← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 13172 | Posts: 36 | Started: 2004-04-14
2004-04-14 10:01 | User Profile
Check out [URL=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37878]this little gem [/URL] from our brother in Christ, Joseph Farrah, over at World Net Daily.
Vaporizing innocent Iraqi kids in an illegal and immoral war waged for no legitimate American interest but rather secretly for a certain Shitty Little Country is a price Farah's willing to pay for his status as house goy to the Cabal.
But please don't get me started!
Sorry if this is a repeat post, please move it if it is.
Walter
Posted: April 6, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
é 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
There are 250,000 people living in Fallujah.
My guess is that the population is going to be reduced shortly.
Not all of the Iraqi city's population, or even most of them, bear responsibility for the despicable, cowardly attacks on four U.S. civilians murdered, mutilated, incinerated and hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.
But the longer that religious leaders and residents protect and shield those who carried out the attacks ââ¬â and those who are against U.S. troops and Iraqis eager to build a free society ââ¬â the more responsible the residents of Fallujah collectively become.
The day of reckoning is coming. It will be precise, according to U.S. military officials. And it will be overwhelming.
Fallujah is going to pay a price for the blood it has spilled.
The temptation of Americans is to be too cautious. That approach can only result in more American blood being spilled. The U.S. should give the leaders of Fallujah a chance to turn over all those who participated in the bloodletting, all those who cheered them on, all those who kicked the mutilated and charred bodies of the Americans who were there on a mission of mercy ââ¬â bringing food to the forsaken city. I have no expectations that Fallujah's elders will make the right call, do the right thing. And when they fail to do so ââ¬â say, in the next few days ââ¬â the U.S. should pound Fallujah like it has never been pounded before.
We should not try to gain an international consensus for this action. We should not apologize for it. We should not restrain our Air Force and our artillery batteries from wreaking devastation. We should not expose our ground troops to unnecessary risks.
In other words, we may need to flatten Fallujah. We may need to destroy it. We may need to grind it, pulverize it and salt the soil, as the Romans did with troublesome enemies.
Quite frankly, we need to make an example out of Fallujah.
Here's a chance for justice. Here's an opportunity to show the people of the Middle East it doesn't pay to resort to barbarism and terrorism.
Immediately the U.S. should stop its humanitarian efforts in Fallujah. There should be no more food caravans. Instead, we should isolate the city and cut off its supplies and its power. It should be a city under siege.
Military leaders had hoped that some clerics might issue a fatwa, or religious edict, banning attacks on Americans. But no such calls have been heard. Just a block away from where the American convoy was attacked, some graffiti reads, "It is permitted to steal from Americans; it is permitted to kill Americans for vengeance."
There were many pictures taken of happy Iraqis kicking the burned remains of those four American civilian contractors. I hope the military is keeping files. I hope the military is going to hold each of those individuals responsible for the massacre. I hope the military ensures that all of those people are dead or in custody at the conclusion of the Fallujah campaign.
It's time to take off the velvet gloves.
It's time to stop being Mr. Nice Guy.
It's time to cease worrying about collateral damage.
It's time to show all Iraqis and their brothers and sisters throughout the Middle East that it doesn't pay to mess with Americans. They need to see there is no profit in it. They need to understand we mean business. They need to accept things will never be the same in Iraq. They need to feel the heat. They need to be provided with visible disincentives to further attacks on Americans, free Iraqis and other coalition partners.
Sometimes the most merciful course of action seems like the harshest.
Fallujah needs to feel some pain. If this operation is carried out well ââ¬â and with finality ââ¬â it can save many more Iraqis, Americans and others from future pain.
The war in Iraq is not over. It won't be over until Fallujah and the rest of the Sunni triangle is fully pacified.
2004-04-14 12:42 | User Profile
Joseph "Suckpoop" Farah and his family should all be sent to the front lines in Iraq, along with any other delusional, demented, arm-chair warrior supporters of the INSANE and ILLEGAL war of American agression in Iraq.
2004-04-14 13:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Joseph "Suckpoop" Farah and his family should all be sent to the front lines in Iraq, along with any other delusional, demented, arm-chair warrior supporters of the INSANE and ILLEGAL war of American agression in Iraq.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but, I wouldn't want to get you started!
Walter
2004-04-14 16:23 | User Profile
Like I wrote before, the only weapons of mass destruction that exists in Iraq is its people,,,,,,,
Just like in the USA in the revolutionary war against the British and the war in Vietnam at the end the people of the country are always the winners ,,,,, In Iraq the US are the invaders and in Palestine the Zionist are also the invaders, the people must defend ,and liberate, their own land and not a foreign army.
You know that the US in deep trouble when they allowed mercenaries to fight their wars, just like it happen with the Romans.,,,,,,,
Have you seen the pictures of the "terrorists" under the age of 6 years that have been killed in Iraq by the US forces? ,,,,, It looks like the US government is not only taking orders from the Zionist Jews but also learning from them at Ft Bragg.
2004-04-14 19:52 | User Profile
Fred Reed has a good take on "The mess in the Sandbox."
[url]http://www.fredoneverything.net/IraqExplosion.shtml[/url]
2004-04-14 21:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE]There are 250,000 people living in Fallujah.
My guess is that the population is going to be reduced shortly.
Not all of the Iraqi city's population, or even most of them, bear responsibility for the despicable, cowardly attacks on four U.S. civilians murdered, mutilated, incinerated and hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River.[/QUOTE]
So let me get this straight; we're supposed to be particularly upset because four scumbags (which is what mercenaries are, rather by definition) who aren't even part of our Armed Forces (again, its part of the definition of "mercenary" - the fact that they were born in this country, as opposed to some other, shouldn't have any relevance to this discussion, because they're just shitty mercenaries who, frankly, got no less than they deserved, being the moral equivalent of Mafia hitmen and all) got themselves killed (and their corpses "mutilated," as if that matters in the slightest)? Why? Could someone please explain to me why this is worse than any other four KIAs we've had in Iraq? In point of fact, its a much better outcome, because when actual U.S. soldiers die, its at least a potential tragedy (depending on the quality of the individual soldiers). When mercenaries die, however, we should rejoice, because it means there are fewer mercenaries (and thus fewer violent, despicable criminals generally) in the world.
