Tuesday, September 26, 2006

War criminals

3 comments:

Bob said...

These men are all that stand between you and a suicide bomber. They don't need your appreciation to continue to protect ignorant bastards like you.

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

"These men are all that stand between you and a suicide bomber."

I think you mean that these 'men' give suicide bombers a reason to get up in the morning. Do you really think that they stand between us and any danger? Promptly after pissing his pants, george runs and hides in a bunker somewhere at the first sign of trouble. Rummsfield grabs the first pregnant woman, or small child as 'human shield'...
As for the suggestion that they are 'protecting us', it's kind of like refering to petrol as a flame retardant. It's them and their ilk that provide the motivation for suicide bombers
BOB: try answering this question out-loud in a crowded room: 'Why do suicide bombers blow themselves up?' If you answered true to the form displayed by the notion that Bush and Rummsfield protect us from bombers, THEN YOU JUST GAVE EVERYONE WITHIN EARSHOT, THE BEST LAUGH THEY ARE GOING TO GET TODAY, and should feel pretty stupid. Now let me guess, what did you go for: 'they're jealous of our nice things', 'they hate our freedom', 'I don't know why they hate us' *whine*

Do you think suicide bombers blow themslves (and others) for the fun of it. Try thinking of the monk who protested the Vietnam war by setting himself on fire, and add 'if only I could take a few of the pricks with me!' you'd be getting close. While I believe that there is no excuse for violence FOR ANY REASON, I can empathise with the desparation of a suicide bomber. Violence might produce results in conventional warefare, but in asymmetric warfare (the real name for what has become known as terrorism), violence only kills civilians, and motivates more suicide bomber (ie. the more america 'protects us' against Iraq, the more suicide bombers feel that killing is the only solution!)

September 11 is a fly-shit sized speck compared to the attrocities the western powers have continually inflicted on the middle-east in last 90 years alone (we'll keep 'the crusades' out of it). Starting with the first world war betrayal by England and France. They promised autonomy to the various tribal warlords if they would overthrow the Turks for them. The Europeans had no intention of honouring that agreement. They just carved up the map between them. It is where we get the nations of Iran and Iraq from. It wasn't on ethnic boundaries (just ask the Kurds), it's just where England and France thought lines would look good on a map.

Ever since someone has supplied arms to which ever side they want to win at any given time(most recently, THE AMERICANS SUPPLIED IRAQ WITH $80b OF WEAPONS IN THE 1980's, TO USED AGAINST THE AYATOLLAHS OF IRAN

So BOB, how would you feel if your country's history was a re-occuring cycle of armed conflict, caused by foriegners, armed by foriegners, for the amusement and gain of foriegners (ARMED CONFLICT FOR CONTROL OF OIL IS NOT NEW), that your country was little more than a pawn in an international chess game, with chemical weapons?

IN SUMMARY: FUCK THOSE WHINY AMERICANS, IF YOU INVADE SOMEONE ELSE, YOU GOT TO EXPECT THEM TO HIT BACK. SO 'TAKE YOUR LUMPS' AND STOP BITCHING, OR GET THOSE ARMED 'DOOR-TO-DOOR SALESMEN' YOU CALL SOLDIERS BACK HOME NOW!

Any one who may think that my position on this issue is 'extreme' please reserve judgement for a few weeks until I can finish compiling a 'history of the last 50 years in the middle-east' that includes the details that the west would rather weren't we didn't talk about. While I know that some people could watch Queen Elizabeth bite the heads off new-born arab babies, and still refuse to accept the possiblity that western powers are at least partially responsible for the present strife in the middle east. For everyone else, there are two sides to this story, and I can't help thinking we are on the wrong side.

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

I promised an alternative history of the middle-east sometime ago. Apart from other commitments, it's a MASSIVE job, and I haven't anywhere near finished it. Until it's finished, if you are interest in the topic, a good place to start is with some 'chronologies' of events (most significant events are common knowledge, or commonly accessible. It's when the context an event is obscured , or the significance of an event is played-down that history gets twisted). Seeing the linear 'cause and affect' of a timeline of events, is a good way to approach a topic, and then research the individual events.

Maybe start with these two 'chornologies':

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~gw/contempchrono.htm
Written and researched by Grant Wakefield,
detailing the period 1921 to 1991 and the start of the Gulf war.



http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~gw/brownchrono.htm
Written by Charles Brown, a Middle East Studies major at Western Washington
University in Bellingham, WA, USA. It is very revealing of the activities of both the
Iraqi regime and the American administration.