
I was waiting for you to come back, Helen. I understood your earlier post and it reminded me of the article on the Pashtun culture that you posted a link to earlier this year and how the US could have taken time to understand them and gain an ally in the search for Osama bin Laden and perhaps learned more about the psychology of the terrorists.
And I have to agree that fighting one nation after another will never be the answer to defeating terrorism and that it will only breed more terrorists and more hatred.
Edited to add the link to the National Geographic article on the Pashtun culture.
posted on September 10, 2004 08:08:52 PM new
Thanks Kiara for remembering that link! I've been away for awhile so I'm just catching up with some reading here.
posted on September 10, 2004 08:42:05 PM new
Helen, that was a good article and it reminded me that I should check out the site more often.
I think the article by John Chuckman that Austbounty posted is a bit harsh on America though. The whole country shouldn't be blamed for the actions of its current government, especially when it seems that so many people disagree with how things are going so that's not how everyone thinks or acts.
posted on September 11, 2004 03:25:05 AM new
Linda, when you say “Their clerics approve of taking women and children hostages, saying it's justified.”
Whose clerics are you referring to?
It is these sort of vague accusations which have helped the ‘coalition of the willing’ to gain support for war by spreading the belief among many that all Muslim clerics can be bundled up with the same label.
What of the Christian ‘Lord's Resistance Army’ of Uganda? Who’s speciality seems to be the abduction of thousands of children every year and use them as slaves, soldiers, and concubines, and in many cases, under threat of execution forces them to kill other people including children and even their own family.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm
Bush’s calculated use of the words ‘Islamic’, ‘evil’& ‘terrorist’, 10 times (or so) together in the same sentence, was in my opinion, done with the intention of increasing distrust/suspicion/aversion/opposition & even hate for all things Muslim among his constituents.
Even if you don’t believe that this was his intent, it is never the less it’s effect.
If you don’t, as John Cuckman puts it, “question the practices” of your society, then your ‘great democracy’ is not so great, as it’s citizens would be nothing more than ignorant/uniformed voters.
Then we have people in your camp like 12pole. Who support the case for war in Iraq as a means of liberating it’s people.
How can any one possibly believe that ‘humanitarian’ grounds are the reason that people like that support this war when he has openly stated that he supports the extermination of all Palestinians.
As I recall, no one here from the ‘right’ took him to task on it either.
Well, that’s who you’re ‘in bed with’. A man, who by the way, thinks little of all American women too.
Would you do a deal with the devil if he promised to deliver Ossama.
What an evil.evil.evil.evil thing to do, to kill ThirtyFiveThousand inocent Iraqis, and what ‘positive’ has come out of it apart from the profits of a few people.
But as long as America has ‘Christian Nationalists’ we shall all be safe because the American millitary is fulfilling the will of GOD, ask George.
“The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity. Americans are blessed to have men and women like you protecting us, and defending the cause of freedom across the world. May God bless you, and may He watch over our country.”
Part of Christmas message delivered by Bush to American troops.
posted on September 11, 2004 03:44:26 AM new
oops
Lest we forget; GWB's mate Franklin Graham,
who calls Islam "a very evil and wicked religion." during a Good Friday message at the Pentagon.
posted on September 11, 2004 06:47:40 AM new
Yup, according to the neocons it's better to just keep killing the terrorists (or trying to), ignore the "collateral damage" (dead civilians), ignore the American soldier body count, ignore how the hatred for America is growing by the "we're the toughest kid on the block" attitude of Republicans and the bush administration. The very attitude that KEEPS people hating us and fuels their fury.
Well, that's because Republicans like war and killing because it makes some people very wealthy, DICK Cheney for example.
They say the Democrats and liberals want to blame America first....well, it IS our problem and to say we're totally blameless is just idiocy.
IF we're the "greatest country in the world" the world should respect us, not FEAR us.
But the knuckle-dragging neocons in here think using a club like a caveman is the answer to everything.
Why use brains, intellect...diplomacy, when brute force can keep the bloodshed going.
The neocons cannot understand that America is NOT the ruler of this world. We could be a LEADER in the world but a good leader does not rule by force.
Nor should we be, as BUSH has said, the policemen of the world.
Ya, BUSH said we would not be the policemen of the world and what a flip-flopper HE turned out to be.