[QUOTE]I have no expectations that Fallujah's elders will make the right call, do the right thing. And when they fail to do so – say, in the next few days – the U.S. should pound Fallujah like it has never been pounded before.
We should not try to gain an international consensus for this action. We should not apologize for it. We should not restrain our Air Force and our artillery batteries from wreaking devastation. We should not expose our ground troops to unnecessary risks.
In other words, we may need to flatten Fallujah. We may need to destroy it. We may need to grind it, pulverize it and salt the soil, as the Romans did with troublesome enemies. [/QUOTE]
The Romans did what they did to the city of Carthage after the equivalent of fighting two world wars with its demented leaders. Doing the same to Fallujah, because they killed even four of our best, White soldiers, let alone four disgusting mercenary pieces of greedy, murder-for-hire filth, would be just a tad excessive, at least from the perspective of civilized mankind (thus leaving out Farah and his neo-"conservative" ilk).
[QUOTE]Quite frankly, we need to make an example out of Fallujah.
Here's a chance for justice. Here's an opportunity to show the people of the Middle East it doesn't pay to resort to barbarism and terrorism. [/QUOTE]
In point of fact, the lesson we will teach them is that WE are barbarians who deserve to be killed and desperately need killing, if the security of their nation is to have any meaning. I assume they will learn this lesson reasonably well and act accordingly. Now, I suppose its possible if we barbarically slaughter the women, children and other non-combatants of Fallujah, that the Iraqis will all back down before our might. The people who believe this, however, are invariably the same people who thought we'd be welcomed in Baghdad as "liberators" and that that "major combat operations" in this "cakewalk" would be over by May 1st of last year. Its probably not real advisable for us to listen any longer to these fictional fabulists anymore.
[QUOTE]Immediately the U.S. should stop its humanitarian efforts in Fallujah. There should be no more food caravans. Instead, we should isolate the city and cut off its supplies and its power. It should be a city under siege. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, and while we're at it, let's take a page from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and distribute bombs in the city of Fallujah that look like toys. I'm sure the Israelis have some stored in a warehouse somewhere that they'd always intended for using on Arab kids anyway, and so would be happy to let us have them cheap (but probably not TOO cheap).
[QUOTE]There were many pictures taken of happy Iraqis kicking the burned remains of those four American civilian contractors.[/QUOTE]
Can someone please explain to me why this is regarded as significant (other than as a barometer of how much the people we "liberated" despise us, of course)? Please tell me what crime is being committed when one kicks the corpse of a foreign soldier in one's own land. Or is it simply not permitted to disapprove of the U.S. occupation? That's it, isn't it? This bastard is talking about leveling a city because some of its residents have committed Thought Crime. I hope this Farah creature is one day given over to a group of teenage, male Fallujah residents, along with Arabic translations of this article, so they can do with him as they will. I'm not ordinarily a sadist, and would probably be unable to witness the entire event, but I'd pay money to see that my own darn self! Barring that, perhaps a merciful God will hear my prayers and afflict Farah with boils. What an ugly and barbaric example of treason he is!
2004-04-16 06:10 | User Profile
Good post, Kevin.
Farah's rant is one of the most vile things I've read in a long time.
It was apparent to any rational oberver one year ago (including most here) that this thing could well take on a life of its own. It's like in Vietnam - you go in with the best intentions that "everything will be different this time" but then history hands you a script that you're compelled to follow.
The Brits did that 35 years ago in Ulster. They went in literally to defend the Irish Catholics against the British Ulstermen, but history had other plans. The next thing you know they're siding with the Protestant militias against the IRA. The dynamic is such that any other way is simply impossible.
As some of us here said at the time, the only way to make that work would be to divide Iraq into ethnically pure nation states, withdraw to Kurdistan, and then operate from there. Of course, that would be at the cost of making an enemy of Turkey, but that's exactly the thing that would keep Kurdistan on our side. All we'd have to do is switch sides and start backing a greater Kurdistan at the expense of Turkey, Iran and Syria. We could pull that off, too, because we'd be on the side of a violent people who would treat our Army like liberating kings and would sacrifice anything for the cause.
But Turkey's not even the biggest problem with that plan. The really big problem is that it would implicitly reject the whole imperial notion of multiethnic states as inherently unstable. Nationalism is allowed only for Israel, don't forget.
Anyway, none of that will happen, either. This is going to follow its own trajectory all the way down, and I say that's great. The sooner the Empire dies the better for all of us republicans.
Walter
2004-04-16 19:19 | User Profile
2004-04-17 06:17 | User Profile
Hello Walter,
Reading your post I am unsure as to your meaning.
You make reference to Ulster.
Can you tell me how you assume the British military and security forces were particular?
The evidence indicates impartiality. Fact rather than mere opinion.
However, any rational person would deem it appropriate to defeat terrorist criminals with full force and without sentiment.
The IRA committed cowardly and atrocious crimes. You may understand they initiated a prolonged ceasefire when their people were being eliminated.
The eradication did not come from the British military
*
2004-04-17 19:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Hello Walter,
Reading your post I am unsure as to your meaning.
You make reference to Ulster.
Can you tell me how you assume the British military and security forces were particular?
The evidence indicates impartiality. Fact rather than mere opinion.
However, any rational person would deem it appropriate to defeat terrorist criminals with full force and without sentiment.
