Re: Lifting the lid on Thai insurgents


maxwell wrote:
"Liam" wrote ...
But oh, that's RIGHT--just as the carpet bombings of *those* Asian women
and
children in a poor neighbor of Thailand weren't acts of terrorism, but
just
part of Nixon's plan to finally end the support for the latest revision
of a
regime in Vietnam that suspended elections and murdered political
opponents,
and just as Great Lord TS's shooters only killed genuine drug dealers
(thus,
no more yaba problems!), and those 'whoops, they're dead' moozlims in
trucks
were just a problem that happened, so too, the 'Liam doesn't give a ***
about' class of sub-humanoids of Baghdad can be called 'collateral
damage'
or 'predictable outcomes of sectarian terrorist enmity'

After all, it's only terrorism if Great Leader(s) declare it so, and for
sure American ordnance is, by definition, NOT terrorist weaponry.

Too bad those damned towelheads or gooks refuse(d) to see the simple
sense
of it, no?
-maxwell

Verbose, aren't you?

You're not? LOL!

War is what it is.

Duh.

The blatant aggression of Hitler, in the end, earned Greater Germany the
firebombing of Dresden and the utter destruction of
Berlin.
Pearl Harbor had as it's comeuppance Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Correct. Axis powers attacked Allied nations, got blasted.
Iraq attacked US?
WELL ?

Violence many times greater than that shown by the original aggressors
was shown at the end by the eventual victors, and many innocents died,
but what thinking person would say it was NOT justified? The world is a
better place today because Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were
crushed.

That's not the argument, of course.

This "Third Great Jehad" is no different in spirit than was the
original aggression of Hitler and Tojo.

Spirit is arguable, while events of aggression are facts.

As the old Arab proverb goes:"the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Saddam
was an enemy of America
because he not only sheltered terrorists but abetted and encouraged their
actions.

Saudi Arabia has gone FAR beyond Saddam in financing and sheltering
terrorists; it was only when Islamist thugs attacked SAUDI targets within
Arabia that the Saudis began to see this as a problem, yet to this day they
advance the Wahhabist jihadi agenda.
Yet SOMEHOW the Saudis are an 'ally of the US in the fight against
terrorism' ?
What rot!
Saddam (you're quite willing to forget) was no less a 'shelterer' of
terrorists during the years Iraq waged war with Iran, totally with the
encouragement and help of the US.

<q>Rumsfeld's December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the
highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the
two discussed "topics of mutual interest," according to the Iraqi Foreign
Ministry. "[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making
mischief in the world," Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. "It struck
us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in
solving the Mideast problems."
Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post
reported that the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly
Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran
would be 'contrary to U.S. interests' and has made several moves to prevent
that result." </q>

(and that's no truncated-to-change meaning bit of snippage [wink wink <g>] )

It was quite well known by US at the time that Saddam was using chemical
wepaonry, but nothing from Rummy to Saddam remotely suggested discouragment
of these very weapons that Blix later did not find, and that your Bush's men
lied about to justify attacking Iraq.

<q>In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day,
Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister
Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the
United Nations: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on
Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a
team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of
Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign
Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified
destination.</q>

Reagan said ***-all to Saddam through Rumsfeld contra Saddam's use of
chemical weaponry.

Post-9/11, Iraq had STILL not attacked the US, and was hamstrung by a no-fly
zone from extending any regional mischief, while agents of *other* nations
HAD attacked in earlier years (remember Lebanon?), and seen US turn tail,
yet SOMEHOW you seek to rationalize even now the carnage and quagmire of a
destabilized Iraq, which has greatly empowered the threat of Iran.

Thus, what happened to Iraq was just.

Yeah, sure, Mr. Cheney.

While I applaud the courage of those individual Iraqis who risked their
lives to vote, subsequent events have shown the truth of the maxim that
Democracy cannot be imposed from without.

As if this comes as a surprise?

American deaths in Iraq have dwindled,

WTH are you talking about?
Can you read a bar graph?
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

while those of Iraqis killing Iraqis have skyrocketed.

Yes.

Despite the courage of the individual Iraqi voters, Iraq as an entity
has shown that killing one another for arcane "religious" reasons

Yes, nothing to do with the Sunni MINORITY having held majority power under
Saddam, nor Bremer's decommisioning of security forces and firing of
competent managers, nor of the turmoil induced by massive hits to
infrastructure that over three years later are FAR from restored, nor about
Iran seizing the opportunity to increase their own regional political power
by supporting Shia militias--it's all about religion, you say.

is far more important to Iraqis as a group than is subjugating those
selfish motivations for the greater good

Unlike those Americans at the time of the Southern Secession from the Union,
or the French during the Terrors, or the Irish during the past
century--nope, those Muslims just don't 'get it.'

--which, in the end, is the defining characteristic of any successful
democracy.

Uh huh.

Unless Iraqis reach a point where their personal vendettas become less
important than the greater good, democracy has no chance in Iraq--and there
has been little evidence that Iraqis are willing to put their personal
vendettas on the back burner. Iraqi "democracy" is thus a non-starter.
Iraqis, by their actions, have shown that they deserve what their country
has
become--because they have made it exactly that.

While US of course has not contributed to the growing unrest.

I've heard much better fables from Aesop.

You're not really as naive' as you sound, are you?

One fact stands out. The Muslim world--at least the more extreme
elements within it, aided and abetted by not only the silence but often
the active participation of the less extreme--has sworn to destroy The
Zionists and The Great Satan. No we can debate WHY until we're blue in
the face, but in the end that doesn't matter. What DOES matter is
reality. Iraq sits squarely in the middle of the Arab world and Saddam
supported terrorism both actively and passively--actively by funding
the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to the tune of $25,000 per
dead bomber to the family of the bomber, and actively by offering safe
haven and (quite possibly) active training. Thus he was America's and
our ally's enemy both sworn and in fact, and what happened to him, as
stated, was just.

But it was more than just. It was necessary. And just why it was
necessary has been proven in the past few weeks. Why do you think that
Iran and Syria just more or less stood passively by while Israel
pounded on Hezbollah? (Hint--it had to do with about 150,000 American
and allied troops standing by in Iraq, which borders both Iran AND
Syria.) Ahmadi Nejad and Assad may be pompous strutting martinets, but
they both understood quite well that had their countries attacked
Israel during their conflict with Hezbollah, they would all of a sudden
have had to cope with a whole lot of belligerent Americans and Brits.
And the Israel-Hezbollah battle was just Round One of probably many
more.

Try thinking beyond your prejudices, Maxwell. You may very well be
capable of it.

Liam

.

Loading