We will now, thanks to bush, NEVER know if just waiting a few more weeks to let inspectors in Iraq do their work would have saved us and the Iraqi people from all this death and horror.
No, couldn't wait, Haliburton wants a war it gets a war. Carl Rove (and his bosses) want a war they get a war and the neocons fall in right behind them like good little robots.
Hussein was a terrible person and had to be removed but he had been in power quite awhile and a few more weeks would not have hurt if it would've helped end his reign as peacfully as possible.
posted on September 11, 2004 07:33:27 AM new
austbounty - This was the article I was referring to. There have been many just like it, in print, since 9-11. When their religious leaders are willing to justify, for any reason, the taking of women and children to further their 'cause' then yes....I have much distain for their religion.
All one needs to do is also look to al Sadr in Iraq...another so called religious leader ...leading his followers to more death, killing and disruption that keeps his country from obtaining peace.
And I refuse to discuss those of the Jewish faith with you because your hatred of them is too revolting for my taste.
----
taken from the Telegraph.uk
Cleric supports targeting children
By Rajeev Syal
(Filed: 05/09/2004)
9-5-04
An extremist Islamic cleric based in Britain said yesterday that he would support hostage-taking at British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.
Omar Bakri Mohammed, the spiritual leader of the extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, said that holding women and children hostage would be a reasonable course of action for a Muslim who has suffered under British rule.
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Mohammed said: "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain, it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq.
"As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be okay."
Mr Mohammed, 44, who lives in Edmonton, north London, but is originally from Syria, also claimed that the Chechen rebels were not responsible for the deaths of more than 350 people - at least half of them children - who are so far known to have died in Beslan.
"The Mujahideen [Chechen rebels] would not have wanted to kill those people, because it is strictly forbidden as a Muslim to deliberately kill women and children. It is the fault of the Russians," he said.
The father of seven came to Britain in 1985 after being deported from Saudi Arabia because of his membership of a banned group. He has since been given leave by the Home Office to remain in Britain for five years but the Government is reviewing his status.
He gave an interview yesterday to promote a "celebratory" conference in London next Saturday to commemorate the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP for Hendon, was infuriated by Mr Mohammed's comments. "That sounds to me like incitement and I will report him to Scotland Yard," he said. "It is an insult to most moderate Muslims, who are sick of people like this claiming to represent them."
-------------
And I ask....where are all the PEACEFUL muslim clerics calling these horrific actions wrong?
Why are they not screaming out this is NOT what their religion supports?
posted on September 11, 2004 07:53:13 AM new
More hot air coming from another 'blame America First' club member.
WE WERE THE ONE'S WHO WERE ATTACKED FIRST. War was declared on us before President Bush took office. It's just that the dems thought it would be better to drop a couple of bombs here and there and maybe they'd go away. Well....9-11 - three years ago today - proved that didn't work.
Now, thankfully, we have a President with backbone who is willing to go after them. Not sit and wait until we're attacked again. And I couldn't agree more with Cheney when he basically said....elect kerry and it's a guarantee we'll be struck again....and my words...because the democratic party IS NOT willing to do what it takes to protect this Nation. Period.
---------------------
LATEST NEWS
Top Stories Sep 10, 10:45 PM EDT
Taliban Chief Phoned U.S. on'98 Strike
By WILLIAM C. MANN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) --
A day after former President Clinton sent cruise missiles against al-Qaida targets in Afghanistan, the leader of that country's ruling Taliban militia telephoned the State Department and offered to talk, according to a State Department message disclosed Friday.
Little came of the contact, although Mullah Mohammed Omar counseled the department that the United States would never be accepted as a friend of the Muslims unless Congress forced Clinton to resign.
Clinton announced Aug. 21, 1998, that he had sent cruise missiles "to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Osama bin Laden, perhaps the pre-eminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today."
The attacks were to retaliate for the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa two weeks earlier that killed 231 people. Bin Laden, mastermind behind the al-Qaida terror network, was blamed for those as well as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.
He had established training camps in Afghanistan under Omar's protection. His camps and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, that was thought to have been connected with bin Laden were targets of the cruises.
Bin Laden and his comrades escaped.
After Sept. 11, U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan and in a brief campaign brought down the Taliban government and put bin Laden to flight. Both Omar and bin Laden remain at large.
The message, drafted by Michael E. Malinowski, then the head of the State Department's Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh desk, reported what is believed to be the first and perhaps only U.S. contact with the rabidly anti-American Muslim cleric.