The IRA committed cowardly and atrocious crimes. You may understand they initiated a prolonged ceasefire when their people were being eliminated.
The eradication did not come from the British military
*[/QUOTE]
That's not what I've been told by the many I knew who lived through the thing. One old friend (Catholic) told me of how the British troops kicked down the door one night and rousted everyone out of bed, including throwing his mother to the floor who was dying of cancer.
The IRA fought a rapacious Empire, and while I don't condone all the things they did I think all told they acted like soldiers. I know that there were civilian casualties, but surely the RAF's firebombing of Dresden and other imperial atrocities (not least in Ireland) deny the British Empire the moral high ground on that score.
Death to the British Empire, man. And may she take her American counterpart with her into hell.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2004-04-19 01:11 | User Profile
Republic, Empire, Iraq, and Democracy
The reason we can't plant democracy in Iraq is that the country isn't suitable for democracy. As Rousseau observed, following Aristotle and most of the classic scholars, democracy is suitable only for fairly small and uniform states. The Cantons of Switzerland come to mind.
Iraq is a "nation" in name only, created by the British as the Ottoman Empire crumbled. It is not small, it is not uniform, and its people have far more local loyalty than they have to any ruling class in Baghdad. Worse, there is so much oil revenue at stake that desperate measures will be taken by those who seek to control it. The game is very much worth the candle. And when the stakes are high, the unscrupulous often trump those with scruples. So it goes.
Our efforts in Iraq are more likely to bring about Algeria in its early days, rather than the picture we have of Iraq as a democracy like Switzerland or the United States.
But Switzerland is not a democracy, nor is the United States of America. They are federal republics. The Swiss have retained what amounts to direct democracy in some Cantons, and extensive democratic control in all of them: but they also retain power in the Cantons, and there is little federal -- read Imperial -- supervision of internal Canton affairs. In the last Swiss Civil War, after our War Between the States, the problem was solved by confessional cleansing: forced emigration of dissidents to separate one Canton into two Half-Cantons. That way each was ruled by consent of the governed, and democracy could prevail within each; but the majority didn't get to oppress the minority because the two confessions had been separated. Switzerland is a Federal Republic of small democracies which differ between Canton and Canton but are fairly uniform within each Canton.
Iraq could have become a Federal Republic with rather weak central power but strong state powers, which is, you may recall, what I advocated a year ago; but the problem is that the United States doesn't understand what a Federal Republic is. We have been too busy converting the USA into an Imperial state, winner take all in one big national election, strip real power from the States. The States retain power only so long as the ruling elites of the US allow it.
Who are the ruling elites? The governing class in Washington. Politicians come and go, but das Buros immer steht ; lobbyists remain; the eternal quest for campaign funds rules; and there is little anyone outside Washington can do about it. Change majority parties? And government growth continues. The Tax Eating Class remains. Das Buros immer steht. You can't clean out the professional governing class, not even to hire your friends and relatives; and thus the politicians can't really be held accountable.*
Iraq can be ruled from the center only by an iron hand. The subjects of Washington DC are tamer, for now, and allow their schools to be destroyed, their rights to be trampled, their dissident sects to be burned alive in Waco, and at most cluck their tongues; we have the trappings of democracy because we can change emperors, and we can change the political classes at the top; and we are, after all, reasonably happy with the system. Washington appears to give as well as take away. The destruction of our schools -- some of us saw this in our lifetimes, and many of us warned that it was happening, would happen -- is complete, so there is little chance that a later generation will even know what it was like to live in a self-governing republic with democratic components.
But we are trying to impose that system on Iraq. Iron rule from the center. Trappings of power to the provinces and cities and local sheiks, but only trappings: no real power to anyone but the central government. Baathist theory with democratic trimmings.
And the Iraqi are resisting. Astonishing. They would rather have their own brand of Fascism than what we seek to impose.
We could have established self government in cities and provinces in Iraq, giving them power over almost everything except defense and foreign policy; but that would not satisfy the exiles we wanted to put in power -- how could it? They have never known what it is like to live in a self governing society either. Nor have most of the military people we sent to Iraq. How could they? Career military people do not live in that kind of society, nor should they.
So now we have this: Fallujah is either allowed to get away with a revolt that left US citizens dead and mutilated; or it must be crushed. Neither is going to produce a self governing city with rule of law.
We will now rule with an iron hand, or we will not rule at all.
It is not too late in Kurdistan to devolve power to local authorities. It may not be too late to do so in other parts of Iraq. But the time is short, and I doubt that those in command have any notion of what I am talking about. How could they? Few in the United States will understand.
To those who command in Washington:
You will not establish democracy in Iraq. You may be able to build a federal republic there, but you must be prepared to allow the locals to do things you hate, restricting the scope of their power but not the power itself. You must give real power to local authorities, and you must do so quickly. The hour is late.
[url]http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view304.html#republic[/url]
:nerd:
2004-04-19 01:30 | User Profile
Walter? You sound like a Zionist Jew,,,,,,,,,,,, you want that town destroyed when the only crime of its people is that they are defending their land.
First we invade their land in the name of "freedom" when it should be in the name of "democracy",,,,,,, the same way that the Zionists Jews have stolen and killed the Palestinian people now you want us to do the same with the Iraqi people,,,,,,,,,, but just like the Palestinians the Iraqi will not just lie down and die like the Jews did in Europe in WWII.
What makes the Zionist Jews "brave" is not their souls but the weapons of mass destruction that they hold over the head of the world.
Is time to eliminate those people even if many of us die. Better to die as a free man than to live like a slave.
"When the truth comes into the light, the lies will hide in the dark",,, Ponce
2004-04-19 05:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Walter? You sound like a Zionist Jew,,,,,,,,,,,, you want that town destroyed when the only crime of its people is that they are defending their land.