After a translator confirmed that the caller on an open State Department line was Omar, the message said, "Malinowski noted that we had much to speak about, especially the continued presence of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and the threat that bin Laden posed to Americans."
"Omar replied that, while he had no particular message for us, he was open to dialogue," the message said. "Malinowski suggested that open telephone lines were inappropriate for that serious dialogue."
The message was provided to The Associated Press by the National Security Archive, an independent nongovernmental research group based at George Washington University that collects previously secret government documents. The archive said it obtained the document through a Freedom of Information Act request.
In summarizing his conversation with Omar, Malinowski said the Afghan "parroted some of bin Laden's hard-line views" but listened to U.S. arguments on why Clinton ordered the attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan and "the reasons why bin Laden's continued activities were not in the interest of the Afghan people."
"Omar warned that the U.S. strikes would prove counterproductive and arouse anti-American feelings in the Islamic world," the message said. They could spark more, not fewer, terror attacks, it said.
In another section, Malinowski wrote, "He said that in order to rebuild U.S. popularity in the Islamic world and because of (Clinton's) current domestic difficulties Congress should force President Clinton to resign."
At the time, Clinton was under intense pressure of his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Some Republicans suggested that he may have sent the missiles to divert attention from the scandal.
The Taliban leader told Malinowski he knew of no evidence that bin Laden had planned our carried out terror attacks from Afghanistan.
"Malinowski replied that there was considerable evidence against bin Laden, and that the evidence was solid," the message said. "He noted that Omar and the Taliban should be well aware of what bin Laden had been up to in Afghanistan."
"Omar conducted himself in a careful and controlled manner," Malinowski wrote. "At no time did he bluster or threaten."
In a paragraph marked "comment," Malinowski said: "Omar's contact with a (U.S.) official is rather remarkable, given his reclusive nature and his past avoidance of contact with all things American.
"It is indicative of the seriousness of how the Taliban view the U.S. strikes and our anger over bin Laden."
---
So I hope you liberals who blame all this on President Bush could just, for once, open your eyes to the fact that the terrorists/clerics aren't ONLY targeting our country because of their anger at President Bush....but rather at ANY US president's action they don't like.
United we stand, divided we fall. And it looks to me like there are many liberals who don't care if we fail/fall....as long as President Bush isn't taking care of business with these fanatics. There not going to see the policies of a democratic President any differently than they did when they wanted clinton OUT.
posted on September 11, 2004 08:32:50 AM new
Here's another of the sweet linda's chants,
"war, war, war,kill ,kill, slaughter, slaughter, it's fun and and oh so profitable. Kill, torture, war ,war, war, war, kill , slaughter...."
Yup, you guys are right ....she's a sweety. But, linda, just because you're too much of a knuckle dragger to want to add diplomacy to our strengths doesn't mean it can't happen. Well, it can't with Carl Rove and DICK Cheney as our president but hopefully November will change that.
Linda, why don't you go to Iraq and you can see the bodies blown apart first hand....I'm sure you'd enjoy it.
[ edited by crowfarm on Sep 11, 2004 08:37 AM ]
posted on September 11, 2004 08:08:43 PM new
Extracts from LindaK’s own posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LindaK, re: Muslims.
“I have much distain for their religion. “
Anne Coulter
Her 9/11 comments: "I am often asked if I still think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.
The answer is: Now more than ever!"
LindaK to me:
“And I refuse to discuss those of the Jewish faith with you because your hatred of them is too revolting for my taste.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
None are so blind Linda, as those who will not see.
I tried a google search for “peaceful muslims”.
Top 2 results of 270,000 were from www.jewishworldreview.com and you can guess what their ‘taste’ was.
Much the same as LindaK’s; anti-certain-Semites.
Linda carries on with her testifying of ‘distain’ for Islam.
Doesn’t actually come out and call for the genocide of all Palestinians, but is more than willing to align herself with 12pole that does.
But she thinks that she’s a ‘moderate’ because she only has ‘distain’.
Linda asks, “…where are all the PEACEFUL muslim clerics”
Try a google Linda and you will find many, but here is a tip, skip all the Jewish sites and the American ‘Nationalist-Christian /Religious-Right’ sites.