First we invade their land in the name of "freedom" when it should be in the name of "democracy",,,,,,, the same way that the Zionists Jews have stolen and killed the Palestinian people now you want us to do the same with the Iraqi people,,,,,,,,,, but just like the Palestinians the Iraqi will not just lie down and die like the Jews did in Europe in WWII.
What makes the Zionist Jews "brave" is not their souls but the weapons of mass destruction that they hold over the head of the world.
Is time to eliminate those people even if many of us die. Better to die as a free man than to live like a slave.
"When the truth comes into the light, the lies will hide in the dark",,, Ponce[/QUOTE]
I think there's a misunderstanding here.
I agree with everything you just wrote, don't know where you got that from.
Regards,
Walter
2004-04-20 02:00 | User Profile
Hello Walter,
The IRA did not act like soldiers for they were not soldiers. Does a soldier run and hide when proper soldiers come calling?
Would you consider someone a soldier simply because he is given a snipers rifle? Or perhaps some half-witted simpleton told to place a bomb among women and children in order to satisfy the hatred of Marxist-Stalinist thugs and terrorists that call themselves Irish Nationalists?
Perhaps you should speak to an Irish Protestant. Perhaps even the Scottish Soldiers that dealt with the violence from these people. Or perhaps the relatives of Irish Catholics murdered by the IRA - and that is a long list.
But decades of misinformation and misplaced sentiment is difficult to address.
However, I agree with you regarding Dresden. A war crime of course. And it was Churchill that demanded its execution. An evil act. As was Hamburg. And the other German towns and villages bombed indiscriminately for no other reason than to kill German civilians. We should understand this.
My regard.
2004-04-20 06:07 | User Profile
[[QUOTE]Mentzer]Hello Walter,
The IRA did not act like soldiers for they were not soldiers. Does a soldier run and hide when proper soldiers come calling?[/QUOTE]
If it serves the cause, the yes of course you use guerilla tactics. Good Heavens, Mentzer, your position would deny the entire tradition of guerilla warfare, from Nathan Bedford Forest to General Giap. IRA founder Michael Collins was a military genius on par with both of those great guerilla fighters, IMHO. Of course you can ambush your enemy, get in your licks, and then run away. These are perfectly acceptable tactics.
[QUOTE]Would you consider someone a soldier simply because he is given a snipers rifle? Or perhaps some half-witted simpleton told to place a bomb among women and children in order to satisfy the hatred of Marxist-Stalinist thugs and terrorists that call themselves Irish Nationalists?[/QUOTE]
The IRA fought a mighty empire and held them at bay for decades. In the end the IRA forced major concessions from this same genocidal empire. I don't begrudge them a few nasty tactics if that's what it took to get to the point they are now.
Also, the IRA really tried to limit collateral damage. There were a couple of splinter groups who did horrible crap like the one a few years ago killing 28 civilians, but that wasn't the IRA (that was the "Real IRA", I think). The IRA phoned in bomb threats, and targeted legitimate political and military targets. Hell, they took out half the London financial district, but there were very few casualties because they chose their time carefully. Which is a helluva lot more than the British can say about some of their military choices, including Dresden and Drogheda.
[QUOTE]Perhaps you should speak to an Irish Protestant. Perhaps even the Scottish Soldiers that dealt with the violence from these people. Or perhaps the relatives of Irish Catholics murdered by the IRA - and that is a long list.[/QUOTE]
I've spoken with many on both sides. You do what you have to do to win.
[QUOTE]But decades of misinformation and misplaced sentiment is difficult to address.[/QUOTE]
The IRA were nationalist freedom fighters, fighting to drive a foreign army from their native soil. Respectfully, your affections would seem misplaced.
I acknowledge the legitimate interests of the Protestant Ulstermen, with whom an accomodation must be made. I've always advocated a final territorial division (gerrymandered as well as possible) but hotheads on both sides won't even consider it.
[QUOTE]However, I agree with you regarding Dresden. A war crime of course. And it was Churchill that demanded its execution. An evil act. As was Hamburg. And the other German towns and villages bombed indiscriminately for no other reason than to kill German civilians. We should understand this.[/QUOTE]
Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that Britian is to be condemned out of hand for Dresden. I understand that my own Catholic Church condemns such things absolutely, but we also live in the real world where things don't always go according to plan.
It was a war, and the calculus there was that by the judicious use of terror the end (which was already inevitable) could be hastened, resulting in net reduced suffering. It's the same idea with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe that was wrong, but there it is.
I'm merely stating that the decision to use these mass terror tactics prevents the Brits from condemning the IRA for availing themselves of the same. In fact, the IRA never came close to the level of mass terror and slaughter of civilians routinized by the British Empire throughout its bloody history. No British government has any moral standing whatever to condemn terrorism.
Remember also that the British Empire opressed the Irish hard and long - over several centuries outlawing their religion, their language, and engineering a famine that killed Old Ireland for all time. That sort of bestial barbarity can only be met with the same. Viewed on the backdrop of British atrocities, the IRA's restraint is indeed admirable.
The IRA weren't saints, but they were men who fought the enemies of their people with everything they had. My heart is with them, just like it was with the Serbs and other nationalists struggling against their own Imperial dragons.
Regards,
Walter
2004-04-20 07:42 | User Profile
Walter,
Let us not mince words.
The IRA have never been 'freedom fighters'. You need to understand the facts. They have never fought an 'empire'. The British Emipre was over. You may kiss the arse of some statue if you want to, but do not instruct me on European and Irish history. The Irish have done nothing and continue do to nothing and it makes me laugh. They have contributed zero to European culture. And do not pretend you can combine Marxism with Catholicism. The commissar with the priest. You cannot. The Irish government detest the IRA and their political yes-men Sinn Fein.
And I am not anti-Irish. My country of origin is Germany. But accept the fact that their cause is defective and terroristic. Like any other introverted and religious based, self-important little country.
But never mind. Read your precise European history rather than heresay and parochial rumour.
"This is merely my view and not representative of German people in the general or particular."
2004-04-20 10:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Mentzer]Walter,
Let us not mince words.[/QUOTE]
Heaven forfend.
[QUOTE]The IRA have never been 'freedom fighters'. You need to understand the facts. They have never fought an 'empire'. The British Emipre was over. [/QUOTE]
The IRA was founded by Michael Collins and his group. They in turn grew indirectly from the Fenians. Both Collins and the Fenians fought the British Empire at the height of its powers. I agree that the Empire certainly had shrunk by the late 1960's, but it's like peeling the proverbial onion. After all, if Britain wasn't an Empire, why on Earth did they have troops in Ireland?
[QUOTE]You may kiss the arse of some statue if you want to, but do not instruct me on European and Irish history. [/QUOTE]
I wouldn't dream of it.
Please reconcile this:
[QUOTE]The Irish have done nothing and continue do to nothing and it makes me laugh. They have contributed zero to European culture. [/QUOTE]
with this:
[QUOTE]And I am not anti-Irish. [/QUOTE]
And, moving along:
[QUOTE]My country of origin is Germany.[/QUOTE]
And spoken like a good German, yes indeed.
[QUOTE]But accept the fact that their cause is defective and terroristic. Like any other introverted and religious based, self-important little country.[/QUOTE]
Is it your position that the Irish nationalism is a completely illegitimate thing? Does that include the struggle of 1799, the Fenians and the IRA of Collins and De Valera, or do you you limit only to the latest round of the Troubles beginning in the late 1960's? Did Collins fight an Empire?
[QUOTE]But never mind. Read your precise European history rather than heresay and parochial rumour.[/QUOTE]
Your comments have been most instructive.
[QUOTE]"This is merely my view and not representative of German people in the general or particular."[/QUOTE]
I had actually surmised as much, but thanks for pointing that out.
You may find [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081221711X/qid=1082471037/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/103-5586996-3407806?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]this [/URL] interesting (I haven't read it, but the reviews are generally positive).
Regards,
Walter
2004-04-20 12:07 | User Profile
So Walter,
What have you commented on?
You prattle on about the poor terrorists that murder and maim, but conveniently forget about the Irish Protestant people that will not allow those terrorists to dominate them.
You must get your views in order and stop making a fool of yourself. Do you understand, or are you weak in mind? Do you assimilate propaganda films and worthless paperbacks written by arseholes, and consider it all truthful?
Forgive my language. But I inform you of this fact - terrorists get what they deserve. And they are not as tough as the men that deal with them.
I am sorry to disappoint you. But try to avoid further mistakes.
Regards.
2004-04-20 12:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE][Mentzer]You prattle on about the poor terrorists that murder and maim, but conveniently forget about the Irish Protestant people that will not allow those terrorists to dominate them.[/QUOTE]
Are they any nationalist movements past or present that you support?
If so, please name them.
Regards,
Walter
2004-04-20 14:42 | User Profile
Ireland:
Partition. Give the Irish one part of the island and the British another. Irishmen who dream of conquering Ulster should remember that there are more Irish in Great Britain than in the whole of Ireland.
If the Little Island decides to engage in a little ethnic cleansing, why shouldn't the Big Island do likewise?
Dresden:
Geoge Orwell put it best: "If someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother"
War sucks...
2004-04-20 14:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=mmartins]Ireland:
Partition. Give the Irish one part of the island and the British another. Irishmen who dream of conquering Ulster should remember that there are more Irish in Great Britain than in the whole of Ireland.
If the Little Island decides to engage in a little ethnic cleansing, why shouldn't the Big Island do likewise?
Dresden:
Geoge Orwell put it best: "If someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother"
War sucks...[/QUOTE]
We would appear to be in basic agreement.
In Ireland, the two populations already live separately. It would be a question of gerrymandering the map as well as practicable.
As to Dresden, as I said you do what you gotta do.
Walter
2004-04-20 14:53 | User Profile
I hear the Americans are asking Fallujah insurgents (freedom fighters) to hand in their weapons in exchange for ceasefire!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Yea, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro disarmed the populaces in their paradises too in exchange for Utopia. Is this American occupier completely delusional?? Their bull-doodoo might work in America but in Iraq?!?!?!?! INSANE.
[QUOTE]A U.S. military-run radio station urged residents to hand over heavy weapons ââ¬â including machine guns, grenade launchers and missiles ââ¬â to Iraqi security forces or at the mayor's office. But it was not yet known whether guerrillas would abide by the call to surrender their arsenals. U.S. commanders have warned Marines might launch an all-out assault to take the city if the insurgents don't disarm. [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=4&u=/ap/20040420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq[/url] [/QUOTE]
2004-04-20 16:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I hear the Americans are asking Fallujah insurgents (freedom fighters) to hand in their weapons in exchange for ceasefire!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Yea, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro disarmed the populaces in their paradises too in exchange for Utopia. Is this American occupier completely delusional?? Their bull-doodoo might work in America but in Iraq?!?!?!?! INSANE.[/QUOTE]
It's also interesting how many weapons Saddam left these people with, isn't it?
He was at best a half-assed tyrant.
Walter
2004-04-20 17:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Mentzer]Walter,
Let us not mince words.
The IRA have never been 'freedom fighters'. You need to understand the facts. They have never fought an 'empire'. The British Emipre was over. You may kiss the arse of some statue if you want to, but do not instruct me on European and Irish history. [COLOR=Red][I]The Irish have done nothing and continue do to nothing and it makes me laugh. They have contributed zero to European culture.[/I][/COLOR] And do not pretend you can combine Marxism with Catholicism. The commissar with the priest. You cannot. The Irish government detest the IRA and their political yes-men Sinn Fein.