Ask yourself, if you can; if Ann coulter et-al had similar criticism of Judaism as they have of Islam, would their words be published in your free nation.
posted on September 11, 2004 08:34:54 PM new
posted by crowfarm: ignore how the hatred for America is growing by the "we're the toughest kid on the block" attitude of Republicans and the bush administration. The very attitude that KEEPS people hating us and fuels their fury......::
Crowfarm, do you suppose it took more than a day or two for the terrorists to plan and pull off what they did on 9-11?? - Was it GWB, who was in office for all of 6 months or so that fueled their fury to this unprovoked attack on the united states?
Has the U.S. ever been attacked like that before? umm...I can think of a naval ship named the USS Cole.....and another similar bombing on the world trade center. So who provoked the fury for that, too? Ah, I guess they didnt really care who was president of this country. But they care more now, right?
..
..
~~ Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues(forces)of life..Proverbs 4:23~~
posted on September 11, 2004 08:41:25 PM new
Ok, neroter, good thinking! If something's bad we should make it worse, not try to fix it. A great mind speaks!
posted on September 11, 2004 09:12:12 PM new
.....And doing nothing about the other two attacks brought us right to the very complacent place of 9/11/01!!
If Kerry gets in he will have a very hard time convincing anyone that just talking about it, will make life just damn skippy again, too.
Camelot's gone, crow. Get into the new millenium and stop dreaming!
..
..
~~ Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues(forces)of life..Proverbs 4:23~~
posted on September 11, 2004 09:20:39 PM new
" The skin of the bodies is strangely discolored, with their eyes open and staring where they have not disappeared into their sockets, a grayish slime oozing from their mouths and their fingers still grotesquely twisted.
" Death seemingly caught them almost unawares in the midst of their household chores. They had just the strength, some of them, to make it to the doorways of their homes, only to collapse there a few feet beyond. Here a mother seems to clasp her children in a last embrace, there an old man shields an infant from he cannot have known what...”
Which country (and political party) helped put Saddam into power, armed his regime, provided the “crop-spraying” helicopters….and then after the atrocities, vetoed a UN resolution that sought to condemn the chemical attacks.
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/llb020916a.html
Who funded Ossama?
It’s an evil web we weave.
As we sew.
None are so blind.
Re-elect Bush: Because you’ve waited for Armageddon long enough.
posted on September 11, 2004 09:42:03 PM new
"Yup, according to the neocons it's better to just keep killing the terrorists (or trying to), ignore the "collateral damage" (dead civilians), ignore the American soldier body count, ignore how the hatred for America is growing by the "we're the toughest kid on the block" attitude of Republicans and the bush administration. The very attitude that KEEPS people hating us and fuels their fury. "
You don't have to "figure out" why they hate us. They've only told you a thousand times (quick look this up): "You exist".
Your rock & roll music violates the purity of god, etc, etc.
Wait! I have a master stroke! Why don't Helen, Crowfarm, Ausbouty, etc, in the interests of peace all kill themselves. They could leave notes with apologies for getting in god's face and how they hated music etc. They could extend a powerful olive branch. Perhaps the mullahs might see this as a sign we were all dying off anyway and leave the rest of us to god's wrath.
posted on September 11, 2004 09:46:15 PM newOn the borders of Kurdistan
On the borders
Where throats are
Choked with good-byes
And eagerness is
Suspended in the eyes
And people asked
When.. where are we ? why..?!
Here a child dies..
There a baby lies, and
Another face-down cries:
My wound is hurting
My breath is hurting
My stomach is hurting,
Mother: Am I to die ?
And my white pigeon ?!
Are we going to die ?
In tears she said:
There beyond the border posts..
Only days: we won't die
For us, God will try..
Again, the child cries:
Will my pigeon die ?
Mother: I love her..
She is my life
Because I love,
She does not deserve to die
I love her...
All broke in tears
Dear.. your pigeon died
When the planes pried
And she broke in tears
My white pigeon was gassed ?!
My Kurdish pigeon died
Mother.. my hair is falling
why ? Am I do die ?
Some water please..
W-a-t-e-r ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Look Linda, for where evil lies,
But only look further than from where your borders lie.
Yes Linda, Saddam did it all,
With no support form your home at all.
It gave no weapons, no logistics, or funds,
It gave no blessings for the killings of mothers and fathers and daughters and sons,
It only brought freedom, peace, equality and democracy.
Prevent Bigotry through Education.