And I am not anti-Irish. My country of origin is Germany. But accept the fact that their cause is defective and terroristic. Like any other introverted and religious based, self-important little country.
But never mind. Read your precise European history rather than heresay and parochial rumour.
"This is merely my view and not representative of German people in the general or particular."[/QUOTE]William Butler Yeats? James Joyce? William Blake (ne: O'Neill)? Swift? O'Casey? Synge?
Enough!!
2004-04-20 17:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]And let's not forget Duns Scotus (scotus being Latin for Irish), who, together with other Irish monastic scholars, was largely responsible for keeping the works of the ancient Greeks alive in Europe during the "Dark Ages" when other European nations destroyed the manuscripts.
There's a saying that all of the best "British" playwrights, poets, and actors were Irish or Welsh and the best philosophers and scholars were Scottish. That isn't a far stretch when one notes that the center of the "British" enlightenment was Edinburgh, not London. Without the Celts, Britain would be little more than (to paraphrase Napoleon) "a nation of shopkeepers."[/QUOTE]
Let us not forget [URL=http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/FitzGerald.html]Prof. George Fitzgerald[/URL], who along with Lorentz was one of the architects of the Theory of Realtivity.
Perhaps one of the more scientifically enlighted among us could explain briefly his place in the history of science, which I understand is quite significant.
And of course it should not be forgotten that the Irish literally did "[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385418493/qid=1082483847/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-3903529-9244833?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]save civilization[/URL]" when the lights went out in the West in the 5th century AD.
Walter
2004-04-20 21:10 | User Profile
Stringing the mutilated corpses from the bridge was the "Wag The Dog" image fueling cry for US action, leading the posturing, damned-if-we-do damned-if-we-don't situation.
Although not widely publicized the cause of the atrocity, which is non-Muslim, was reported in the NY Times' Jeffrey Gettleman that the group who took rewsponsibility said it was avenging Sheik Yassin. (4.11.04 -wk)
This act, and the subsequent shooting of Hamas leader Rantisi, are called "Targeted assassinations" in the EU press, and unanimouslt condemned by leaders, including Blair. It violates a fundamental principle of civilization: a group cannot get together as a whole, under a leader who is given power to kill in the name of all, and secretely target individuals for death.
Israel's riight of self-defense. This claim is an Israeli/Jewish particularity. No other international legal entity makes it. To defend against what? .. suicide bombers. Another Jewish particularity. US recognition of Israel's justification is a double recognition of Zionist Jew particularity.
This recognition, in turn, neutralizes, renders moot, the direct causal connection the killing have to events in Iraq (al Sadr also referring to Yassin's killing as cause for his ordering his militia to act). Then, this 'chrischun' feller, Farah, follows up with "Pound Fallujah":' "sometimes the most merciful course of action seems like the harshest. Fallujah needs to feed some pain." "Pounding", of course, is blatant sexual quasi-assault. The Jews have got ole Joe there pounding hell out of de jeeze, bettern' even old Mel Gibboon, because he calls for real, honest to G-d blood, not that ketchup crap they use to make movies.
2004-04-20 22:19 | User Profile
The outcome of their meeting turned out to be quite scandalous. Sajina claims that the person she encountered was not her husband, but his double.
If someone were to say for sure that it was not insinuation, it would have been easy to believe the wife with a 25-year experience. It is also possible to assume that Saddam has simply changed since the day of his sons' deaths, June 24 2003. This however is highly unlikely.
In case we believe Hussein-s wife, all DNA testing of the ex-Iraqi leader should be considered a mere fake. Overall, today there remain more questions then there are answers.
The above was from public news,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Meanwhile, "iraq" is getting ready to take Saddam to trial.
If I was an Iraqi I would problably reelect him back to power.
According to Bush if the successor to Saddam don't give Oil to the Zionist State of Israel then the sanctions that Iraq still have will not be lifted.
So, like I keep saying,,,,,,, this fricking war is for the benefit of the fricking Jews and no one else.
AMERICA YOUR KIDS ARE BEING KILLED AND WILL CONTINUED TO BE KILLED FOR THE ZIONIST STATE OF ISRAEL
JOIN THE US ARMY AND DIE FOR ISRAEL.
2004-04-21 01:32 | User Profile
I agree with XMetalhead - send Farah to Iraq and let him get in a crossfire, that piece of junk. What nobody mentions is the fact that those who hung and mutilated the bodies of the contractors were not men. They were Iraqi boys who did so without ANY adult assistance. Perhaps the ramifications thereof are significant, don't you think ? After all, I wonder how many of those boys lost fathers, mothers and other relatives to either the gulag or the daisy cutter. What would you do if a foreign invader killed your mother who you loved so preciously ? Perhaps basic humanity is too much to ask of this neocon group, and therefore the moral trappings of basic humanity should no longer be given to them.
2004-04-21 03:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE]William Butler Yeats? James Joyce? William Blake (ne: O'Neill)? Swift? O'Casey? Synge?
Enough!![/QUOTE]
Enough? No!!
[QUOTE]let's not forget Duns Scotus (scotus being Latin for Irish), who, together with other Irish monastic scholars, was largely responsible for keeping the works of the ancient Greeks alive in Europe during the "Dark Ages" when other European nations destroyed the manuscripts.[/QUOTE]
Enough? Hell, no!!
[QUOTE]Let us not forget Prof. George Fitzgerald, who along with Lorentz was one of the architects of the Theory of Realtivity.[/QUOTE]
Still not enough.
Up the rebels, lads. Death to tyrants!!!
2004-04-21 03:45 | User Profile
Yeats was Anglo-Irish--thus largely of English descent. Joyce also had much English blood. So we might also say that the greatest Irish writers are in fact English. :)
The Irish did do much for the West, that is un-deniable. Today, they have a lovely mix of Celtic and Germanic blood.
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]William Butler Yeats? James Joyce? William Blake (ne: O'Neill)? Swift? O'Casey? Synge?
Enough!![/QUOTE]
2004-04-21 03:53 | User Profile
I don't have any problems with claims to defend particularity. And were I an Israeli, I would only think it sane to build fences and kill Muslim terrorists. The point is of course what is mentioned: that the US supports Israel in all this. I wish the Israelis well in their fight against the Muslim hordes, but no American can support US governmental involvement in that hornet's nest. We have a duty to look after our own, but no duty to help the Israeli's (they are not in a NATO-style organization with us, they are no particularly ethnically tied to us).
The goyim neocons are always taken in by the Israel lobby, which twists the feeling (again, I think a correct one) that the Israelis are in the right in their conflict with the Palestinians--twists this into 'reasons' for the US to stand by its 'ally.'
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Stringing the mutilated corpses from the bridge was the "Wag The Dog" image fueling cry for US action, leading the posturing, damned-if-we-do damned-if-we-don't situation.
Although not widely publicized the cause of the atrocity, which is non-Muslim, was reported in the NY Times' Jeffrey Gettleman that the group who took rewsponsibility said it was avenging Sheik Yassin. (4.11.04 -wk)
This act, and the subsequent shooting of Hamas leader Rantisi, are called "Targeted assassinations" in the EU press, and unanimouslt condemned by leaders, including Blair. It violates a fundamental principle of civilization: a group cannot get together as a whole, under a leader who is given power to kill in the name of all, and secretely target individuals for death.
Israel's riight of self-defense. This claim is an Israeli/Jewish particularity. No other international legal entity makes it. To defend against what? .. suicide bombers. Another Jewish particularity. US recognition of Israel's justification is a double recognition of Zionist Jew particularity.
This recognition, in turn, neutralizes, renders moot, the direct causal connection the killing have to events in Iraq (al Sadr also referring to Yassin's killing as cause for his ordering his militia to act). Then, this 'chrischun' feller, Farah, follows up with "Pound Fallujah":' "sometimes the most merciful course of action seems like the harshest. Fallujah needs to feed some pain." "Pounding", of course, is blatant sexual quasi-assault. The Jews have got ole Joe there pounding hell out of de jeeze, bettern' even old Mel Gibboon, because he calls for real, honest to G-d blood, not that ketchup crap they use to make movies.[/QUOTE]
2004-04-21 04:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Yeats was Anglo-Irish--thus largely of English descent. Joyce also had much English blood[/QUOTE].
Yeats [I]was[/I] Anglo-Irish. He was, however, totally Irish in spirit.
But Joyce "had much English blood?" From whence? He was born an Irish Catholic. And the thrust of most of his works was his very Irishness and the deep resentment it caused him to feel toward the usurping English and their monstrous Empire.
Maybe you were thinking of Anglo-Irish Beckett, who was Joyce's secretary before he began writing novels. Great novels.
2004-04-21 04:58 | User Profile
"I don't have any problems with claims to defend particularity. And were I an Israeli, I would only think it sane to build fences and kill Muslim terrorists. The point is of course what is mentioned: that the US supports Israel in all this."
Agree only half-way: US - Israel relations (the grammar of) are, of course, fundamental in talking national/international policy: causes of war on Iraq, billon$ for nothing but problems in the region, etc.[B]But because of the implicit divide-and-conquer logic (in the grammar), these relations cannot be confronted in their own terms, but require a new cut-hyphen Judeo" and "Christian" understanding, if the "C" term is to be retained in "Judeo- -C...ian", at all.[/B] . Shooting the Hamas leaders pre-emptively implicates whoever allows themselves to be identified with the "G-D" ("YHWH") they appeal to, officially, to justify it. But the same way of being that generates death wishes toward themselves in others, repressed by decent people :punk: , but "returned" (as in Freud's law about what goes around, etc.) in suicide bomber kids is the super-ego carried by that representation (sign-use, [B]S[/B] as I prefer to call Kant's general category of communicated content -- sorry if this sounds elusive; its the shortest way i know to get to the big, but really BIG, points). As an [B]S[/B] , it is inferior -- conceptually (replaced by the Trinity, incarnated personhood), developmentally (Archetypally: From the sacrificial Father to the sacrificed Son), spiritually (replacement of the disciline of [B]law[/B] by that of [B]grace[/B], and Zodiacally, the passing of Age of Aries, the Ram, into Pisces, the Fishes. It is a maatter of Jewishness having become evidently the contradiction, reversal, of the way and level of being attained through the Christ, infused as the spirit of the Aeon, arriving on these shores via the KJV. Settlers of new lands always claim it in the name of their father's religion, and I, for one (but hardly alone) claim this one for mine. (Ours, if that is *yours, as well.)
That means the tie between the Old and New Testament already shattered by Christ, Hinself, while on earth, which is how the old one got itself pasted into history, anyway, instead of disappearing, like wombats, must not only be forcibly cut; those who have manipulated it, knowingly, to take advantage of those good-hearted dungaloosarioanies who take dispensationalism in all political seriousness, and pre-emptively implicatred us all with their criminal assassinations, must face a reckoning. At the minimum, this will involved registries, interrments, deportations, trial and execution for war crimes, treason and high crimes against humanity, holding the dungaloosarioanies back with cannons firing grape shot.
.
(Pictures in the head of kids wearing suicide bomb jackets and blowing themselves up along with a bunch of innocent Jews, because they are Jews, is a wish, repressed and not-so-repressed, these days, anymore, in the Great (widely chared) Unconscious. (Mixing masters) Children will pick up on and act out such never-spoken wishes, whether aided by Saddam Hussein or not.
" I wish the Israelis well in their fight against the Muslim hordes."
I do not. Their only salvation, now, is to throw themselves on the mercy of the U.N., no US control.
"... no American can support US governmental involvement in that hornet's nest."
A Kerry said, "But we're in there, now." There must be US governmental involvement. Kidding, right? That means the next President imposes the solution worked out with the American people before the next election, because, by God, that is what it will take for it to be anything but democracy in name only. I am making the point that unless the question of US relations to Israel is brought out, soon, by somebody, somewhere, and got onto the ballot, which neither party intends to have happen, there won't be a next American election. They may rig up something to call that, but it is snsot what it will be.
"We have a duty to look after our own, but no duty to help the Israeli's (they are not in a NATO-style organization with us, they are no particularly ethnically tied to us)."
They deserve retribution for pushing their claim to such link over on to the goodhearted, the ignorant, and recovering alcoholic idiots, opening spigots of blood over the Holy Land. Nothing Dante could ever imagine would be enough for me. (Probably feel different after the first million or so.)
2004-04-21 07:42 | User Profile
This thread is getting weird, but check out [URL=http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/13789-print.shtml]this thing [/URL] on the Saxon-Tuetonic split:
English-Scots split goes back 10,000 years
KEITH SINCLAIR April 12 2004
THE ancient split between the Scots and the English is older than previously thought, according to a new academic theory. The difference between the English and Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish has traditionally been attributed to the influence of invading forces such as the Anglo-Saxons, Celts and Vikings as they settled in different parts of Britain hundreds of years ago. However, an Oxford don who was a guest speaker at the Edinburgh Science Festival last night believes the difference originates much further back, to thousands of years, and the proof is in the genes. Professor Stephen Oppenheimer is professor of clinical sociomedical sciences at Oxford, and has written a book tracing humankind from its origins and developing a theory of the original inhabitants of Britain. He said that the Celts of western Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Cornwall were descended from an ancient people living on the Atlantic coast when Britain was still attached to mainland Europe, while the English were more closely related to the Germanic peoples of the interior. As evidence, he cited genetic data showing the Celts were more closely related to the Basque people of south-west France and the Celts of Brittany and Spain, while the English were closer to the Germans descended from the Anglo-Saxons. In the past, the split was attributed to "migration, invasion and replacement", but Professor Oppenheimer said the difference was established long before Britain was even an island. He said: "The first line between England and the Celts was put down at a much earlier period, say 10,000 years ago." The professor said Britons were descended from the original settlers, rather than later invasions, and as such were already split by the western divide. "The English are the odd-ones-out because they are the ones more linked to continental Europe. The Scots, the Irish, the Welsh and the Cornish are all very similar in their genetic pattern to the Basque." However, he admitted later invasions would have influenced the developing cultures in different areas of Britain. The revelations are part of Professor Oppenheimer's theory, expanded in his book The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa, that humans migrated from Africa and populated the planet. It emerged last year that the first analysis of DNA passed from father to son across the UK had shattered the Anglocentric view of early British history. For decades, historians had believed that successive waves of invaders, such as the Anglo-Saxons, drove out the indigenous population of the British Isles, the Celts, pushing them to the fringes of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. However, research work on the Y chromosome, which is passed from father to son, showed the native tribes left their genetic stamp throughout the UK and not only in the so-called "Celtic fringe". The evidence suggested Anglo-Saxons tend to dominate British history merely because they kept better written records than their indigenous counterparts, who were never entirely replaced by the invaders. The study was based on comparing Y chromosomes from Britain with the invaders' Y chromosomes, represented by descendants of Danes, Vikings (in Norway) and Anglo-Saxons (in Schleswig-Holstein, northern Germany).
2004-04-21 08:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I don't have any problems with claims to defend particularity. And were I an Israeli, I would only think it sane to build fences and kill Muslim terrorists. The point is of course what is mentioned: that the US supports Israel in all this. I wish the Israelis well in their fight against the Muslim hordes, but no American can support US governmental involvement in that hornet's nest. We have a duty to look after our own, but no duty to help the Israeli's (they are not in a NATO-style organization with us, they are no particularly ethnically tied to us).[/QUOTE]
Well put.
We shouldn't have a dog in that fight, and the only reason we do is that we've been infiltrated by American Jews whose first (only?) loyalty is to Israel, and not to America.
They're traitors who should be dealt with as any sane nation deals with traitors.
Up against the wall with the neocons. I pray I'll live to see the day.
Walter
2004-04-21 15:00 | User Profile
Trying to make it clearer:
Israel's policy of state targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders Yassin and Rantisi, justified as self-defense against suicide bombers, didn't just up the ante. It renamed the game. ("Kicking Over The Chessboard", Friedman's NYTimes' 4.16.04 has it). It may only have brought into the open previous government's practices, as Tenet and Cohen were almost gleeful in getting off US chests in the 9/11 hearings, after Sharon's bold, heroic strike for Judeo-Christian values, but there is a reason it cannot be made official policy.
It is impossible to deal rationally with anyone holding that particularity. "My dolly doesn't like your dolly. So solly." You couldn't trust yourself to be in the same room with them.
And then, for their "way of being," which leads to death wishes toward themselves coming into existence in others beset by it, to be linked with "Christ", and subsumed under "has the right to defend themselves" uses Christ to defend what would cheerfully kill Him (as if it were possible to shoot ideas with sniper missiles).
So, although we go a long way in agreement about things of great substance which mean the most, I do want to defend the weirdness it takes to keep up with this spiralling plummet-ride. It is not just treason, not just a group of individuals and their ennablers. It's metaphysical, this time. Not to confront that, as such, is to coddle non-being. . .